Rob

It's the path of least resistance. A bit like doing the lottery where all you need is the ability to point and hand over the money. People are given change, so may as well let the shopkeeper bring the goods to you.

Have a word with 1887 jubilee

May as well. Nothing to lose.

Yes, same principle.

What? Tobacco?

That's commendably horrible

see below

I don't know is the answer. I haven't read anything about the flan preparation used at Soho. You also get Barton's metal in the 1820s which is a sheet of gold applied to both sides of the copper plate before the blanks are cut out. In this case you have exposed copper on the edge, which is clearly not the case with the Soho blanks (or at least it would be extremely difficult to apply a lasting finish), which have good quality gilding over all surfaces.

I think they are both ok, but the ebay one is a bit worn, scratched and has seen better days. Ingram's pictures are crap to look at - a tiny full image and a small window when blown up isn't the best. They both show a slight greening on the outside of the obverse legend which I assume is metal flow leading to thinning of the gold layer, thus exposing the underlying copper.

The flans were gilt before striking. Post-mint gilding never has the same surfaces as a proof, and the gilding tends to come off.

All metals are common only in that they are metals. Apart from that they have different melting points which means that a particular element may or may not be molten in what appears to be all liquid. Of Copper, Gold and Silver, the latter has the lowest melting point of the three at 960C, with the other two over a hundred degrees higher. Bronze melts around the same temperature as silver or a bit lower, depending on the ratio of the constituent metals. Tin by contrast melts at only 231 degrees. They don't just dissolve, as they are not the same as organic compounds, the metal being a crystal lattice and hence much more tightly bound to adjacent atom. Think covalent and ionic bonding.

My coin was illustrated by P W P Carlyon-Britton in the BNJ vol.2 where he noted it was in the collection of Mary Willett, but the coin wasn't in her sale in 1920. It was also noted with Spink in 1952. It has obviously been around for a while, but without more info it would be impossible to say where it was found originally.

No, it's a mule of a Henry VII type III halfpenny obverse (single arched crown) with a type II penny reverse. I conveyed the information last night.

I think that's a lighting effect. Illumination is from the left in both cases.

You can't blame them for doing it. The market will buy what's on offer, so they are just taking advantage of a short term niche in the market. If they got them over the counter after work had finished, the outcome would be the same, and no different to those who would buy if they could get to the counter before the postie. It's no different to buying an older coin and selling on for a profit. If you hadn't bought it there and then, in most cases someone else would have done and made the profit instead of you. Either party gets a feeling of what if when they realise.

The decimal market is like any other - it blows hot and cold. 6 months ago I couldn't find enough proof sets to satisfy demand. Sold all I had, then bought a date run of them. Since then I've sold four. If you can work out in advance what demand is going to be like, I'll have a pint of what you're drinking.

11463 attached. No idea what reserved means. I would assume that is something he had in mind prior to going to print. Given the lack of proof reading, or at least thorough proof reading, I would ignore it.

Sorry, can't help. It would be possible to identify them in hand if mint state because the colours would be slightly different, but only if you were thinking along those lines at the time. If not mint state, then I suspect it would be easy for them to pass unnoticed. Maybe I had better check my 47 proofs. Hope springs eternal.

Older ones are available in that condition too, you just have to be patient and keep looking, and not take the first thing that comes along. Oh,.................. as you already appear to be doing.

Go to Wildwinds. Loads of images there if you have the time.

The contents of the museum were documented in 1906 as far as the coins and tokens are concerned by Hocking (vol.1), with the dies, medals and seals list following in 1910 (vol.2). Obviously they have added to that since then, including actively pursuing some of the patterns, one of which I was underbidder to them in 2004

Constantly. Wrong images, wrong coins (in the bad way), shill bidding.......... He has a CV going back many years that any member of the underworld would be proud of.

I make them 4, 3 & 7 respectively

I would second that. If you keep a few bad purchases, then they are in your face and a constant reminder to be careful when buying. Consider it a reference collection, just as you would assemble a rogues gallery of any copies you come across.

I've been on the other side of the fence. When I started working for myself over 30 years ago, the handful of manufacturers each had their own little competitor in a former employee who had set up. If things got a bit technically complicated we would regularly suggest to our customer that such and such a person was the right tool for the job, depending on the instrument concerned. You didn't need to rule the world, just make sure the customer was happy, as it guaranteed he would return to you in the future. Slabbing however is a different matter. It is much simpler, despite the TPG claims, and any collector could assign a grade based on an accurate appraisal if they took a bit of time to get up to speed. It isn't rocket science, which is why they are never going to look a gift horse in the mouth and will always do the job. To claim slabbing something was pointless would bring into question their whole raison d'etre. Hang on a minute..................