Rob

Why do you say that?

Usually when they are significantly thinner you find a weak strike with somewhat mushy detail as the presses will be set for a normal thickness flan. Two joined halves?

That's a reasonable argument. A prooflike piece would pass unnoticed by any non-numismatically minded person (and for that matter a number that are so inclined), so there would be no need to make proof dies. i.e just take a handful of early strikes and put them to one side. The RM was working flat out for much of this time producing dies for the empire, so a proof of the current issue was hardly likely to be a priority.

Yes, but charity shops are full of staff who would read the Daily Mail. You can't take pricing mismatches in isolation and then be surprised. There's always a reason. You just need to look hard enough.

Of course we like tickets, because they contain useful info. The new one is obviously Ray's, but the other is difficult to place. This coin was bought at the Lockett sale by Spink who listed it in the Circular for Dec 1955 item RCL72, VF, £5/15/-, so the 60/- price on the ticket would imply that it was close to that date if it post-dates Lockett, or alternatively it could be the price Lockett paid. I don't know when he acquired it. I initially thought that the C/67 fraction meant it was a Seaby ticket, implying it was bought at Christies in 1967. If so it would have to be one of the two sales for that year where I am missing the catalogue - 9th May and 10th Oct. Whatever, it is not a Lockett ticket. A cursory glance for items 7832 and 4570 drew a blank. Not much help really. A key to dating this will be the Brooke reference Br.13, as it constrains the period.

Add that ticket to the tickets thread - Ray Inder

The Japanese like their gold, as do a few other nations such as Switzerland, Germany, India etc. They should be treated just like any other issue - each to their own. This is presumably a manifestation of the link up between Sovereign Rarities and the Royal Mint as promoted in recent literature.

If you want them to all be different, you could do a 1753 maundy penny instead of the halfpenny, but the 1748 would have to be gold, any denomination (which I suspect you might be unwilling to fund)

I wouldn't be surprised either if there were a handful - say comparable to the numbers of the smaller denominations, but the large number so attributed leads me to play devil's advocate. Having said that, I stand by my comments about Mrs N only having a 1934. As the go to cash cow for the large London dealers over a period of 25 years, I am surprised that she only had the 1934, as you would have expected the large houses to come up with more in such a lengthy period if they existed in appreciable numbers. After all, she did manage nearly a complete set of all the smaller coins.

This is what you are looking for: https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=292646 https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=269573 https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=297298 . Alternatively a 1725 maundy penny is cheaper and there is one on ebay at the moment. https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=1725+penny&_sacat=0 I will buy it if you don't. 1745 can be either a LIMA silver coin - the cheapest G2 silver. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=297314 or a halfpenny https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=1745+halfpenny&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqiOHgzMrdAhWoDcAKHRFnANAQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=938#imgrc=AnsudYmpE-K3RM: I have a cheap and cheerful 1745 in the trays which isn't listed on my site yet. 1748 and 1753 would be a halfpenny again - same design.

Ebay's worst offerings which is in the forum below this.

If people don't buy them they will stop making them - it's a simple question of profit. However, the public's obsession with farcebook, the Daily Mail combined with greed will ensure this one runs for a bit. Eventually though, I expect it will go the same way as stamps. Every one of us has the option to be more rational in our purchases. We just choose not to. Is it any different to those who just have to have the latest fashion item or gadget? I think not.

The Royal Mint makes its accounts up to 31st March, so it isn't 6 months yet since the last year end. However, the 2015-16 report was issued on the 27th June 2016, so the figures should have been available by this date, and by extension you would expect the end of June for later years. I presume they don't use 5th April as their year end because Companies House couldn't cope with that. What they publish is general information for which they accrue no benefit, so I guess it is as I said before; giving interested collectors a heads up on the pieces to tuck away with a potential for financial gain is never going to be a priority.

But that's not their primary concern. Businesses are somewhat more complex than an individual's financial affairs. That's why you have 9 months to file your accounts. To release the mintage figures is something they aren't likely to do until the accounts have been reconciled. If they put the figures up and change them at a later date, then people would moan about that too.

If people read their copy of Coins of England, the annual figures for all the sets are given in parentheses at the end of the entry. So the 2018 edition gives figures up to 2016, as the book came out before the close of 2017.

I assume because that section was called 'Milled Coins of Elizabeth I from the Collection formed by Walter Wilkinson'. i.e. all were milled, so use of the word was superfluous. In other sections they were referred to as milled coinage to differentiate from the hammered issues.

The thing that makes me suspicious about the proof crowns is that Norweb only had one year (1934) where the crown was described as a proof. A couple more years had a proof-like description, but were not categorised as a proof. I find it difficult to believe that she wasn't able to find any proof crowns for the other years given the collection had virtually all the proofs for G5 halfcrowns and below. More so as she was a hoover, and usually given first choice by the London dealers. The question therefore still remains in my mind as to how many, if any, were made apart from 1927.

No I don't, but could ask as it's one of our club members.

Excluding the first year sets, proofs in the early years of the 20th century were extremely rare and could probably be counted on one hand. The 1927 proof sets were clearly minted for the general public, but for any other years the jury is out unless the mint can shed light on how many, or even if any, were struck. Having said that, the existence of proofs in smaller denominations would suggest that proof crowns also exist. At that point it comes down to numbers. Do we have any numbers for claimed proofs for any particular year? It is well known that some proofs are commoner by date than others.

He has bought maybe close to 50% of all DNW lots over the past 25 years. Some collection, but still lacking in the top pieces as these nearly always go to people in the room or phone bidders.

Glens used to be Graham, Spink was Goddard and Sotheby used a range of names where there was no bidder - cf the Freeman sale.

I know where the original Ed.1 class 9 1d is too. The guy bought it in 2004-5, so all these copies were probably made in the period 200-2004 as none appeared prior to 2004.

This bloke is a pain in the a**e. Not the only dodgy thing he has listed, but with a vested interest in this item, can someone get this thing taken down? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/King-Charles-1st-Silver-Hammered-Shilling-Coin-c-1625-49-AD/263938819682?hash=item3d73fac662:g:Tz8AAOSwhbJbKNls Known to be plenty of copies circulating and I have the original. For those who aren't familiar with this one, I wrote an article in the May 2011 issue of the Circular. Genuine and copy pictured below. The distinctively double struck features make this readily identifiable. The copies are obviously cast with pitting and have a defining nick on the edge by the A of MAG where the two sides making the complete coin have been joined. The flan on the real thing is wavy at this point, so the options available were to make it thicker and fully join the two sides, or make it normal thickness with the flan laminating at the joint where the metal is too thin or missing. Flans profiles have been modified on occasion in an attempt to hide the evidence. Other irregularities also occur. The copies don't ring correctly. Weights for the copies were in the range 4.30 - 5.37g. My coin was purchased in November 2004, so the copies predate this. An easy one to keep an eye open for.

Does anyone have any theories concerning the occasional appearance of pellets, annulets, crosses and other marks in the fields on pennies of this era? Whilst examples of individual dies are usually quite rare, the incidence of an extra mark(s) is not so. I'm intrigued but don't have an answer. Robin Eaglen & Robert Grayburn wrote an article on the gouged dies of Cnut's Quatrefoil coinage in the 2000 BNJ, but that aside, there has only been speculation over the past centuries from the likes of Parsons and Andrew. Thoughts anyone?

Book bidder. Mr Wood would have to have very deep pockets to have won the number of lots knocked down to him over the years.