Rob

The legend above the head says it is a sixpence.Shillings have a stop or a space. It looks to be quite good where you can see the detail with the caveat that some bits aren't clear because of the lighting. The toning looks random and untouched - which is a good sign. Spink prices are Fine 15, VF 45, EF 115.

They are all going to turn up at once, just as the VIGTORIAs are doing now. One day there will be a huge supply once the variety is promoted

First question is whether the profile of the curve follows that of the D elsewhere on the die. Letters were often punched in error and subsequently corrected. Sometimes the underlying character is strong, sometimes weak depending on how many times or how hard the wrong punch was struck. As a rule, the legend errors were simply overcut, but dies were also filled and recut on occasion, particularly when changing the date. For an example of this see the 1675/3/2 halfpenny where the 2 was filled and recut to a 3, then subsequently modified to make a 5 over 3. It would take a few blows to fully enter a character, so introducing another variable. It doesn't necessarily have to be cut and filled. Taylor also used this method to change the 1806 broken jewel proof halfpenny obverse die to 1807. Again see the unlisted varieties section.

Just go for a full refund and let him have the hassle of disposing of it. You aren't the only one on a steep learning curve.

It was divided between the three of them proportionally, as the meal now cost them £8.333333 each, not £8, with the waiter receiving a tip of £0.666666 from each customer. Fractions are easier than recurring numbers

The quote from the RM site said it was recorded as serviceable in the inventory, so that isn't speculation, but the level of wear, or rather lack of it on the punch suggests it wasn't used extensively before, or even at all after it broke. Hocking catalogued two volumes concerning the inventory of the RM archived material. Volume 1 in 1906 recorded the coins and tokens, whilst volume 2 in 1910 recorded the dies (including punches), medals and seals. This 1711 shilling has the F of FR with an unusually long bottom. The bottom right serif starts to expand as it would on an E punch, and also extends beyond the centre arm which I can't find any examples of where the F is perfectly formed. Whatever, it is not a clean punch.The question is this. Is it a defective E punch, or has the bottom been reinforced using only a fraction of a punch in the form of a partial bottom limb only of an E? It is also possible that they started with only an I punch, with all limbs added subsequently. Up to the 1700s, there is frequent use of composite letters made from a few punches which muddies the water somewhat. In the somewhat chaotic circumstances of the Civil War, there is a defective T or L(?) punch which doubles for T, L, I and the uprights of H. It's movement can be traced around the various mints, helping to establish the chronology of various issues.

Having the broken punch in the inventory as serviceable and it actually being used are two separate things. Company inventories frequently have items in stock which are defective, but not written off for whatever reason (usually financial). It most closely resembles the first crown bust, but the hair is rendered differently to the one illustrated in Spink. The punch looks a little frosted, which means it could be a proof or pattern bust, or it may be a medal punch, both of which would allow a degree of freedom by the artist when engraving the faulty section. Unfortunately the link doesn't indicate the size or denomination to which it could be applied. This punch has 10 leaves with a possible 11th at the top. Perusing Hocking gives a couple of possibilities. No. 64 is a crown master puncheon (upper part of head broken away), laureate bust to right, resembling Type ii, but the right leaf is quite hidden. The second is a halfcrown, No. 75 which H says is similar to no. 72 - laureate bust to right resembling the type ii crowns, the tie ends are straight; no.74 says similar to no.72 but there is a tip of an eleventh leaf visible above the head; no.75 says similar to last (broken at upper part of head). I have pictures of Hocking 70-75 and can confirm that none of these resemble the bust you displayed, and in any case the break on no.75 cuts across the forehead and laurels. Neither these two nor any others mention a break at the bottom of the bust. I can only assume Hocking didn't know about this one. The hair relative to the drapery clasp would be more in keeping with a crown punch, as smaller denominations tend to have the hair directly above it. The mint has a number of punches that can't be assigned to anything in particular. The attached is a punch (Hocking 104) that is in the RM's halfcrown punch tray. It has clearly been used, but is not known for any halfcrown. It does mention a resemblance to the Christ's Hospital medal by John Roettier (MI 1.p.558, n.220), but I don't have this, so perhaps someone else can help here. Maybe a more detailed study of the first and second bust crowns could shed a little light on this - anyone?

I don't think you would get away with continuing to use that one! Letter differences however tend to be more subtle.

It may or may not be a D, just that the curve hints at it. The size of letter punches dictates that a change to a different letter would be difficult. A punch has to be harder than the die and is more brittle, so removing previous detail could be problematic or it may be that the relief was low enough to be deemed insignificant. It's all speculation.

The first might be on the punch itself. Letters are frequently composite, e.g A is often made from an inverted V with the crossbar added separately. The first looks as if the bottom arm was entered separately. Punches also broke but continued to be used for the remaining detail, so you could potentially see traces of a different letter. The second looks a bit like a D, but the top of the curve looks more like a die flaw.

Uneven pressure, uneven annealing, variable flan thickness, the 'cleanliness' of the die sinker's work. If you have a variable, it can always conceivably cause a different effect.

Point 3 is perfectly logical. If for example you start out with a blank of whatever dimensions and strike a coin using a flypress without collar, then any pressure applied to the faces which imparts the design will cause the thickness to reduce and the diameter to increase. Just like putting a penny on a railway track and letting a train run over it. If the diameter didn't increase, all the metal flow would have to be into the dies to impress the design onto the blank or to increase the density of the metal (which is never going to happen with the limited forces at your disposal, as it would require a complete breakdown of the metal's crystal lattice structure). As the blank is unrestrained, the metal therefore flows out the sides (as well as impressing the design). It is this lateral movement from the increasing diameter that imparts the fishtails. If a collar is used, this restricts any increase in diameter from lateral flow and so any metal flow must be vertical. i.e. it fills the design features on the dies. You have to have metal flow to make a coin.

As you were I would think. Exports would attract no VAT, while imports would have the tax levied at the appropriate rate. There is no reason for these to change as VAT rates are set by the individual countries, and not Brussels. That's why there is scope for arbitrage within the EU. If we go onto WTO rules after we have left the EU, then those rates applicable are clearly laid out.

The fundamental problem here is that unlike a shop selling general items for everyday use, the treatment of coins and antiques etc is not a straightforward matter. As Paddy points out, the majority are not VAT registered and for these the question is irrelevant. For those that are, they can choose to sell under the margin scheme whereby the VAT is calculated on the difference between purchase and selling price (figures are subject to certain conditions laid down by HMRC) or they can use global accounting. The former really only works in the case of higher value discrete items due to the amount of work required. Sellers of lower unit value items, or sales of coins purchased as part of a bulk lot are better off using global accounting rules. In the case of the latter, there is no definable VAT (and therefore deductable) element for any particular sale because it is a simplified scheme whereby at the end of the accounting period, the VAT due is 1/6 of the difference between the total cost of purchases and the total value of sales.

Turnover of 85K or more pa requires VAT registration. It isn't optional above this figure.

Most dealers aren't VAT registered. In the case where there is VAT to consider, a coin sold under the margin scheme has VAT due on the profit element of the price, which in the case of a coin sourced in the UK will be 20% of a variable percentage of the full cost, which in the case of a bulk purchase is quite flexible. New items such as accessories have VAT as applicable, but any export outside the EU is exempt from tax. Within the EU, VAT is deemed to be fully paid if charged at source, so for example, books which attract a zero rate in the UK are sold to the EU at zero rate. There is a small amount of arbitrage possible arising from the various rates of VAT payable in different countries, but is rarely more than one or two percent. Any import VAT is something you have to live with wherever you happen to be. We all have our various crosses to bear.

Ex mount, polished and flat for a common issue and an indifferent date will only ever be worth melt value. If you can get to within a couple percent of spot from a bullion dealer (or coin dealer), then I would go that route. ebay with an accurate description will likely only make that before fees & shipping costs. I would wait for the refund before selling as it is the physical evidence. Get the case opened if you haven't already done so.

It looks like the straight line going from the cheek, across the neck to the shoulder is a hairline. Where it crosses the falling hair curl are two light lines either side which would be indicative of raised metal thrown up when the cut was made. It's a nice coin for wear, but scratches don't help.

Specific coins have always been referenced to previous sales where there was a comprehensive collection even though it wasn't a documented reference volume. So crown for example have been referenced to the Lingford sale as the pre-eminent collection of that denomination, Similarly Nicholson halfpennies, Adams halfcrowns, Cooke farthings, Quartermaster/Bentley sovereigns, Norweb anythings etc. It isn't fake news, just another reference point.

Themed collections are an aesthetically pleasing move away from the serried ranks of sameness associated with denomination collecting. Although a themed collection still confers boundaries, the almost inevitably eclectic result obtained on completion will provide interest for many collecting areas. Multiple areas of interest is a diversity that many collectors could benefit from.

A little number from two of the most accomplished performers I've ever seen. The support isn't bad either.

1794 guinea, EF or possibly a bit better. Looks nicer in hand without the flash.

That's good. It is unlikely we will ever be in competition. You take the c**p, I'll go for something nicer.

The coin. Look at the reflections off the angled surfaces facing the light source. That is what the coin would look like if illuminated using a flash on the camera. There is no texture to the surface tone which is a good indication of having been cleaned or dipped at some point. The obverse hairlines betray a bit of abrasive cleaning by someone. Any coin in circulation will develop hairlines, but that goes hand in hand with accumulating dirt. Clean coin and hairlines says cleaned.

Your assessment and grading looks about right on the one you posted, but it is horribly bright.