Rob

That's what I assumed. There wouldn't be any reason for Briot to cut a James I legend. The next bit doesn't make sense? Needing a drink I can relate to.

OK, so using an old angel design die from James? I assume that side has no B?

I was referring to the less than clear lozenge after the S in the first post, which could be a knackered B. The image isn't clear enough on my screen to say what it is. I said not 1612-1619 because they made 11s weights for the contemporary angels, so anything made between these years would reflect the upturn in valuation. There is one in a thread on here somewhere. However, I would question a B signed weight being contemporary with the 1612 revaluation as Briot was engraver at the mint in Paris from 1605 to 1625 and he only appeared in this country during the reign of Charles I. I concur it is probable that they were made for 1/4 angels from Elizabeth's reign or earlier. Presumably, although 1/4 angels were not produced in the 17th century, there were sufficient numbers held by the public to warrant a weight being produced.

Is the damaged mark to the right of the S in the OP a B? The quarter angel is 2s6d, not 2s9d, so not 1612-1619 when the gold was revalued upwards by 10%.

At a guess, 10 to 30 quid if genuine as it's a bit battered. The lack of Monarch might be an issue unless already known without this.

It's a coin weight for an angel. These were valued at 10 shillings from 1551 to 1611 and then from 1620 to Charles I, so without a regnal indicator or pyx mark could be any of five reigns. The lozenges, might suggest Edward VI as these were used on his coinage (pre-1551), but not to my knowledge on Mary's, Elizabeth's or James'. They were used on Charles I's angels, but those I've seen previously had C R in big friendly letters. Edited to add that the shape of the lozenges is in the style of Ed. 6 posthumous coinage and the pre-fine issue coins as opposed to Briot/Rawlins.

The associated shells and bags are probably as supplied originally. The museum pieces are lead splashes which was commonly used as a metal for test pieces to see what the impression looks like before the dies are hardened. Yours could be either silver or tin looking at them, with a personal preference for tin given the colour of the blank sides. Unifaces were often made when producing a new design. I have a few. They will almost certainly be genuine. The bust on your coin was used on regular currency in 1816, so presumably is a trial struck at the end of 1815 when preparing dies for the following year.

The crown being the later mark defines the period within which it was struck, i.e. sometime between 18 June 1635 and 14 Feb 1636, but likely closer to the former with both dies being used in Bell. I'm assuming the latter is old style as the amount of gold with im. crown is twice that struck in the adjacent marks. o/w production would have to be condensed into an 8 month period. The reverse is less likely to be over portcullis as the reverse dies wore out quicker than the obverses.

There is a possibility the bottom one could be S&B, as they also used yellow tickets, but the number looks a bit high. A full ticket would help.

I quite agree and fully recognise that we all (including me) go for aesthetics, but there are a large number on your side of the pond who put the label ahead of anything so inconsequential as looks and wouldn't dare challenge any TPG assumption or label. I remember one comment I made a few years ago on the PCGS forum eliciting the reply that it wasn't a p'ing competition. Sadly, that is precisely what it is because the coin was acquired strictly on the basis of the label and so his 'score' was enhanced. The random assignation of an unquantified amount of cameo effect will only enhance this chase for ever bigger numbers. Maybe the TPGs will oblige and concoct a 1/4 point step up in 'score' for the various cameo labels, which will get the juices flowing for the number chasers. If it had no effect on price, it wouldn't matter, but the way things stand, any big slab number currently means a coin heads west.

The dies were recut on the change of initial mark in order to save producing a completely new die. It was more common to see the gold dies used over one or more marks due to the smaller output of gold, and one must presume the softer nature of gold required less striking force. By comparing dies it is possible to establish which were recut with the new mark. As up to a total 5 marks are known for both James I and Charles I gold coins, it is clear that the initial mark can become very messy, and you need the comparison to confirm the underlying detail. For the record, 5 mark dies are James I second coinage rose-ryal obverse with Cinquefoil over Trefoil over Tower over Mullet over Coronet and Charles I angel Schneider obverse O-17 with Triangle in Circle over Star over Traingle over Anchor over Tun. Other may exist. A change of bust design is usually the terminal reason for reusing dies and hence seeing overmarks. The obverse looks as if it could have a portcullis under the bell.

The first one I should know, but the name eludes me. Bottom one looks like a Seaby ticket. Plus, the price of £75 suggests it is late 80s or early 90s. Coincraft 2000 gives a VF price of £100.

The differences are only going to be valid if they quantify them and therein lies the rub. As it stands they arbitrarily assign cameo/deep/ultra, but I don't believe they go on the basis of scientific results. If 0-70 grades are allegedly assigned on the basis of defined wear, then the cameo must be defined by the amount of reflected light, which you can guess at by looking, but I doubt they can tell whether it was 10, 20, 30 or 40% light reflected relative to that of the field, other than someone taking a stab and giving the coin a label. As I said before, there has to be some measurable basis for their claim. If they are putting themselves on a pedestal as the judge and jury (courtesy of a bunch of compliant lapdogs who wouldn't dare disagree with their assessment), then they have to work to gain their respect. It isn't a given. They are assigning the different cameo attributes because they can and because no one will say boo to a goose. If you sign up, you swallow the medicine.

Until the TPGs assigned a label to those with frosted designs, nobody cared. It's just an exercise in marketing. Historically descriptions were made based on whether it was currency (default), proof or specimen, notwithstanding the debate over the past 50 years defining specimen vs proof. I highly recommend the two point grading scale - does away with all this irrelevant hot air.

Yes, going by the typical grading seen with the TPGs there are both cameo and non-cameo proofs. I have examples of both in the collection. What term is being used on everything? Cameo, or VIP? My view on cameo/deep/ultra etc is listed above, my view on VIP was made on several occasions recently, which I can't be a***d to find and link.

The basic problem is the TPGs have tapped into peoples' egos and turned collecting into a peeing competition by providing the registry sets for people to complete and adding their own micro grading suffixes to produce more competition amongst members. However, they can do what they like, because if you don't sign up to the nanny state concept with everything taken care of for you, like being told it's a nice or better coin or not, then it doesn't affect you.

We all accept there are nicer coins than others, just be happy if you like what you have. As for bronze pennies, the Adams proof 1961 would have passed the audition without question, and attached below are two halfpennies, 1957 on the left, 1954 on the right. Only scans, but clearly one is and one isn't.

Yes, but a label is worth a thousand opinions, ker-ching

Apparently you could purchase catalogues with the prices and buyers transcribed post-sale. That's why they are always written neatly.

Just the one. Lot 2913.

Did Tyssen have one? My catalogue has the buyers named.

The only realistic way of differentiating the differing degrees of cameo and making an objective decision on that would be to measure the reflectivity of the various parts of the coin's face. So if reflected light from the field is measured and thus arbitrarily set to 100% reflectivity, then you could measure the amount of light reflecting from the bust and once it reduces to below a predetermined percentage of light reflected, they could justifiably say this was Cameo. Halve the figure again and it would become say deep cameo, halve it again and you have ultra cameo (I'm assuming Ultra is the deepest possible which may be an irrational assumption as they could easily concoct another label). Although it would provide a standard for the attribution, somehow, I can't see the TPGs setting up a rig which would measure this.

Young was the buyer and Do is Ditto. Trouble is, he was a dealer, so it could have been for anyone unless you have the next sale it appears in, in which case it's a bonus as you now know that Young was buying in the sale for the next person.

Spink weren't doing sales in 1941. That will be a purchase from the Circular.

And just noted an error/ambiguous footnote in the W & R listing illustrated higher up the page. The coin illustrated is taken from the Spink 1994 catalogue and listed as 'this coin', but the line above is merely a number of references where this type is listed and doesn't form part of a coherent provenance, which could be implied given the layout and the list being chronologically sound.