Rob

Yes he does. A truly dedicated student of the year.

Ah. Your's is considerably rarer. Aluminium was almost a precious metal in 1887, only having been made commercially available a couple years previously.

Yes. Came out of Baldwin's basement a few years ago. Actually, a bit more than a few by now.

Just trying to compose a talk on the chronology of the R42 restrike halfpennies to give to the club in 6 weeks time, so as the images were open I thought I would share.

And the reverse.

KH4 pattern halfpenny, P-.

You might. Designers will use anything to accentuate their pretentious crap.

Probably found in a hoard with the coin in the third picture

Or he has learned everything he knows from eBay. That's an eBay aUNC or even higher. It's blindingly obvious that most people haven't a clue when it comes to grading, so simply using someone else's grade for something in that condition is called market research.

Reading must be at least 5 miles from the auction. Surely you can't use that as an excuse. Regular trains, or a quick trip down the A329M

We prefer to deal in real hard currency on this forum. I don't have any trays that will accept cryptocurrency.

Another query. I just had a message from google to say that some t**t called Afzal Ullah has updated my pictures by adding a picture to RP Coins. The problem is that it is a picture of a grotty 2005 St. Paul's £2. I've just wasted half an hour looking for it and can't find it on the site anywhere, but obviously it has been done for a reason. If he has replaced the rather nice 1729 silver proof halfpenny I have used for the past 12 years with a shitty £2 coin, I'm going to go spare. More importantly, WHY DO IT? Nobody in their right mind would want this as a logo, nor would they bother advertising a coin you could acquire by going to the shops. How do I get rid of it, or more importantly, how do I stop him and others like him? Or is it a case of Google helping to screw up people because they can? Not best pleased at the moment. Or is it just spam?

I agree 100% with what you say, but have issues with the TPGs who won't call a spade a spade. If a coin is hairlined from cleaning, then call it hairlined. If a coin has been polished to death, then call it polished. If a coin has been cleaned without damaging the surfaces then it has still been cleaned. Just be honest, that's all I'm saying. After all, they offer a cleaning service in all but name. They also seem happy enough to slab coins that have been dipped, and more than the odd repaired coin has passed the audition.

Only in the world of slabbing is 'conservation' not cleaning. When I do the washing up after a meal, do I conserve my plates and utensils? Of course not, I clean them. I remove all the crap from the surfaces using water and a detergent without scraping away the surface of the plate, and so it has been cleaned. Vive la difference.

Not quite.

I've still got two from the Nicholson sale.

Depends on what you bought. In this case i can't see an issue, but note that it was part of a recorded hoard. I think the rules for hoards and individual finds are different. For a start, more than one coin in the same place is deemed a hoard and reportable whereas a single coin is deemed a loss and doesn't need to be subject to coroner's ruling. The coin is now in 'the system', which might have a bearing on the requirements.

Export licenses are required for any important artefact or antique subject to the rules here. http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/export-controls/export-licensing It's basically designed to ensure that national treasures don't get sold abroad when there is a good case to be made for keeping them at home. The Coenwulf gold penny was a good example of the licensing system in action as it provided for funds to be raised at home to ensure that the item didn't leave the country.

Only remember a bit of her.

The connected dots & rim were a result of Taylor's recutting of the 1806 proof die. See my article in the 2007 BNJ. The rim on the P1365 pattern halfpenny was degrading and showing signs of breaking up, so Taylor reduced the radius of the rim from 1-4 o'clock, filled in the 6 of the date and recut a 7 to make the 1807 proof halfpenny obverse die. There are no known Soho 1807 proof halfpennies. The coin which sparked the investigation is the one listed in the unrecorded varieties section. First page, I think.

It has suffered multiple die clashes. If you look above the head on the first ebay picture, there are a three displaced triangles. That is the triangle in the ribbon immediately above the knot. Multiple clashing happens frequently. There is a post somewhere else showing this, but I'll add it again to demonstrate. This shilling has a few die clashes with the usual rotational displacement, so you can see the inverted effigy.

The same filing marks apply to the 1807 gold proof - see below. Now consensus is that the gold one is unique, and I'm minded to think that the silver one is too because I can't find any references to suggest there are more. Peck recorded the Foster piece, but as that was graded EF and in a bulk lot, the implication is that it was impaired just as this one is, having a couple of scratches behind Britannia on the reverse. Having seen a single filed example of an 1807 in copper, I think it very likely that the three were together at some point. The gold one is definitely ex-Murdoch, and he also had a silver and copper example. My feelings are that these 3 were Murdoch's. The time they were made is likely to be the same, as the obverse die is in the same state on both, with a rust spot above US.

If you look at the raised rim, the surfaces have been neatly filed.

Sorry, I lied. The 'Gothic' bit is actually the first oak leaf

Part of the ribbon joining the two branches.