Rob

I split them at the table and the numbers of people requiring either one or the other is roughly equal (thankfully) and split packs account for approximately half a box, so based on a not statistically significant sample, it suggests 1/3 for each half and the remaining third is the complete pack of two.

No, but work starts on pricing after the September sales and Phil's departure was at the beginning of the time when revisions are made. Given they didn't get out requests for advertising in time as a result of the change in personnel, it isn't surprising that individual inclusions weren't enacted.

The plumes I mentioned simply because it is on the same page. Looking further afield, there is no image of an Exeter crown in any form which is unquestionably distinctive, nor a whole host of other Civil War coins including the Bugle halfcrown, the Bristol flat-crown halfcrown, the York types 1-3 halfcrowns, nor the Tower mint group V halfcrown or most shillings from the same period. Some of these are major types, common too and all would benefit from illustration if identification is the reason for doing so. Then you have the regional die variations of the Saxon coins. The list is actually quite extensive because a picture speaks a thousand words. I don't disagree that it should be illustrated, but I suspect the same could be said of any period covered by the book. The biggest problem has to be one of space versus production costs and selling price. A good number of collectors don't buy CoE because of the cost, preferring to have one of the cheap volumes, but that comes at a price with one listing all (100+) Oxford Civil War halfcrowns under a single heading for example. I note that this year there were fewer dealer adverts than previously which was a result of Phil Skingley leaving and the new editor taking over. These also take up space which could be better employed providing illustrations. I also think there could be some mileage in splitting the pre-decimal into hammered and milled as well as having the decimal portion, given the number of collectors who restrict their habits to one of the three. It would be cheaper for the collector than the combined volumes which ought to increase sales.

They have long had inconsistencies. I'm a believer that you either trim it down to the currency plus the proofs issued for the masses, or you include everything. The main problem if you do the latter is one of space because the book would weigh at least 2kg and be too heavy to lug around. Currently they supposedly don't include patterns, yet include the 1848 florins (listed as patterns!) and the 1807 proof halfpennies (only produced by Taylor and never at Soho) for example. An added bonus of trimming out the esoteric and a slight reduction in font size would be a possible reduction in weight to under 1kg for the pre-decimal section which would reduce carriage charges. Some of the oddballs included in the past have been the result of pleasing favoured collectors, or a little marketing activity to provide a price for some coins. A third of a page is taken up by the Petition and Reddite pattern crowns which are definitely in the realm of the unobtainable for most and consequently irrelevant, and in the past the 1513 Tournai groat of Henry VIII was listed at the instigation of Patrick Finn who had the coin sat in the trays at Spink for a while. Once listed it sold. It has subsequently been culled, so things do work both ways. The salient point here is that an esoteric variety is difficult or impossible to price for the majority of people, so is ignored. Once a coin is included in a reference volume, people will queue up to buy it, so listing as many things as possible is therefore a positive in expanding the hobby which is in the interest of both dealers and collectors. If you ever needed proof of the power of inclusion, things like the 1897 O'NE and 1946 ONE' pennies are only die flaws and in my opinion not worthy of inclusion, but they are listed and so people chase them. I don't have an issue with using a silver proof to illustrate an example if it is identical to the copper currency equivalent, as it is likely to be better struck than a currency coin and so provide clarity of detail, which is the main purpose of illustration. I agree that it remiss of them not to include illustrations of the second and third issue halfpennies, but these are not the only examples, as on the preceding page there is no plumes in angles sixpence. To paraphrase, 'other examples exist'. It is a situation that will never satisfy everybody because there are many levels of collecting, each of which requires a different degree of cataloguing.

Manville & Robertson. 3 volumes. The first lists British numismatic auction catalogues from 1710 to 1984 with the names of the vendors given where known. The other two volumes cover British and Irish numismatic periodicals up to the early 1990s.

Struggling. No Gale listed in M & R for the 20th century. Henderson should be easier to trace as he ought to be a museum employee.

Wot? One careful owner? - The back garden of 72 Acacia Avenue?

Interestingly the 1817 and 1820 I/S dies are different. I guess the engraver thought he was making the word PENSE?

No it isn't. The I has lost its serifs. I don't have a sixpence, but the shilling is similar and looks as below.

It will throw a spanner in the works for a lot of people if we do. Most collectors go to fairs armed with a wad of cash. I wonder if this is historical and a reflection on the time required to bank a cheque and receive funds, as it's only during the last 10 years or so that mobile payments have been feasible. Any bookie will suffer big time. Can you imagine using chip and pin at Royal Ascot?

I think it is badly mixed metal. Silver in purified form has to be alloyed to reduce it to the correct fineness (92.5% is sterling silver). The normal metal added would be copper. I have noticed a far greater tendency for silver to suffer from haymarking than gold. I think this is due to the difference in melting points between the three metals. Silver melts at 100 degrees below the melting point of copper, so the pot needs to be heated far beyond the point that liquid silver forms in order to melt any added copper. Failure to melt the copper would result in specks of sold copper remaining as it is likely the lighter particles would be in suspension. Gold on the other hand melts within 20 degrees of copper and so there is less chance of the copper failing to melt. Time allowed for melting is another factor. Once poured and cooled, any copper will react with the air to make copper (II) oxide, which is black.

I threw the question of filling and recutting into the mix as a possibility, but without any proof either way. It could be partly rubbed down and recut. The evidence from some coins dating to the civil war shows underlying detail that can be identified as being from a particular (different) die. This only predating your coin by a few years suggests that it was standard practice at the time. Pre-Civil War, I have a type 4 halfcrown with a star mark overlying an anchor. Anchor is unknown on a type 4. Similarly there was a type 3 halfcrown went through Lockdales in the past year or so with an underlying Portcullis, used on type 2 coins of that denomination. Engraving the dies on the end of a piece of hand-held bar for hammered coins is more flexible than dies used for mechanical presses where the surfaces need to be more consistently parallel given the mechanical alignment of the press. A seriously undulating die face in the latter case would produce inferior coins.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the coins advertised will be skewed, with those getting a higher grade than one might expect being advertised for sale with the number made prominent, whereas those the owner feels to be undergraded are more likely to disappear into the collection - particularly those slabbed in the 63-65 region. Below that it is less likely to be an issue unless rare.

There is evidence from only 20 years later on from the milled coinage that dies were also filled and recut with the new date - e.g. see the 1675/3/2 halfpenny in the unlisted thread. This method was definitely used until the 19th century. I don't know whether any hammered dies were so treated, but given the short intervening period it must be a possibility. As for whether dies were ground down and the new feature entered, I would say it happened on occasion. Sometimes it was only necessary to add an arc for example, so I guess the action would depend on the outcome required.

The obverse looks a lot worse on the 1916 compared to the 1917

The other alternative is an R. I suppose the F could be a filed down E.

A Friday afternoon job. MA over FR, though the M is also blundered and entered twice, the G possibly with either a flaw or over the left side of an M, the following R made from a couple of misplaced Es which were reinforced to form the R and F of FR over an E. Apart from that it's fine.

Better strike on the second's reverse.

No.9

Sorry, that should be B after M and not R. Faulty operative.

My thoughts were that it is water worn or ground corrosion. Same alloy component involved (copper) and same effect whether it is silver or gold.

You will need a greater accuracy than that obtained with kitchen scales. A couple of decimal places is required.

So a blank that missed the plating process in that case.

Is it magnetic? An unclad blank would be, a Cu-Ni flan for something else not.

You're the second person to ask what the mint is.