Rob

Wonder if it's to do with the manual entry of the last two digits. Until you have an impression it is very difficult to see if the alignment is correct. Once you have a mark you may well find it needs a little sideways or rotational adjustment.

Operator error - faulty moral compass.

The description says they are copies, so no deception there. 1864 die 64 is the standard Chinese copy and has been around for a few years now. Other copies may be available.

It will be. RCB, RCL, JGB, VJER, FEJ, PWP etc are all commonly used unambiguous abbreviations for the relevant collection. Simply because the names crop up so often.

There will be better out there. It isn't a rare thing, though it is in this grade

Interesting. Given it's the second time in a week, it appears Newton Abbot is a hotbed for purveyors of dodgy pennies. I hope the second half of this seller's name doesn't share a surname with the first. Perish the thought.

Looks like it to me. It is illuminated from below which plays tricks with what you are used to seeing compared with top lighting - raised features often appear incuse and vice-versa until your brain has been re-educated. In this case it is lighting the exergue face on from the source, making it appear wider. I can't see any evidence of two lines.

I too had issues with him when he claimed a coin was cleaned and wanted a discount. Interestingly, didn't want to send it back. I wouldn't deal with him personally.

Comber. The style matches this one which refers to both Shuttlewood and Wilkinson.

Looking at the images online, I was put off by the reflective surfaces of most lots, giving the impression that a majority had been cleaned. Though given the number involved, I suspect that the images were over-exposed because when the description included a notable defect, it was hard to see it in the image. Adhering to the adage 'If in doubt, leave it out', I bought a handful of items which were not shiny in the images to hedge my bets.

Correct. That's why MS can mean Mostly Smoothed on occasion, referring to between 60 & 70% flattening.

I would concur. Before I abandoned collecting halfpennies in 2008/9, the only thing I found worthy of keeping was the attached, and fine it ain't.

The detail doesn't look sharp enough for me either, but photography can be a nightmare with proofs. I bought some pattern halfpennies in last week's Noonans sale. One or two look like they've been badly abused in my images, yet in hand they are brilliant with not a blemish to be seen.

It depends on what you have as not all apply in all instances. Generally speaking therefore, a proof will have brilliant fields, square rims, sharper milling, squarer sides to the lettering, a better quality of engraving to the detail and is likely to be in close to as struck condition. Although a few proofs get circulated, the vast majority do not, and in the case of non-set years, almost never. Easiest way is comparing a known currency piece with a claimed proof and then look for reasons why it isn't one rather than saying it is better, so must be one.

https://coins.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=3184+792+4294934363&type=bodycopy-coinworld-news-tem100623 TPG grading of virtual currency. Can't wait for a CAC sticker to say it is genuine. Does a failed crypto currency systems warrant a details grade? Why does a virtual currency need a metal disc in any case? Surely their raison d'etre was to eliminate them? Touted as the most important physical collection of crypto currency ever to come to market, this has to be the biggest load b****cks seen in many a time.

I didn't say that Bitcoin had failed. I asked the question, how they would grade a failed virtual currency? If they are going to grade these things, then they have presumably had to verify that the contents are as it says on the label. The money is there or it's not. If the grading is for the plastic disc only, then that's silly. The money is in the virtual currency, not in the 'coin' and if the bitcoin has been wiped, who pays? Anyway, bitcoin is of limited value to the average person. I've got accounts with 4 different banks, and none of them will allow me to pay in Bitcoins. Nor indeed can I take it round the corner to buy a loaf of bread. But hey, I could be the proud owner of an almost unblemished piece of plastic valued at over £22K that I can't spend.

Thanks.

Did anyone buy anything from the Sanders collection at Noonans on the 19th July? If so, did it have a ticket resembling the attached? Ta.

Assume the edge was added manually, as it is incuse. So are all these edges 'unique'?

I've got a counterfeit 1792 Birmingham Mining & Copper Company 1/2d token here with the edge reading PAYABLL AT LONDON LIVERPOOL [ ] with the Ns reversed. The type is nominally D&H 109a, but that description gives a normal reading of PAYABLE etc. Were these edges added manually or is this a normal reading for the type with sloppy documentation? Ta.

Thanks Richard. I'd go with that. I was trying to find Gary's article on the site but failed, hence the request here. I thought it might be in publications, but that seems to be just books.

Not sure what the 2h refers to. It's nothing to do with Brooke which would have been appropriate for 1946. After that you are into BCW territory. Nothing in IDB's BNJ vol. 28 article helps. I think those images help, as the 9, H & E are of a different style. That might mean this is a G S Hopkins ticket from Baldwin's 30. Anyone with a known G S Hopkins ticket?

Mr T said that, not me. My point revolves around the different A marked dies and the use of the die letter in general. I appreciate the die letters are used with reverses E(B), F(C) & G(A) which would imply they are comparing the 3 designs, but why would they be comparing them in 1862 when all three were used in various obv/rev die pairs the year before? It isn't as if they had no data to go on given the large output in 1861. Unless they suddenly ran into a problem with rev. G for whatever reason and felt the need to revert to an earlier die to see if something could be improved. Then to have at least 3 different A dies raises the question as to why more than one was needed.

Assuming there's a pellet after REX, which isn't clear in the image but has the space for one, then it would be Withers 30a. This is the only Withers 30 not ending A. Other details above are correct.