Rob

Lack of internet didn't stop people piling into 'investments'. People were buying Churchill crowns and later things by the bucket load as well as paying OTT for modern tat, just as people are avidly purchasing just about every 50p, £1 and £2 coin you can throw at them today. If proof was ever needed, I bought about £400 of scrap silver last night, all skimmed from circulation post-war. There was however, a down-side. I also had to take £40 face of 5/- and 25p crowns. They were a good investment - not.

Yep

It looks a good fit for the leaf to the end of E. CHK should be close which yours is, so both are in general agreement. The kink in the forehead looks sharper on yours than most, but that could be down to strength of striking. PM Seuk and see what he has to say.

There are various pointings of the laurel leaves, but without a picture of yours it is impossible to say whether it's ok. If the weight is right then it's likely to be good. Seuk's pages on G3 counterfeits is the best reference. http://www.steppeulvene.com/index.george_iii.html

Ah. The P by trident variety - good find.

Most non-coinies call anything cupro-nickel, silver. He might have been told it is a copy, but unless the informer told him it wasn't silver, he may be none the wiser. The chances are he didn't buy it originally.

They used the reverses on the cartwheel pattern halfpennies for 1797, but these had no gunports.

Bramah just says rare for those other than 5. I'd say 7 is about the same as the 9. 5 is normal, and 6 is more common than 7.

As I said previously, historically the term VIP was only used with the non-public issued years. There might have been a few sets that appeared down the years in a different style box, but I'm not sure there was ever a superior finish to these which was unambiguously better than the rest. As far as I can see, the term VIP was hijacked for use with the mass produced sets as a marketing tool for better cameo/strike examples of what was otherwise a common date and worth not a lot. Funny how you only see the term applied to the bigger, in your face denominations, and not the unpopular bronzes (Booooo) or florins et infra 'silver'. If the mint hasn't got a clue, then I would suggest it is mostly a case of wishful thinking, though there may be some superior quality coins within those so attributed. If they were genuinely identifiable, then an AU55 VIP should be quite possible.

7 relief ports is documented as is 5, 6 & 9. Bramah noted it as his variety 13a in his book (1929). I have one too, as did Nicholson (lot 296).

That legend is in high enough relief to have been made from Lego.

It's the creation of a market, just as the myriad listings of varieties for a given date creates the demand over and above simply ticking the date box. Sure FDC should mean FDC, but even with two nominally similar grade coins, everyone will have a preference for one over the other based on their perception of what is before them. Personally, I think the concept of giving or chasing micro-grading is irrelevant as it often takes preference over the contents and is entirely subjective on the opinions of the grader.

No, the latest on the BNS site is 2013.

Busts 3 & 4 have the hair by the neck below the fillet treated differently. See below. right hand one is 4th bust. There is a list of die numbers somewhere, but I don't have it to hand. Maybe Nick or someone can help here.

Incuse pellets? Are you experiencing a lighting trick? I've noticed that because I expect the light source to be at 12 o'clock, anything from below makes the detail look incuse. I think it is something to do with my eyes taking the angled sides of the relief detail illuminated from below and translating that into a top illuminated recessed wall.

I suspect the Exeter crowns are differentiated by mintmark due to the undated pieces previously being attributed to Truro. That gave the first 3 types with mm. rose for Truro (Besly's A1, B2 & C3-7) with the remainder at Exeter. Once the undated Rose coins with obverses B & C were given to Exeter it became necessary to rewrite the book. My personal view is that you could still reasonably argue the A1 and B2 as being Truro coins on account of both having the T stops in the obverse legend. The question of rare mms for type will never go away - James I 5th issue shillings being a very obvious example..

A good close-up picture would help so that you can see the fields and engraving clearly. With an image that size, even the Westair repros would look ok.

The picture is very small, but from what I can see the design looks less crude than the link to the fanams. Is it genuine?

That's a well argued piece worthy of merit and further consideration. The only downside is the way people habitually read lists, expecting a date run to be in numerical order, so a change in mindset would be required.

Slabbing is just someone having a SimplyMed moment

So presumably we can look forward to the new piece in the chain taking an additional cut over and above eBay & Paypoo? I suspect they (eBay) will be taking a greater percentage of the total fees in an attempt to keep ramping up their profits, but the others will want to maintain/increase theirs as well. My personal view is that it will need to migrate to a full shop, or else split in two with one for business sellers on a BIN and the other for auctions. The sheer quantity of material has ensured that auction style bidding is now much reduced simply because you can't get through it all. For buyers, unless you have a very specific search description the number of pages can be huge.

I'm not so sure about variation in the strike. In the case of the two coins illustrated, the raised rim is the same width in both cases. As they both have the same diameter, by extension it means that the diameters of the respective toothed portions must be different. In addition, the profile of the short teeth appear to be straight sided triangles, whereas the wider teeth are clearly a series of arcs. It could be a case of reduction differences, which once transferred to the dies at some point are trimmed at the edges by the later application of the raised rim to a specific size. That still doesn't explain the different profiles seen. Given the minute differences in some of the bronze series, e.g. the 0.2mm difference in the length of the bowsprit on a pair of halfpennies, I would even go so far as to say that it is more obvious despite the temptation to yawn.

NURSE!!! COME QUICKLY!!! Your sanity is precious, please don't abuse it.

Apologies for the delay in providing the evidence which was due to me requiring a sample size of 3 coins rather than two and the ensuing wait for the scanner to warm up. The first C of Churchill does look thinner on the left coin.

The difference alluded to in Davies goes hand in hand with two types of teeth. One set is notably further from the raised rim, whilst the other is more akin to a series of small pyramids. I'm sure there will be other differences.