Rob

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.

Hmm. Moot point. I've tried that in the past. Left something thinking better would come along and it never did. It taught me to know my chosen field a bit better. Probably not an issue for a general example of a milled coin, but for some of the more esoteric varieties it really becomes relevant.

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.

Those figures are way too low. Copper is 8.945 ish. Tin is 7.3, so it could be tin alloy. That would tie in with the halfpenny being about a third thicker than it should, but only slightly overweight.

Fedex are ok on this. The post office isn't too bad, but usually I pay it and reclaim it from them before their return to sender policy kicks in after it hasn't been picked up within the specified time. This alleviates any problems of something you don't want to get lost in the post being returned and then dispatched a second time.

A very sad story later to be repeated with charles II WHAT! Was that taken from Wiki?

Coming from Hong Kong on a buy it now for £4.50. Whilst it doesn't say copy, it clearly is, and there's no intention to deceive in my view because they aren't trying to milk the market with an auction. If you are looking for inconsistencies, there is no die number that I can see.