Rob

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.

Canterbury. Allen die pair 97. I can see someone being disappointed.

Nope.

The York Fair is at the racecourse this coming Friday and Saturday. Plenty of dealers there in one place, so you could pop in if you are close.

All dealers will buy coins - they have to in order to make a living. Whereabouts are you? There might be someone close.