Rob

No milled in Spink 151, which was only up to Elizabeth I. All the coins were sold through Spink, so it's likely to be in the Circular, if anywhere.

Most are off the market, so not too many people will have one. The reality is that my view is just one of several, none of which have been proved.

This is an ongoing debate. Personally, I've never seen anything that suggests to me that they are genuine, in fact exactly the opposite. Leaving aside this one, In the case of the two towers pieces, I find it inconceivable that they would make a series in penny increments all the way from 6d to 1s4d plus the higher values. All that would be required would be to get approximately similar pieces of plate, weigh them, and stamp the value. It's not rocket science. You get an example or two of each denomination - which doesn't make sense. Although the denominations seen on the castle and gateway types are more sensible, I also struggle somewhat from a perspective view, and think the castle may be viewed looking at the inside wall. It is also important in my view that Cholmley is reported as producing coins to pay the troops, but no mention is made in connection with this of the quantity of CARA farthings found at the bottom of the castle well (cf. Peck p.56). Although there are pros and cons for them being contemporary with the siege, not least the fact that they constitute the early issues of copper farthings. When one considers the designs employed on some of the provincial civil war silver, they clearly hark back to the early part of Charles' reign, so it would be wrong to exclude the CARAs as possibly being made at Scarborough. Although some of these pieces were in collections going back to the end of the 17th century, that still doesn't place them as being contemporary with the siege. I think it is significant that other siege pieces such as Newark and Carlisle were struck in towns, not just within a castle. I had a discussion with kal about 3 and a half years ago on this topic. I laid my views out in a note, the contents of which are attached. I haven't changed my view on this since then. I'm sure kal will come back on this given his interest in the subject. 140731-Kal on predecimal discussion.docx

With the reverse profile, it looks anything but hammered IMO unless it was using an offcut of metal to rest the blank on. The sharp obverse combined with the concentric rings doesn't look like any of the other Scarborough pieces. I think it is a case of call it what you want.

I would have thought up to a hundred quid is fairly typical. It really depends how badly you want one.

They are current, so worth face value. Spend them in the shop.

Money speaks louder than words. Where have I seen that before? Less experienced collectors please note. At least the main auction houses will listen and pull things if they can be shown to be iffy. By main auction houses I mean those that have specialist coin auctions with a team of in-house experts capable of doing the due diligence referred to by Declan. By that I mean places like BSJ, DNW, LCA, Spink etc in this country or the big ones in the US, though they may hide behind the TPG label where applicable. The T&Cs of all auctions will inevitably state that all items are guaranteed genuine and that refunds will be given for those proven not to be, but the cost of proof and the time element is likely to put people off. It is incumbent on collectors to help identify coins that don't pass muster, as nobody is infallible and not every seller of an iffy coin has a broken moral compass.

I'd say it's 1 over the same size 1, but the underlying character not punched deeply enough to bring out the serif. V over inverted A I would go with looking at the picture. I would concur with the 1st obverse. Listed in ESC, but Davies only gives this obverse used up to 1860. As the latest crossover date of a three year period (1859-1861), there were probably no more than one or two serviceable dies of the first type remaining. Obverse dies can clearly be used for more than one year, so the offset colon may well be the same die noted above for a previous year.

"Value: As a rough estimate of this coins value you can assume this coin in average condition will be valued at somewhere around 35 cents, while one in certified mint condition could bring as much as $5 at auction." So he lists it for $15. Doh. Clearly, buggered and cleaned is more desirable than slabbed mint state.

Oh, thanks. The initial post implied it was sent to them before they had even bought anything, or so I assumed. Mind you, I haven't bought anything on eBay for over a year, so probably don't have enough (any?) brownie points.

Code? Someone elucidate, please.

Because designs aren't set in stone in perpetuity. The 1982 coins have the date on the rocks below the lighthouse. This was a single year issue.

Briot is reported to have had a lot of problems with his weights, with a significant percentage of pieces rejected for being out of spec. For some reason you don't often see marks which could be adjudged to be adjustment marks being applied to the hammered tower issues, so it begs the question whether politics came into play here as there is ample evidence of a wide range of weights occurring. Half a century later, the recoinage during William III's reign produced a serious number of coins with these marks, though the obverses were often filed through the hair or drapery and the reverses at the crowns and not across the centres. This difference may have been due to individual worker preference. e.g see 16(9/6)6 shilling below. I don't think there is any consistency in where the marks are applied, as I have also seen Briot pieces with the rims filed. Again, see below.

OK, I stand corrected.

Not really. To take a coin at random, Edward IV heavy coinage halfpennies N1545 with lis on neck and im. Plain Cross has 4 legend varieties in Withers' Small Change. N1546 with quatrefoils, saltires or nothing by neck and im. Rose has 4 varieties for nothing by neck and 19 varieties with quatrefoils or saltires....... As usual, it is a case of how deep into varieties a reference goes.

Normal. There are 2 reverses, one as this and the other CHRISTO. There are also 2 obverses,with or without the mullet. All 4 combinations exist. cf Brooker 729-732A

That's normal (except for the red dots!)

Have it regraded by NNC and you can get it regraded MS71. If you genuinely think it would make a 65 then send it in to NGC or PCGS and see if you are right. There are a number of dealers who frequent this forum, none of which gatecrash the forum owner's business. Given it is the season of goodwill to all men - have a thought for others instead of peddling NNC's lumps of wishful thinking. Merry Christmas.

Whatever the reputation of the seller, the coin pictured is one of Stamford, not Lincoln as per the description. I suspect the title might be closer to the coin received than the one pictured.

That has to be dodgy. The top listing has the same obverse die as the bottom two. Bottom pieces are both Lincoln, ending within a quarter of an hour of each other on the same day with two separate listing. The top one might have a Stamford reverse, but the same obverse die makes both wrong. These two pairings need to go on a list as do the second and third looking at the metal.

Excluding the Lancastrians. They weren't Plantagenets. I have a Richard that I might get rid of when I can. Neither cheap nor nice, but I do so badly want a better one.

Bid what you are prepared to spend, and if it goes over that, go for the next one. They aren't impossible to get, and I guarantee that you won't have filled every gap in the collection when you pop your clogs. One gap is as good as the next.

It seems fairly uncontentious to have the Plantagenets running in parallel with the Lancastrians. In the case of Henry II, I suppose this could be resolved if we know what he called himself. If he called himself Henry Plantagenet, then all the historians in the world can't change that.

Yes. What alternative did you have in mind?

Given all letters on the second one aren't perpendicular to the rim, it would be impossible not to have a 'variety' of one form or other. Make up the description in your own words.