Rob

To expand, here's another. From my notes. 1826 inverted die pennies with plain saltire (P1422 var) can be identified by a rim lump in front of the truncation tip by the stop on the obv and similar lumps by AR: and after DEF: on the reverse. My example is 18.77g. They are all forgeries as they all appear to have identical “circulation” marks on the neck. The die axis is about 160 degrees and not 180.

Do the marks on it match the attached? Die axis isn't accurately inverted.

It's a function of the buoyancy of auction sales in the current climate. Everybody and their dog are jumping on the auction bandwagon because people are paying silly money for average material, so it's a one way ticket to riches for the auction houses. You routinely see lots selling for multiples of similar items in dealers' trays. The volume of material means that auctions would take forever if lotted singly. This volume coupled with indiscriminate buying is also contributing to the sloppy cataloguing IMO.

Where is all this written on the actual site rather than a third party discussion board? Ebay don't provide a search bar in Help to improve obfuscation. Nowhere can I see new rules, just the existing ones.

If in doubt, leave it out. Simples. They've stopped sending out catalogues ('to do their bit for the environment'). In response, I for my part am also doing my bit for the environment by not spending a day going through each lot one at a time (processing power takes a lot of resources too). Now I just look at the thumbnails and see if the coin is potentially of interest. I know I missed plenty in the last sale, but I'm afraid there are only 24 hours in a day (still, despite technological advances). As for Thursday's sale, quite a few lots were self eliminating due to not knowing what I was bidding on. Sloppy cataloguing in recent times means trust nothing written unless you can verify it yourself, with various examples of incorrect descriptions and provenances that simply aren't true. All they had to do was consult the catalogues in question, look at the images and save writing bs. They are not alone.

Henry VI Pinecone-Mascle halfpenny of Calais. 1431-2

Further to the recent discussion regarding coin tickets and their attribution, the idea of having a stand-alone thread was mooted. Ideally this will be a list of attributed tickets alphabetically arranged by name with a different post for each person. It would also be useful if examples of handwriting attributed to distinguished past collectors could be added as this may assist in the future when confronted with an unknown ticket. There is a useful article in the 2001 BNJ entitled 'Coin Tickets in the British Hammered Series' by Robin Eaglen, but nothing directed towards milled coinage. A link to the BNJ article is http://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%20BNJ/pdfs/2001_BNJ_71_13.pdf It would help if the thread was a reference tool rather than a discussion board as this would keep the list clean and thus assist when searching. It would also help if admin were to contribute suggestions of what is and what is not possible when it comes to presenting the information in a workable form. I'm hoping (possibly unrealistically) that the ability of Admin to shunt files around can be extended to arranging the entries, or if not, at least an index at the head of the thread with the post number/name to aid searching. The ability to append information to an existing post would also be good.

If it is ex Montagu III (1896) then it is lot 640, which was a lot of 2 shillings, with one uniface (possibly rubbed down, though could be genuinely uniface). Sold for £4/10/- but I don't have the buyer. The only other possible ex Montagu is part 5 lot 422, described as 1645 usual type (no final E?), another on a large flan and a third dated 1646 and gilt. Described as well preserved and cost £1/15/-. Bought by Weight, the dealer. The price of 42/- is close to half the cost of lot 640, so suggests the person who bought it at the sale. Thinking a bit laterally, RCCB's sale in 1921 had a lot of 4 Newarks including 1645 NEWARKE shilling struck on a large flan showing the original granulated marks on the silver, another with plain reverse (cf. Montagu III lot 640) and a pair of 9ds. None illustrated and no provenances given, but strangely coincidental that he should have a plain reverse. Looking in Eaglen, the N is very similar to those in CB16-3 and C17-1, both in RCCB's hand. It's a bit tenuous, but sufficient to pursue.

That makes life a bit clearer, as the above didn't appear when clicking the links in their initial email, but having sold something, it's at the top of the order page. First point we are still working on a wing and a prayer, as discussed. Second I've no idea what that is, but is why we have a collection only bulky item still in the orders list as awaiting dispatch two months after it was collected, with feedback left by them. Neither ebay nor buyer offered a 6 digit or QR code to 'allow' the item to be marked as collected, nor can feedback be left. Third item could be problematic for some given the only real authority on authenticity would be the OEM. Are they really going to refer thousands of pairs of shoes or handbags to the likes of Gucci? Methinks not. Fourth item I already operate my own personal buyer protection by not buying items shipped this way so as to eliminate un-necessary costs, and similarly do not offer it so that my buyers don't get shafted either. For those that do use it, presumably it will be the best option, but would still be subject to the caveat of point 1. Fifth item, which will cover the majority of crap on ebay, it's inconvenient, but bearable. It will also cover a lot of items in the first category. For international sales, it would be a real pain in the ass for signed for shipments as delivery time can be weeks. Some may be forever considered stuck in the local PO as per Stuart, and a buyer with a nervous/bloody minded disposition could easily claim a refund that couldn't be disputed. Given ebay can already recover funds from sellers for items not received/as described etc, the only advantage is to ebay themselves in the form of holding say 1 week's turnover in their bank, with sellers similarly disadvantaged. The dressing up of this change as enhanced Buyer Protection is complete crap, as they enjoy no further protection to that already existing. All things considered, it should restore ebay's lost income from FVFs given 4% plus 75p is mostly 75p for untracked items.

If you only get paid in full once the item is delivered, and as there is no compulsion for the recipient to say it has arrived, then you aren't going to get paid for many small value items that only need a second class stamp where it isn't worth getting tracking. Would ebay even consider feedback as proof the item was delivered? Adding a couple quid to cover tracking on something worth a fiver or less isn't likely to generate many (any?) sales. This looks like it's how ebay are going to substitute the lost income they gave up by abolishing FVFs. Alternatively, you can just add on 4% plus 75p to the price of every listing to cover lack of delivery confirmation for items of sufficient value to need tracking. I can feel a large 'I can't be arsed' reaction coming on. Just keep things simple and life works ok.

In the 1951 Abbott sale it was mostly ancients with some British gold and a handful of silver. The coins were noted on the catalogue as being consigned by a family member, but I don't know the relationship. He was Australian, so it's more likely that his English silver was the Abbott 'Australian' collection acquired by Spink in 1951 according to the appendix in Manville and Robertson. But that raises the issue of Lockett dying in 1950, which is obviously earlier than 51. Doing a bit of digging, it appears that he was born in 1867 and died in Sydney on 7/11/1942, so it appears that Lockett was offered coins from the collection after his death and prior to the sale to Spink in 1951. FWIW, the coin in question was the last coin in lot 163 (6) of Clonterbrook and one of 17 in Lockett II lot 2023, but no previous ownerships noted of any in the lot. That isn't very helpful I'm afraid.

What coins are you looking for? Abbott was probably George Abbott, Glens 10/10/1951 as a Mrs A M Abbott had just a single lot in Sotheby's sale 23/7/1945. All the other Abbotts are in the 19th century. Clonterbrook was the Lockett family trust, with the sale being 7/6/1974.

I presume the irony was lost. Pot calling the kettle black

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.

It could be either, depending on whether they inserted the wrong letter initially, or reinforced just a small section of a blocked letter using a punch big enough to cover the defective area. You also have to consider the ability to sink a correction deep enough on the die if it had been hardened previously and the degree to which it had been softened in order to sink the new punch. The truth is, we don't know the circumstances and can only speculate. There is however, strong circumstantial evidence on occasion to suggest insufficient depth of strike for the correction or change of date. The above may well be a case of this, but equally could be a repair to the upright of the B, as in this instance the use of E, F, I or L would all broadly follow the shape of the B.

He certainly bought some lots in the sale, from 5 guineas down to Elizabeth fractional silver in part 3 for example, but don't know who for assuming they were commission bids. The diversity of lots won suggests they were for various people. Unfortunately my copy of Montagu 3 isn't fully named, so don't know the total lots bought. He bought loads in part 5.

Thanks Paul. Chingford communicated the same.

Any ideas what it is? It can't be rare as it's the second one I've had. About 16mm diameter. Ta.

Ah. Got it. Haven't done any provenance work on them as I wasn't looking for one.

Cancel that. Just realised it wasn't ex CA. Give us a clue

The 1837 was Colin Adams' coin. It was the only penny Geoff bought in that sale.

It wasn't bought in hope as it's part of a large collection I bought recently, just that the toning is the right shape and size for a filled and repurposed die. On the assumption that number 1 must have existed at some time, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the die was filled and used for currency pieces. The only reason I posted is because there is a slight disturbance at that point. When dies are filled, the surface is never completely flat, hence an open mind is useful. Unfortunately I no longer have ready access to an electron microscope.

Amongst other thing, I bought this in the recent Baldwin's token sale - 1789 St. Paul's Thanksgiving Service commemorative halfpenny. D&H lists this in copper and brass, though this piece was clearly gilt before striking, as metal flow has partially exposed the underlying copper in the shadow of the lettering. Anyone have, or know of, a brass example to compare? I've still got the copper piece listed if another example was needed for comparison. Ta.

Tantalising. Was it or wasn't it? There's a disturbance in the field in the correct position.

Harvey Schulman envelope. A Manchester dealer in the latter half of the 20th century.