Rob

For me it would depend on whether the brightness indicated by the one on the left is a result of polishing to within an inch of it life. I can live with faults if the coin is sufficiently rare, but it isn't. Personally, I would bin (sell) both and put the proceeds towards something better, which would be easy given the number extant. The detail visible has been covered by the previous posts.

Living proof that the education system is broken. I guess that makes Charlie's coins post-medieval, or maybe it is something to do with the date, given we are in the AH1400s. Too much detail to be hammered, but has certainly been through the mill. Unless it was one of Elon's ice-picks to blame for the obverse dent. I am not from Manchester.

Lobel or Noble? Trying to work out if it is a misprunt. Jim Noble in Oz used to send out lists too, hence the request for clarification. Good luck finding someone who keeps Coincraft's price lists. most aren't even read before the bin calls. I usually peruse them before binning, but only keep them if there is something worthy of recording. And amusing as it may seem, 1967 pennies at a fiver a pop, or whatever, is not a good reason.

Yup, madness. I bought the Marshall coin in 2004 and I am perfectly happy with it - £87 delivered. I did have a go at the Lockett piece that was sold recently, but that made silly money,, and I like mine for the quirky shape and outrageously large distinctive tickets that came with the Marshall coins (44m dia).

Those are all ones I have sold in the past. I only have 2 hammered (1st issue and portrait) and 1 milled (Briot) in the collection, nothing spectacular, just presentable examples. The first issue is always relatively easy to acquire in reasonable grades, but portraits are a problem. Trust me, for all its shortcomings, the last issue was an upgrade. Briot not included as they are invariably ok and it was too big to add to the post. It is probably more difficult to find a dog than a presentable example of the milled coinage.

Tower Mint Charles I, 4th bust, Group D 3a1 penny, mm. pellet/2 pellets (assuming no extra pellets off flan), inner circle obverse only, garnished oval shield with no CR, standard legends both sides CAROLVS D G M B F ET H REX / IVSTITIA THRONVM FIRMAT with single pellet stops both sides. S2846. The bust is not directly comparable with the larger denominations, but broadly follows a style which can be dated 1632-1635, with a preference for the last couple years. It is a single arch crown, but the Gp. E bust typically has a double arched crown and is in any case a very cosmopolitan mix of styles given the introduction of the 'Aberystwyth' bust from 1638. Pennies were struck with pellet(s) as initial marks for most of the reign from 1630 onwards, meaning there is much dating conjecture. Stylistic comparisons seem to give the best results. I will do a bit of digging through Dave Greenhalgh's reference collection when I have time and see if I can find a die match. Chas. 1 pennies are a bit of a b**ger to find in high grade, with yours being a typical example. Lots of mucky detail, but not much really clear. Your best bet for a good penny of the reign is the last bust which crops up more frequently in thoroughly acceptable condition. Typical examples shown of a few busts.

I'm afraid I will have to agree with the vendor here. It is problem free - because the coin is too flat to see them.

Retrospectively, only when you win. At the time it is useful to have a spare set of underwear to hand if a coin in demand has to be bought. Not so thrilling trying to explain that one.

Not only the pennies were good. It was an all-round interesting sale given things like the unique 1847 6d and the Henry VI (restored) farthing. I picked up a couple things, so in a good mood today.

Oh dear.

The only example I have seen in hand which is completely unambiguous was the Adams coin. You will see that the underlying 3 determines the profile of the last digit with the 3 clearly present, but also clearly overpunched with a 5 given the vertical section to the left on the upper part of the digit. I have seen various others which purported to be over 3, but none with the same profile and arguably contentious. The 1845 over ? that I had stolen at the Midland last year looked to be to be more likely over a different font 5 than a 4 or a 3, but 4 would be a good call if not a 5. Not to say that the coins with a taller 5 are not over 3, but definitely a case of caveat emptor IMO. There are many coins listed as such, but most are reliant on the vendor's description. There is one coin listed on ebay that I thought unusual which is claimed to be 5/3, but it was the irregularity of the date which caught my eye. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335246363284

Supply and demand. Everything that is traded is subject to these three words. That is why seemingly rare types go for peanuts, yet a common coin will frequently sell for more if in unusually good grade for the type. Also, special strikings have a smaller following with many collectors happy with just an example. Personally, I wouldn't lose too much sleep if intending to get all or most denominations as all prices tend to hold within a reasonably narrow band over time. Collectors are in the majority, sheep. There is also a slight bias for larger coins over smaller ones, and similarly for those values most frequently found in change.

Given there are 240 guests on atm, I suspect a few more gremlins. A few will be genuine, most won't be.

Notifications are still going for a hike. Stalingrad perhaps?

Looks like a site issue. I usually wait for messages and notifications before hitting the buttons, but it appears both are going for a long bike ride.

Clearly not fully au fait when it comes to numismatic knowledge. Why point out a heart shaped pinprick hole, probably due to a bubble in the flan or a rust spot on the die, when there's a bleedin' obvious die flaw covering the first W on the truncation (or is it a naval cannon mint mark?). I think we should be told. Maybe somebody would like to suggest the mint mark to her and sit back to see what transpires.

That's the man. Splash out on literature. Spend 3 beers worth on a book instead of 1. As an aside and not referencing you as a subject, it never ceases to amaze me how many people consider spending as much as a lunchtime beer with a snack on literature is viewed as excessive and wasted money, when what they spend on coins has several zeros added to the same amount. It seems weird to me that people frequently won't buy the required tools to give them the knowledge required to increase their collection value, which is what they are trying to achieve. Bizarre. Not everything is on the internet, and that which is, is becoming increasingly untrustworthy. Everybody needs to tread more carefully than they used to with AI. A potentially useful tool that you can be guarantee to be abused.

Plenty of silver types, of which I am looking for a specific one. Without trying to state the obvious, it has cast copy 'written' all over it in the form of casting pits. Even if it was genuine, desirable it ain't.

Could be double struck with another coin trapped in the dies, but equally could be another coin in a different metal in close contact with it in wet, acidic conditions leading to electrolysis (2 different metals in near contact under those conditions will generate a potential difference. Think in terms of a battery. Given the level of corrosion seen, either is possible.

It is always worth ignoring die damage on a generally heavily circulated denomination in scarce condition. A few years ago I had an A/R in CAR farthing with weak central areas that I wanted a fair, but full price for on the grounds that I had only traced mine and the Colin Cooke example. Someone I know locally refused to pay so much in the hope one would turn up. Happy to report he's still waiting.........

Maybe p'ing in the wind as an idea, but given the shape of the three, is it a 3 with a damaged top half, then subsequently repaired with something like a Maundy 7 punch for example? Or any other smaller denomination for that matter? The reinforcing of existing legends is well documented, so to have such an unconventionally shaped 3 is fairly illogical, given the mint officials' mentality at the time. just trying to think outside the box given the relatively conventional lower loop.

Hmm. Interesting. Lloyd Bennett once showed me something that looked genuine, but had not previously been recorded. The correct weight and size for a Confederate 2d, if it existed. Can't find the picture atm, but must have it somewhere.

The name Ilya might be a known person on the other side of the pond, whose moniker was highqualitylowprice or something like that. That was an eastern European showman (Romanian?) who was a world renowned expert in numismatics apparently. Numismatic bullshittery maybe, but nowt else. The sort of guy who would offer a 1967 penny for a thousand dollars, but agree to sell it to you for a 99% discount - FYI, still a rip off. Someone from that side will know who I mean and perhaps post a link to a sale of his?

The reverse die fields tend to be more convex than the obverses are concave on the earlier fields. Whatever, they aren't planar, so reverses tend to be better. Think C2 crowns as well.