Rob

Proof read before posting. A simple answer but a common failing in many publications, think Bull's revision of ESC. And if you are going to proof read, give it to someone else, because if you wrote it, there will be an assumption that you will probably read it as intended and may in fact have a slight dyslexia problem in that area.

Sorry, incorrect answer. Should read it could happen the other way round, all dependent on the metal alloys used. Whatever, the key to having a solidly held central section depends on tight tolerance machining of the two blanks and sufficient temperature divergence from those normally expected to drop the middles into the outer ring, before putting the design on. Nobody is going to align two pieces consistently to make it a plausible mint error. This was demonstrated soon after they came into circulation, with videos to prove so.

If you stick the bimetallic coins into liquid nitrogen or whatever at these typical temperatures, the centres fall out due to different rates of expansion for the two metal alloys. It would work the other way round as well, by increasing the temperature to a few hundred degrees, but would increase the risk of surface oxidation and give the game away.

I get rejected on about 3/4 of the replies I try to post. If it comes to users chipping in to help funding the forum, I'm sure most would be amenable, but then it constitutes a contract, so would require both parties to accept both funding and a prompt fix. Funnily enough, this one posted, but no attachments.

Ah, but you have uncorrected the correction by underlining the 1628-9 anchor mark. Confusingly there are 2 anchor marks in the reign, 1628-9 and 1638-9. You have to go by the style of shield used on the reverse and the bust compared to the larger portraits. The earlier anchor flukes tended to be more rounded at the bottom and less pointed at the joint with the upright, plus the earlier coins still used the bust with the ruff, replaced by lace collar or armour later. Briot was at the mint in 1638-9, hence the use of the second anchor on both his and the tower coins.

Nope, that's a Tower Mint 3a1 halfgroat with mm. anchor. No hammered Briot halfgroats, just the first milled issue S2856 and the pattern listed in Spink S2856A.

Nothing, sorry.

This is pants. I can't post a reply to the halfpenny thread saying I was underbidder on a toned mint state 1* obverse brockage over 20 years ago, despite bidding hundreds. Does anyone own up to possessing it? I'll pay very good money, as I held off buying an obverse brockage for a long time to tick that box, in the hope it would resurface. Yet it appears I can post this.

Drop the cataloguer a tenner and suggest he spends it on some cheap glasses. Preferably ones that assist with vision. Who is the errant auction house? Surely they would put the S reference if familiar with coins?

Ruding (several editions) dated from the early 19th century (1819). That had anything issued in an English king's name. One thing about the coins is that the images were taken from wood carvings of the relevant coin. Snelling (1762 on) was a series of books covering English Silver (1762); English Gold (1763); Copper Coins, including tokens (1766); Anglo-Gallic, EIC, West Indies, IOM and foreign imitations (1769); Jetons and Counters (1769). They tried to show any missing detail on the wood carvings with what they interpreted it to be on fully round pieces of wood, whereas in reality the coins weren't. So, the W/SA 6d illustrated in Snelling pt.1 purports to be mm. Tower/helmet, whereas it is in fact my example which is one of two known Tower both sides, as the missing section of the reverse mark corresponds exactly to my coin's unambiguous base of a tower, and is in fact a clear die duplicate of the fully round Lockett coin which has a clear Tower both sides. Lockett's is fairly fully struck up whereas my coin has flat sections in both legends, a slightly double struck obverse, and is not so aesthetically pleasing, but clearly a higher grade with less physical wear. Dowle and Finn was published in the 1960s and remains a standard reference for Irish Coinage. Lord Stewartby wrote a book that is quite comprehensive in its coverage of English coins 1180-1551, but his Scottish collection, which he was going to gift to various Scottish institutions suffered a loss when his 12th & 13th century collection was stolen in 2007 from his home. The Hunterian collection of his Scottish from 1488 -1625 is documented in a Spink book available on Amazon for about £60. This link https://www.britnumsoc.org/images/Annual_BNJ/2018/STEWARTBY.pdf to the BNJ obituary lists his publication at the end. He did however write a book or two on Scottish coinage. Anglo-Gallic coins are covered in both English and French language publications, including the Standard Catalogues for both countries. There are also Spink equivalents in French published by CGF, and others, particularly Duncan in association with the Elias collection which was on of the major accumulations of this material. Don't disregard individual sales of the various materials such as the Dundee Collection (1976). English information is by far the easiest to find, and if you take Peck & Freeman for coppers, you will be reasonably covered., though Montagu is also worth considering. Basically you are spoilt for choice for books, though how much just offers duplication is moot. Stewart (1887), Montagu 1888 & 1893, Brooke (1932). If you are into minor varieties, then there is little choice until the last 50 years when publications took off. Historically, people were always more generalist than focussing on a small specific area. The weakest area is gold, but that is likely a reflection of its affordability.

One of the earlier books on Scottish Coinage was Burns. Coinage of Scotland (1887). Came in 3 volumes. I sold the attached last Christmas for just under £200, but that was quite cheap. I've heard there may be another set looking for a new home, but would have to check.

Probably the A was reinforced using a V punch after the die became worn/filled. The original crossbar is still visible, so either letter would do. Alternatively the inverted V was punched in first, the error noted and then punched a second time using the right punch. Given the original design was engraved on a larger diameter face than the diameter of a penny and then reduced, the first would be more likely, as faulty engraving is more obvious prior to reduction of diameter, and in any case you would expect to see it on all dies made from that obverse.

A bit left field this, but would anyone have any use for any of the following items. As some are aware, I'm shutting down my ltd company and stopping anything to do with scientific lab work. Funds are going to a good cause - my wife's redundancy payout. All in good working condition and all prices include delivery. Pics available on request, but not posted due to potential forum issues. Thandar 12-14V 10A power supply (barely used) £60 Beckman 9020 2MHz dual trace timebase delay scope (Relatively new but can't remember when I bought it to replace a Hameg) £120 Thurlby Thandar TG220 2MHz sweep/function generator (barely used) £150

Plagiarist. 'My word' should be 'Their word'.

And in the time I took to write the above, visitors have reduced from 325 to 24. Nearly back to normal.

Phishing bots must be scraping the barrel. Today, website visitor numbers are up 4800% on the normal 50-100 per day.

There has long been a discussion about whether the William I PAXS pennies were the last issue of William I or the first issue of William II. Pax issues were usually issued at the start of the reign, so this would increase the number of W2 coins dramatically, if true. Unfortunately person(s) who deposited the Beaworth hoard didn't leave an accurate time stamp for the deposition.

IMO it is only worth considering a difference between a proof and VIP proof if the latter was presented to a known and named VIP. You basically have an above average strike with any issue and the RM will give the best ones (or any first strikes) to the people highest up the social order of eligible recipients. So Charles is guaranteed a visually perfect example, whilst you and me are not important enough for them to care. However, if there are sufficient above average examples, then you would expect to see trickle-down. Whatever is out there is by default the norm for any issue.

It's random. The only things rejected with greater frequency seem to be those with an attachment

HENRI ON CANT who only operated at Canterbury in 6b,c,d & 7a,b,c according to North. It isn't a 6b, so Henry III. Wrong style lettering for 6c & d. So class 7. Wrong portrait for 7a. Wrong beard for 7b except for 7bD, but here no flat topped A. So class 7bD or 7cA by my reckoning. If you exclude the flat topped A criteria, then 7bD would be a better fit than 7cA as it looks coarser than the Canterbury 7cA in North.

God knows

That worked, but haven't posted for a few days. If this works, it might be hanging up on the timestamp

Russia?

No idea. I wouldn't have thought so given he joined the mint 64 years ago. He was retired when he came to us and gave a talk, and that was over 7 years ago

Get Graham Dyer's opinion on them. Although not there at the time of striking (joined in 1961), there isn't a great deal he doesn't know. He is still in contact with the RM museum, and it would be right up his street. They would communicate your enquiry to him, assuming he is still in good health. (Haven't spoken for a few years when he picked up on a separate enquiry I made to them, and he was able to contact me and help update my records and therefore knowledge with a piece I wasn't aware of). I would take his word as close to gospel as anyone's.