Rob

If the diameter is correct, there is little alternative in the way of explanation. I think I have just found another box worthy of ticking. Boxes are getting harder to tick as time moves on.

Calm down everyone, nobody is accusing anyone of dishonesty or lying, or any any other form of undesirable attribute. It is a friendly forum, though I do seem to offend occasionally - not intentionally, but we are who we are and I might be a bit set in my ways to change. As Coinery wrote, it was intended as tongue in cheek, as a perusal of my similar previous posts with a similar emoticon would lead you to infer. All questions are valid, but with multiple questions on the doubling of characters already asked on this forum and replied to ad nauseum, I assumed that with over 160 posts, some of a similar nature, you had already explored that search option and done some background reading. A quick search of "doubled OR repunched characters" brings up over 600 posts, so lots of wheels have been reinvented over time. Apologies for any offence caused - it wasn't intentional. I am genuinely harmless, but rushed off my feet of late due to a fortnight in hospital with sepsis causing HMRC filing grief. And on another apologetic note. I give notice of apologies to Coinery for acquiring the Anchor over Key marked Elizabeth I halfpenny in the recent Noonans sale with the penny anchor punch. I think it might be big enough to fit a 2d, but haven't had time to explore yet. It also has lots of underlying detail from the previous state of the portcullis punch employed, so could be more useful than normal. I will send pics when I have time and probably drop in during the next few weeks if you are around as I have just had a change of tenant in Yeovil, so have to do some repairs. I assume it was on your list of things to acquire.

Only if it was struck on a rectangular blank, like yours.

Better relief due to a plundered year specimen set? Is the strike of better quality or is that die a proof die recycled for the next stage down in quality? Does the bottom one look like it is from a worn die on its last legs? Is the relief similar on both sides? etc. All valid questions required to make decision. I won't say taken from a proof set because the rims aren't right, but that doesn't preclude the use use of a worn proof die or collar without the other bit. With less than 30K specimen and 14246 proofs struck across 3 sets, the dies should have plenty of life left in them.

I find it difficult to comprehend that it needs to be confirmed as 'prooflike' by a TPG given the lack of official designation or description. How do they cope with coins that are proofs but not all shite and briny (e.g. matte), and those superior currency strikes that look exactly the same, or close to? It only takes the use of a wrong die or collar to produce something akin to the real thing. This is as bad as Bull assigning prooflike to a halfcrown and calling it a variety, which it ain't.

I have to say I was very happy with the result of the earliest sale in LC. Found in a lot of pennies covered in soil bought locally. I paid £10 including flower pot on the grounds I wasn't going to clean all of them up for him just to find bugger all. I overpaid for the soil though. :)

Nobody should worry about the authenticity of most coins. The contemporary copies are much rarer than the genuine articles and would sell for a premium usually. Given the number of genuinely uncirculated coins out there, copies are likely a very tiny fraction of the total output for currency issues, so the numbers don't cause me or many others sleepless nights. Multiple examples are soon flagged up in any case. You could even say that all coins are bought because it appeals to the buyer, so if a copy looks better than the real deal, there is nothing fundamentally wrong in paying the same price as for a genuine coin. Authenticity concerns about general circulating currency seem to be mainly an American issue, presumably driven by the TPGs who use it as a selling point for their services. A complete triumph of marketing over relevance. If it doesn't cost much to acquire, you won't lose much if it's iffy. If you are betting the house on something's authenticity, then doing due diligence is a prerequisite for being a buyer in the first place, unless you are a gullible idiot with more money than sense. The pertinent information can be sourced by any buyer - if they can be arsed. Many issues have by now suffered a near total loss of the original mintage for a given year, so the occurrence of new die numbers for a particular year shouldn't come as a surprise. Think along the lines of 1838 sovereigns, where 100K out of a mintage of just over 2 million were melted from the Smithsonian bequest to name just one event. The number of shipwrecks in the 19th century one would assume offered a similar attritional rate to many years' populations given the gold was used for international business settlements. I only have one person actively seeking new die numbers and he is in the Crewe Society, but that doesn't include for each date and is really only a fun side project (AS COLLECTING SHOULD BE). Another used to go to Wakefield before we moved to Huddersfield, but I think he has stopped and sold up.

Does it exist. I'm on the side of a definite maybe. To explain my reasoning, if they can resurrect an 1841 halfpenny die to continue producing 1839 proof sets in the 1880s by changing the date, then I see no reason to not find an 1853 penny die hidden away somewhere that they decided to reuse after 5 years. Both types are ludicrously common and liable to have things coming out the woodwork many years later. After all, it is the cleanest modification you could use to change the date. 8/3 or even 3/inverted 3 with the correct font size/profile in the right position and at the perfect force applied level could also conceivably work, and as Jerry suggests, it could just be a case of wrong punch, wrong time. When all options are exhausted, even the impossible/irrational/unlikely etc. is possible. I guess the answer lies in contemporary evidence. But that needs a ouija board (and someone who believes in the alleged comminucations etc)

I expect so.. I don't have the individual die nos to hand, but all three die pairs have higher die numbers than 91.

earlier profile 72

earlier profile 71

earlier profile 70

and a 74 for comparison

It is probably confusing for the uninitiated, but the genuine 1775s have what looks like coarser hair strands than the 70-74 coins. End assumption? Looks different, so must be wrong. To clarify - the late coins have a virtually straight line from forehead to tip of nose, but the earlier ones have a distinct kink in the road.

No idea. I have a few bisected 8s in the pile here, but all low grade, so I usually put them in the trays at a tenner or thereabouts and hope someone buys them. Ultimately, they aren't that collectable except to the die nerds, which pennies of all ages seem to attract. It isn't obvious without a glass and specialists obviously want a mint sate example. Needless to say, if anyone pays silly money for an obscure variety at auction, then dealers will naturally follow suit. The attached sold for the princely sum of £8

The obverse is a bit messy in the legend, so it appears to be an overmark - Bell over E rather than a 5th issue marked die recycled. This due to double striking looking at the SINE part of the reading

Frankly, I couldn't give a damn. Value of a blocked die 5p to me? £1 or £2 if I had gone to the effort of putting it in a 2x2 and writing a label.

It may well have been Steve Lockett's. He collected sixpences and would likely have hoovered up the surplus from the frequent offerings of mint rolls that occur. I know Alex Anderson had a roll of 1905s. Beautiful coins, every single one and all came back with big numbers after slabbing.

Which pretty much makes the irrefutable case for a proper paper library. Worst case is the house burns down, but then, even so, most of the catalogues would be legible, if somewhat smelly. As it's the 25th anniversary of another paraphrase/quote by an earlier incoherent Republican US president than the present incumbent, 'Never misunderestimate the frequency with which the improbable happens'. Sorry Dubya. They also hold their value if stored in dry conditions, so the frequently heard complaint that £5 on a book is a waste of money is total bollocks. My bound volume of Montagu pts.1 to 3 cost £175 twenty years ago. That would go for closer to £1750 than 175 at auction. Think back to a St. James's sale a few years ago when 3 years of Seaby's WW2 bulletins bound in one sold for thousands. Can't remember the years specifically, but I bought the same date run from a well known deceased collector living in Wakefield and couldn't shift them for 12 months because I was unreasonably asking £15/year (Paid £10/yr). Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately in the right setting - Oscar was right. People know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

The problem with all lower grades is that it is subject to the degree of dishing to the flan. The dies always seem to have a more dished reverse (probably by design to see the date (as opposed to the monarch which is easily discernible from the profile. The less dishing, the more even the wear. Whatever, Fine for me too on the obverse, the reverse inevitably better - say good Fine or nVF.

It will probably be a reworked 1717 reverse die. I wrote about mine on p.806 of the acquisition thread and another point where we had quite a lengthy discussion involving brg658 about this. More than one die may be involved, but it looks conclusive on the two coins mentioned in that discussion. There are at least a few die pairs, but haven't had time to pursue the maximum number I can identify.

Probably like that because they are maundy and therefore rarely used for payment, even though legal tender at the time. If that 1840 was a regular groat, you would feel far more comfortable with it.

If it is as you say, the obvious candidate would be Gilpatrick at Pembroke, the mint being written, PAN or PAIN. Have you tried searching the EMC database at the Fitzwilliam? If it was found by a detectorist it should be recorded with the PAS and the details will be uploaded to the corpus. An auction would not necessarily be recorded there unless found under the treasure rules. Where did you get it?

You can also get this year's Standard Catalogue of British Coins, otherwise known as Coins of England (COE) 2026, the title now owned by Sovereign Rarities, but before that Spink and before that Seaby's to avoid confusion down the line. All or any could could be used depending on the age of the person writing. It comes out every year in 2 parts and you need the decimal section (the cheaper one) which is £25(?) this year. The bigger volume covers British Celtic coins through to 1970 when we changed from imperial to metric money on 15th February 1971 (the other D-Day). Less informative volumes and therefore cheaper year books can be bought from Chris (Collectors Coins) here, or Token Publishing (Coin Yearbook), or Coin Market Values. None agree on prices, but given no two coins are the same, it is no surprise,

Again, I can only recommend Galata's excellent tome on the pennies of the Edwards. Real research has been done there. All Paul and Bente's writing is of the highest quality by a pair who know their stuff, and as references will struggle to be equalled. Go for it. Splash the cash. You won't regret it. Incidentally, I also have a set of North, vols. 1 & 2, both new. £40 per volume or £70 the pair pus postage. PM me if interested. Thanks.