Rob

Whilst the interest in collecting from change may fade away, the interest in rarities, especially nice ones, is likely to be subsumed into the general collector desire for quality rarities seen across all spheres. Otherwise, how do you explain the prices paid for hammered coins, none of which circulated in living memory. Their desirability stems from the history and all coins are part of that same history. Not all denominations have a large following, but one day their turn will come when relative rarities are fully appreciated. Take halfpennies. Much rarer than pennies in top grade because alongside farthings, they were the mainstay of the working class cash economy. That means a high grade example is always a good long term bet given they weren't normally set aside and collected per se. It is a common thread throughout history. Look at Roman sestertii as an example. These were the circulating base coinage of the Roman era, and again, not something the rich and famous would set aside. However, the Bolsena Hoard found in the late 19th century in northern Italy provides ample evidence that even 1700 years ago someone thought them collectable. As the hoard contained a large number of top grade sestertii spanning a few centuries, it beggars belief that they were collected from circulation. The hoard only makes sense as a collection. i.e. we are just the latest in a long history of people who collect from interest, rather than as an investment. As I wrote in my testimony to Cope part 2. We 'met' on ebay. He, as my regular nemesis, eventually asking if I was a copper collector. Silly and obvious really. When we had both bid over twice book on a lustrous 1718 halfpenny that came back in the sale as a 65RB, it was clear that we both appreciated the relative quality of the coin, and how infrequently they turn up. High grade modern pennies will also fall into that same collectable category once enough have been melted and are no longer readily available, and this might happen sooner than you think. In the past 20 years, I estimate that I have consigned somewhere near a ton of bronze to be melted of all denominations. Why? Because nobody wanted them, so you melt to free up cash. The odd rare piece will have gone through undetected, but the vast majority will have been worth scrap value. I am not alone in having done this. This will increase the relative abundance of the rarities over time. Every dog has its day, and as far as I can see, always will do so on a recurring basis.

The problem with spurious Mint emissions is that a deliberate anomalous product commands a much higher price than a random blank picked up and thrown in the bucket for use. i.e. if you could prove it was a striking specifically tied to a certain mint action, such as trying out a regular mix on a different thickness blank, or a test for a new currency contract from a foreign country, you will do better than the unintended oddball. Wrong flans occur regularly, which is not surprising given the billions of blanks cut every year. Clearly even a hundred wrong'uns would be extremely rare, but in the context of mint operations would only amount to a rounding error if checked for weight. So to consider the above point, it is definitely not common, certainly excessively rare (in the context of a currency issue) and maybe even unique. The problem lies in documentation, because errors are by definition, not struck for the records.

Interesting as it might be, it will be a random strike on a blank intended for something else. You can hazard a guess as to the intended blank, but if you send it to the Royal Mint, their records will tell what issues were being struck in that year on blanks of that weight. I have a 67 florin which was apparently struck on a blank for a Burundi 10 Francs, which I would not have guessed. i.e yours could be a blank for anywhere on the planet. Best ask the question. Value will be minimal, but does have some value above the regular issue.

One of the fundamental rules of collecting is that it is entirely down to individual taste, with no right or wrong. A person unable to see alternative views is too blinkered or has an unhealthy personal interest in the outcome. It is also a given that if someone writes down their research on paper, some people will collect said identified differences. One or more of the latter group will then see anomalies and try to rationalise them, and so the research continues. The logical conclusion therefore is that eventually, we will able to identify nearly all of the coin dies that were ever made. Not 100%, but pretty damn close. As a reference point - great. As a collecting aim - get a life if you want everything, and ask to carry any brownie points into the afterlife, because you will need all the time you have 10x over I can't explain why, but whenever I hear the passionate debates about what is right and wrong and the refusal to back down on a view, I am always reminded of the late Eric Heffer's speech in the Commons concerning the Labour left's hounding of Princess Michael of Kent regarding her father being in the SS during WW2. The basics were along the lines of: I think it important that someone from this side says this. I've never met the woman, have no desire to meet her and I am unlikely to ever do so, but in a democracy, nobody can be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers. So if those trying to make political capital from this would kindly sit down and shut up, we can get on with the business for which we were duly elected. He may have been left wing, but living in a democracy topped his political views By extrapolation, a tolerance of conflicting views ensures that life can continue peacefully, with the only likely damage in numismatics being data overload. I can live with that. The views will always be diverse, only the tolerance varies.

2cm will be a 6d. Shillings are about 25mm, plus the bust is ok for a 6d but not a 1/-. The top curls are sort of ok for the 3rd bust shilling, but still a bit too pronounced. 4th bust curls are completely different. Disregards the Edinburgh bust coins, as they are bit more ad hoc in design and clearly identifiable aside from the E or E*

On the plus side, a lot of the flan issues were ironed out during the decimal patterns by using various metal mixes and flan thicknesses. The presence of almost consistent flan lamination for certain varieties suggests an attempt to standardise minting conditions, more importantly on a series which didn't circulate. The engraving wasn't particularly divergent from the normal currency issues, but the minor fiddling with mixes and also presumably striking forces for the mixes will have helped immensely in arriving at the ideal.

I think every postal service in the world has been wanting at some point in time. We all have our horror stories to relate. 2 stand out in my case. My worst was following the purchase of the unique F689 (incorrectly slabbed as a P1983) and a P1156 (4 known) in the June 2006 Heritage sale. As you may anticipate the parcel went awol, with nothing heard of it until the following January/February when it reappeared back at Heritage. I had been refunded months before, so the first question they asked was did I still want it given it hadn't been signed for the first time round? A rather silly question given the parcel had just come from the Philippines! And no, I don't live on the outskirts of Manila. However, there was a positive outcome, because I pointed out the error in their shipping policy, which was to only have the parcel tracked in the destination country. I enquired how they could know where it was at any point, and how I could be sure the parcel had in fact been sent out at all and wasn't residing in the collection of a Heritage employee, even if I was trying to keep an open mind at all times. They got a bit miffed at the insinuation, but within a week or so had revised their international shipping policy such that the parcel was tracked at all times, whoever was the carrier. Hooray. Common sense prevailed and persists to this day, but only once they had actually read and absorbed the emails. The coin in question is seen below. It differs from the P1983 which has the oak leaves in the outer circle pointing in the opposite direction. I am not aware of any others, nor a P1983 in private hands, but if anyone knows of one, I'm all ears. A Peck miss given it was illustrated in the Nobleman sale (1922) lot 399. The second involved a parcel of Northumbrian stycas shipped to an address in Paris 10 or 12 years ago. Fully tracked, but nowhere to be seen - until it resurfaced in Tahiti. We know the Vikings got around a bit, but that would have required a major rewriting of Viking history books had the parcel been lost in the South Pacific.

Best way is to avoid ebay. Don't feed the beast, as they aren't open minded. By their own admission they don't have enough experts to remove claimed fakes, so have to rely on alternative opinions. Given Barton's metal is a gold leaf bound to a copper substrate, it is virtually impossible to get sufficient metal flow of the gold when cutting the blank from the sheet to completely cover the copper edge as seen above on my halfcrown. The smaller the denomination, the easier it will become due to thickness, but punching equipment isn't renowned for producing perfect blanks, and not required, given the coin with be struck with a collar to stop the metal flowing sideways. It isn't impossible to get some gold on the edge, but perfectly covered? Not in my opinion, though others may choose to differ.

Possibly eastern European or a little further east. It should be straightforward though with the rider's hat, which is probably the best indicator of the area being distinctive in style. Say Persia or Turkey. Sorry, it's too hot and can't be ar**d at the moment, but guarantee someone will be into hat detail, given it must be a nerdy topic.

I concur, especially if you were dealing with a mint state piece, which in this state looking at the rims clearly isn't. However, it could be that it was being electropolished to remove crud and toning marks - in which case, a beautification project. As one of ebay's 'must have errors', the condition is probably irrelevant to a great extent. Road kill status is likely to be the biggest impediment to value, when the knocks are impossible to disregard.

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.