Nick

I don't know how I've managed to get 'Price: highest first' by default in Chrome, but I'm quite glad that I have. That and 'newly listed' are the options I use most. BTW Stuart your PM box is full.

They do it to try and make sure that their listing appears first in the list because the default sort criterion is price. Are you sure? If I don't set anything, the default they select is "Soonest ending" Yes. If I type eg "1965 sixpence" into the "Search..." field at the top of the "My eBay" page - it returns a list of items sorted by "Price:highest first" How odd, I always get 'Best Match'! Just tried the same in different browsers: in Firefox I get Best Match; in Chrome I get Price:highest first. Weird.

They do it to try and make sure that their listing appears first in the list because the default sort criterion is price. Are you sure? If I don't set anything, the default they select is "Soonest ending" Yes. If I type eg "1965 sixpence" into the "Search..." field at the top of the "My eBay" page - it returns a list of items sorted by "Price:highest first"

My examination of the die axis variation for Victorian young-head shillings is complete. I utilised a square piece of thick card with a shilling-sized hole that allows the reverse to be aligned with a mark on the card and then flipped over and the obverse photographed, whilst maintaining the reverse in the correct alignment. I arbitrarily chose as a zero point an obverse that looked to have the portrait in the most normally upright position, then measured each of the angular differences from this zero point. The results from 65 YH shillings show a spread of 33 degrees, from 27 degrees clockwise to 6 degrees anti-clockwise. The results are normally distributed about the mean (8 degrees clockwise). Apologies for posting a topic that may only be of interest to Rob and maybe he was just being polite.

They do it to try and make sure that their listing appears first in the list because the default sort criterion is price.

Nope. It's the earlier effigy.

I was the lucky winner at £1,950!! Free postage too!!! Particularly delighted as I can't find this coin in any of my reference manuals! I think it's Davies 470 which is a plain bodice, 1846 plain edge proof. The value given by Davies for FDC is £6750 and that's 1982 prices.

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each. Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely? I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but there is a weighty tome explaining the entire working of the Royal Mint (c. 1870) in excruciating detail (and I really do mean that) which may contain some useful information. If not, it's a handy cure for insomnia. The publication is "The Royal Mint by George Frederick Ansell" and you can download a PDF free from Google books. The pages relating to matrices, punches and dies are 63-67.

Your information sounds similar to what I have found whilst scouring the web, except that my understanding is that 'master die' is another name for a matrix not a hub/punch, but I may be wrong. There is much conflicting terminology out there. I spent the best part of an hour scouring the net, but only finding modern methods (mostly current US), involving computer programming, which only served to confuse matters further...definitely lots of conflicting info! When you've pulled the whole thing together, Colin, I'd very much benefit from and pleaure in the read, because I can't get my head around it at all! Someone give me a later medieval broken punch and an over-mark anytime! Found a reference to modern methods, but is at least relevant to UK coin production and I suspect the basics won't have changed that much. Making dies.

I don't know why they've recently added that URL tag nonsense. The easiest way to add a PhotoBucket picture now is to copy the 'direct link' and use the 'Insert Image' icon. Ah, right, thanks for that, will do that in future! There's got to be something in it for them, so wrong that it overrides your privacy settings. It doesn't! (See my post above). There is no way to 'share' a picture without making it non-private - but it won't interfere with your Photobucket privacy except for those you've given permission to view an image via another forum. Sorry, didn't catch your above post! The main difference between my usual posting of pictures, and today's aborted efforts (using the same process), were that, ordinarily, you couldn't click on the image and be redirected to the contents of my private album on photobucket. Today I posted images which contained a URL allowing just that. So, I basically had to manually remove the URL extension to arrive at the images as you now see them, WITHOUT the capacity to click on them and view my private album on photobucket! I confess to knowing very little about the whole thing, but enough to know I didn't want the whole world wading through my photographing trials and tribulations on photobucket! Incidentally, I wonder why Davies opted to define reverse A & B with the indicators he did (letter bases), when Nick's tooth ID separates even the most worn examples in an instant? There are a number of examples similar to this where the most obvious discriminator has been overlooked in favour of a less clear feature or pointing.

Your information sounds similar to what I have found whilst scouring the web, except that my understanding is that 'master die' is another name for a matrix not a hub/punch, but I may be wrong. There is much conflicting terminology out there.

I don't know why they've recently added that URL tag nonsense. The easiest way to add a PhotoBucket picture now is to copy the 'direct link' and use the 'Insert Image' icon.

Reverse B. Reverse A has much longer border teeth.

Not really a recessed ear at all really - its the area around the ear that's recessed - the normal bust is convex, whereas the resessed ear type has a definite concavity - best seen if you view the coins at an angle Once you know the difference, you can spot them a mile off, even on badly worn examples Thanks David. So, is it a design difference or a consequential difference? ie a change in strike pressure might affect metal flow characteristics and thus the obverse may appear less convex and the reverse becomes better struck.

I do hope that's the case - I wouldn't have any degree of confidence in diagnosing one without the tooth as an indicator. I have studied Accumulator's photos for recessed and non-recessed and I can't see any part of the ear that looks any more recessed than on the other. What is one supposed to be looking for?

Any update on this, Bill?

Can you explain the thinking behind this statement? How can you have design differences produced from the same matrix?

You're quite right, Gary: 1915 top, 1916 below.... So how did one die make so many coins? You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices. This is what we're trying to determine. For me personally, I'm saying they're likely not the same dies at all, but rather an error (or deliberate marking) further back in the production proccess, at matrix level, though I don't fully understand the matrix story myself. If the two coins are different dies, then that would rule out a blocked die, except by an amazing coincidence, suggesting damaged matrix (or original cast, whatever that's called - anyone got any decent educational links for the matrix proccess?), whether deliberate or not? I'm a bit hazy on the physics, but I seem to remember that the original design is a massive piece of sculpture that gets reduced in a complex piece of engineering that scales down the original EXACTLY. From there, I assume that a master matrix is produced and is used to create the punches automatically. So I would hazard a guess that the tooth - if it was broken deliberately - was possibly done on the matrix which would explain the slightly haphazrd success with the operation. Is the matrix not the opposite of a coin (like a die)? If so, you'd have to add something to it, rather than remove something to effect the missing point of a tooth.

I don't think they ARE the same die, which might explain it...the spacings and shapes of the lettering are all very different. I did think the idea of the punch itself being altered (or broken) was possible, if there was indeed a ring of beads used as a punch? I think that the terminology that I used earlier ie punch is misleading. I should have said hub, because punch implies that it is only part of the design or legend. In post Victorian production, the matrix, hub and dies all contain an entire coin either incuse or in relief. Therefore if the shapes and spacings of the letters are different then the matrix and hub that were used to produce the dies must also be different.

So, is it the same die? Or maybe they really were playing with the beads (or was it a matrix issue, of which I don't fully understand that proccess), which still does surprise me, as it would be more of a challenge to block a die, than engrave it? If I understand the process correctly, the matrix is the master die and is used to create the punches which are in turn used to create the die(s). Therefore any damage to the matrix or punches will perpetuate through to the dies, so it may be possible for many dies to exhibit the same issues. For instance, the sixpence issue from 1868 through to early 1873 all show the same flaw in the uppermost olive leaf at 10 o'clock on the reverse. So, that kind of rules out a matrix issue, as a matrix error would unlikely be progressive? But it could easily be a punch issue. If a piece of one of the teeth breaks off, it's because there is a weakness. If you continue making dies with a weakened punch then it is easily possible that more and more of that tooth will break off.

So, is it the same die? Or maybe they really were playing with the beads (or was it a matrix issue, of which I don't fully understand that proccess), which still does surprise me, as it would be more of a challenge to block a die, than engrave it? If I understand the process correctly, the matrix is the master die and is used to create the punches which are in turn used to create the die(s). Therefore any damage to the matrix or punches will perpetuate through to the dies, so it may be possible for many dies to exhibit the same issues. For instance, the sixpence issue from 1868 through to early 1873 all show the same flaw in the uppermost olive leaf at 10 o'clock on the reverse.

I've tried one and it wasn't particularly successful. For the majority of the coin it was good, but for certain points on the coin where the reflected surface pointed straight back into the camera it caused flaring which reduces the contrast and knackers the white balance in that area. They are great for close-up work, but not on highly reflective subjects.

A great find John! How many 1937 sets did you have to search to find that one? Any clues about what to look for? Pictures when it arrives, please, though I know proofs are notoriously difficult to photograph. When I bought a 1937 proof set to obtain the florin with the type B reverse, that proof set also contained a 2+B proof penny. It's not easy to spot, so you'd need a decent photo to identify one in a catalogue or online. Groom gives a few ways to identify one: the first is P of IMP slightly right of border tooth rather than directly to a tooth for obv 1. Here's mine:

It's difficult to say, but I suspect there are quite a few. I know that there always seems to be a fair bit of competition on eBay for varieties, but you can rarely know what is the motivation behind other people's bids - unless you get outbid by Declan, Gary D or chocophilebcp (which I have many times). I use Davies as my usual reference (with Groom for clarification where Davies is unclear), but I can't get excited about larger/smaller reverse or chamfered rim varieties.

If you are looking for wear, you should look everywhere. Wear is general, although the highest points will show wear first. On the EII portrait I always look for flattening on the edges of the laurel leaves and the berries. I also look for good definition on the strands of hair. For the reverse, I look for any flattening on the edges of the leaves and the rose petals. For GVI coins, I usually concentrate on the obverse. If the rim of the ear is intact, with good definition in the hair and no flattening of the cheekbone, then it's usually a decent piece (dependent on edge knocks, rim nicks and bagmarks). Another issue that is common with GVI coins is a 'cloudiness' that is visible on the obverse (as in your example coin). I tend to try and avoid coins exhibiting this.