Hussulo

All 1658/7 Cromwell crowns show this flaw at some stage of development so this shouldn't be a worry. The flaw on this coin is at a relatively early stage. If you look in Spink 2007 it shows the flaw in a later stage. I'd worry about the MS64 grade though. It looks as if there is obverse wear at the eyebrow, to the hair in front of the ear and lower down. The laurel leaf edges look a bit devoid of toning as well which would indicate light wear. The reverse has light wear to the lion and at the top right of the shield. There is also a possible rim mark at B& in the obverse legend. I'd give it good EF at best (which in US grading company parlance means MS62-64 bearing in mind that MS60 is typically no better than EF). In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong. It seems NGC have graded some Cromwell half crowns as business strike ie MS**. Link to NGC census Rob I'm sure I have read somewhere that there is on going debate into whether or not the Cromwell coins are patterns or just rare. I remember reading that a contemporary account of the day said that there where quite a few Cromwell coins circulating but that they were quite worn. Is it possible that these coins were at some point melted to be used in other monarch's reigns, thus making the remaining Cromwell pieces rare? Edited to add: Having never had the chance or privilege to examine one in hand, I cannot pass judgment. In your experience does the strike and legend etc. make the balance sway for these coins being patterns? They were never proclaimed legal tender by Parliament as Cromwell died before production got into full swing, so technically must be considered patterns. I'm sure some limited numbers will have circulated unofficially because you come across pieces that are really worn from time to time and there is nothing to suggest that people had any more scruples then than now. The short time between production and the accession of Charles II would mean only limited opportunity to circulate these and certainly would have been frowned on post-1660. Most Cromwell pieces are not particularly rare. Thanks for clarifying that for me Rob. Indeed you make a valid point "the accession of Charles II would mean only limited opportunity to circulate these and certainly would have been frowned on post-1660". As far as I can gather the public were behind Charles II and 59 signed the Death Warrant to execute his farther Charles I. Oliver Cromwell was the third.

All 1658/7 Cromwell crowns show this flaw at some stage of development so this shouldn't be a worry. The flaw on this coin is at a relatively early stage. If you look in Spink 2007 it shows the flaw in a later stage. I'd worry about the MS64 grade though. It looks as if there is obverse wear at the eyebrow, to the hair in front of the ear and lower down. The laurel leaf edges look a bit devoid of toning as well which would indicate light wear. The reverse has light wear to the lion and at the top right of the shield. There is also a possible rim mark at B& in the obverse legend. I'd give it good EF at best (which in US grading company parlance means MS62-64 bearing in mind that MS60 is typically no better than EF). In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong. It seems NGC have graded some Cromwell half crowns as business strike ie MS**. Link to NGC census Rob I'm sure I have read somewhere that there is on going debate into whether or not the Cromwell coins are patterns or just rare. I remember reading that a contemporary account of the day said that there where quite a few Cromwell coins circulating but that they were quite worn. Is it possible that these coins were at some point melted to be used in other monarch's reigns, thus making the remaining Cromwell pieces rare? Edited to add: Having never had the chance or privilege to examine one in hand, I cannot pass judgment. In your experience does the strike and legend etc. make the balance sway for these coins being patterns?

The unique collection, which has been valued at more than 500,000, features pieces dating back to 1136, when the very first Scottish coins were minted. A total of more than 1,000 coins were stolen from the home of Lord and Lady Stewartby in Broughton, near Peebles. A "substantial reward" has been offered to anyone who can help recover the collection. ... "We would appeal to anyone who may have information as to the whereabouts of the collection or anyone who has been offered some rare and unique coins." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotlan...and/6283688.stm it was on my local news! I live about 20 miles from there. Lucky I keep my coins at the bank!

Any pictures josie? I think it was probably done after minting, unless it is a double struck coin.

Thanks Tom I'll second that. Nice to see you are a modern man. It wasn't many years ago that the father was expected to and was kept well out of the way during the birth of their children, women's work and all that. Have you thought of a video phone, best of both worlds Thanks Gary. A video phone now that’s an idea! but she would like me to hold her hand as well and I draw the line at cutting my hand off just to go to Coinex.

I would love to go, but that's when my first baby is due!

Thanks Tom

Hi James, I collect coins as a hobby first and investment second. I am trying to complete a couple of separate collections 1/3 farthing set, Shillings, always collecting British errors and lately siege coins. It would be great to think that my collection goes up in value and I have something to leave the kids. So In that sense I am in your boat too. Regards, Hus

You'll be fine, the first one's always late. I'm happy to take the gamble, but the baby is due on the 6th of October so there isn't a chance my bread knife would let me attend. Joking aside before you all think I'm a bad dad I wouldn't miss my baby’s birth for all the tea or coins in China.

Just a guess, but probably the fine work pieces of James 1st should be considered proofs as some of these and the subsequent Charles 1st fine work pieces have highly reflective fields and are struck on as round a flan as could be expected from hammered issues. Similarly for the patterns of this era which are struck on obviously specially prepared flans. It is possible that there were a few made to similar standards in Elizabeth 1st 's reign too. In terms of milled, the 1662 crown (ESC 16) is a good contender. Thats great thanks for the info Rob. You wouldn't happen to know when the first mirrored field/ polished die proofs where produced would you?

Oh never Not normally, luckily my wife’s dad is a coin nut so she has been brought up round them. Although I'm not as lucky as Rob because she won't encourage me either. She just lets me get on with it. James I know the Hydro well it’s a nice hotel.

In my honest opinion its two coins joined together. If it was original the edge would be normal and you would not have a join. What they have done in this example is to file or sand down the reverses of two coins and join them. I bet you the weight isn't correct. I have an example the same and one were the reverse has been machined out and even though the edge is ok you can make out a small line around one of the border. If I have time over the weekend I will take pictures of them to compare. These forgers/pranksters were quite fiendishly good at their work.

NICE !!!!!!!!!

Interesting link, thanks josie. Now where did I put my metal detector?

Yes I too have a Vicky one. The only real way you can tell is to look at it through magnification. That's not to say real ones don't exist however they are quite are rare and valuable. I have only seen genuine British examles on more modern coins from the 1970's. I have got a two tailed coin but it's not British.

More generally, the gap between the best and the worst coins in the collectable range continues to widen with the better examples outstripping inflation, but the lower grades barely holding their value. In particular, the differential between EF and AU seems to be stretching out. Still a seller's market in my opinion. The differential between EF and AU is probably widening because buyers are relating to the U rather than saying it isn't uncirculated and so it it should be graded extremely fine or variations on this. Uncirculated should be a statement of fact which therefore should not support the A prefix and thus AU should be graded good EF but that can turn potential buyers off because at this grade everyone wants an uncirculated coin. The number of collectors appears to have dramatically increased in recent years which has exacerbated this effect because many appear to have learned their grading from others' descriptions on ebay and the like. This becomes a monster which feeds off itself and will invariably lead to a hike in prices. The lower grades are kept in check by ebay which has led to a serious oversupply of VF and lower grade coins. Becasue Spink only prices down to fine in most cases, this forms the lowest grade (and hence price). However, many are in grades such that even a scrap metal merchant would ask for a discount. A genuinely UNC coin should almost always be worth top dollar because they are a lot scarcer than people imagine or sellers' descriptions suggest. A choice one is worth a premium. I agree with Rob, AU is obviously more of an American grading scale but people are listing coins as AU instead of EF+ or good EF because novice collectors hear the word Uncirculated mixed into the sentence and bid more. It also seems like almost everyone is over grading coins on eBay. Sellers are probably scared to call their coin VF and put it up against similar coins that are being described as EF.

What you have thre Rich is a doublestruck error. Doublestruck coins take place when after a coin receives its first centred strike it fails to be ejected from the machine and is re-struck again. Coins can be found that have been struck three or four times. Doublestruck coins where the date/s are still visable and the second off-centers strike is at least 10% off-centre are more collectable and valuable. Edited to add: Hand struck coins were struck by hand using the strikers own human force. The coin was stuck onto a flan which was hand cut using a pair of dies and a type of hammer. Each and every one is unique and individual. Milled coins use machine power to strike the coins. The planchets are stamped out of a rolled sheet of metal. The coin planchet is then fed into a collar (a device which surrounds the edge of the planchet as the coin is struck). The collar keeps the coin metal from spreading larger than its intended diameter. The collar die also imprints the edge design, if any, onto the struck coin. The obverse and reverse dies then strike this planchet to produce the desired design of coin.

Grade UNC??? He has a nice 1905 Florin for sale, but how bout this one: 1875 Nice grade Shilling, Die 36 Take a look. Seller calls it "1875 Shilling. High grade example of a Victorian Shilling." IMHO fine if your lucky.

Interesting website

I agree very nice!

Yes, I think you have made valid points guys. Another item I spotted, a silk hat must have also been a luxury.

I couldn't have put it better myself! <gggggg>. Bob C. I have the same problem with my camera. Nice coin Bob. Look forwrd to seeing the reverse when you get time.

I in my opinion it wasn't made during minting. It is definitely not an error. Some coins do have die numbers on them but they aren't punched onto the coins themselves. The numbers or in some instances letters i.e. A, B, C below lighthouses are on the dies. When these dies are used to produce the coins the die numbers or letters are always raised (like the lettering) and are not incuse. I am also positive mint wouldn't punch a number at that angle over a N. If it was going to punch a number it would choose a better location. I am positive it is post mint but why? Who knows?

English Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins by C. W Peck. Great book going cheap on eBay at the moment incase anyone needs one. It’s not my auction. I already have one, but they can be hard to come by.Link to eBay sale

Went for £41+postage good deal for someone.