DaveG38

Can I post my own rubbish songs?

That's OK. Sorry for the delay, but I've been up to neck in other stuff lately.

I've had a look back through all the notes and references that I used for my book, and I'm afraid I can't find the reference to the 'finger' penny. The decriptions of pretty much all the varieties in my books were based on reported varieties, but I did make sure as far as I could that I tracked down an example of whatever variety I was describing. Often this was based on eBay photographs of coins for sale, or pictures on dealer's websites - I certainly never tried to obtain them all for my collection, so I don't have a 'finger' penny example to photograph and put up on here. Sorry all, but I fear this variety is only going to come to light if somebody finds one and can relate their coin to the description I give i.e. a small projection from the 9th plume from the front of the helmet.

There's a myriad of 'varieties' of the new £1 coins, too many to be deliberate design changes. More likely many of them arise from issues concerning the striking of 12 sided coins. I'm just finishing an article for Coin News on my very modest study of the new coin, together with a summary of the genuine varieties and also those that have been deliberately 'manufactured' by the unscrupulous for sale on eBay.

Brilliant. Thanks Rob. My books only go back to 1066, so earlier periods are a bit more mysterious. I guessed at Stamford or maybe Steyning, but couldn't get the moneyer. The first letter doesn't look much like a modern G, I must say, although I can see it now you explain it.

Just bought a nice Cnut Penny - Seaby 1159, a common type, but in about GVF grade. I'm trying to decipher the reverse legend and I'm hoping somebody can help. So far I've got what looks like CODRIC ON STANEO, but neither of the 'C's are definite and the 'I' is doubtful due to some blundering. Anybody help with the attribution i.e moneyer and mint? Many thanks in advance.

And the 'COPY' and 'WRL' stamps are both there on the reverse, but both are deliberately, no doubt, photographed upside down.

For what it is worth, I'm just finishing off an article for Coin News on the new pound coin, in which I have analysed a sample of the new coins for varieties, but I also go through all the 'varieties' that have been appearing on eBay. It should be with Mr Mussell shortly, after which its up to him when it appears in print. The 'error' shown here is one of the types I mention, but there are myriads of others.

My standard Proof Set Crown looks just like this one.

I can think of plenty of coins that I could spend £1,132 on before I'd buy those.

I worked for BT for most of my life. There was a lady in headquarters in London, a secretary as I recall, whose name was Ms. E. Lastick.

Just to add my two pennorth to this, isn't every coin dealer doing as Westminster does.? i.e. make a profit out of buying and selling coins. But weren't those coins all orginally produced by the Royal Mint (leaving aside the dim and distant past of hammered), so dealers aren't really doing anything different in principle from Westminster. I don't get what the big deal here is. If I want a RM product I can buy them from the RM. If I'm an idiot and want to pay more than the RM charge, I can go to Westminster. That's my choice. If I'm sensible, I wait a while and buy the RM products at a discount from those who bought from either the RM or Westminster, when they come to sell.

I love an optimist.

Not yet for 2017, but found one dated 2016.

It certainly has that fuzzy look similar to the fake £1 coins.

Otherwise OK then.

The simple answer is that they will always be worth the current bullion value. Any increase over this will be determind by the garde of the coin. Well worn (F/VF) and you are looking at bullion. At EF and upwards, there will likely be some premium depending on dates etc.

Three, since there were two different metal mixes used for the 50:50 coins. Chemical analysis or spectroscopy is the only way to distinguish the two alloys.

Two ways, but neither is expecially satisfactory. Firstly, when spun on a metal surface and allowed to come to rest, the debased silver 'rings' at a higher pitch than sterling silver. To understand the difference, simply spin a pre-1920 and a post 1920 and listen to the difference. However, I have no idea, apart from chemically, how to determine which alloy mix was used for the debased silver types. Secondly, if the coins are very high grade, you may be able to examine the serifs of the 'Es'. Sterling silver coins have sharper points due to better metal flow, although the difference is tiny.

Apologies if I have raised this question before - the old grey cells ain't waht they used to be. Does anybody know how to artificially tone dipped silver, so that it quickly tones back down to a dull grey? And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about rainbow toning using an oven. I'm asking because I'm reconstituting a maundy set and the 4d is blast white, whilst the rest are nicely and evenly toned. Yes, I know, why not just buy another better toned 4d and sell the dipped one. I might, but in the meantime does anyone have any recommendations?

Hi Declan, Its just powdered sulphur. In the form of flowers its a yellow powder, but if melted, Sulphur turns into a dark red liquid that then solidifies into a similar solid lump. Put a match to Sulphur and it burns with a blue flame and gives off the acrid smelling Sulphur Dioxide.

The Egyptian Arch pound coin looks like one of the many fakes out there.

Quote from Wikipedia ' Dawson left after frequently arguing with Daltrey[7] and after being briefly replaced by Gabby Connolly, Daltrey moved to lead vocals.' Of course, Wiki may be wrong.

OK. Thanks for that. Yet another variety in the collection!!!

Yesterday, I was happily annoying my bank by taking several hours sorting out my collection. One of the tasks that I did was to compare new and original examples of coins to see which I should keep or which ones are maybe different varieties. Whilst looking at my two 1717 halfpennies, I noticed that one of them seems to have been struck on a much larger flan the the other. The smaller is 25mm across, whereas the other is 27-28mm across i.e. noticeably larger. Also, the legend over the bust is as per Peck for the smaller flan type, but is aligned differently for the larger one. Does anyone know if this halfpenny was struck on a larger flan? Peck doesn't say anything about this, apart from the proof which this clearly isn't (not unless it is a well circulated proof).