Coinery

Yes, just a couple of quid, I'm afraid. I'd say keep it in your wallet as a talking piece, it's not everyone who finds a 200+ year-old artefact at work!

I know nothing at all about decimal coinage, but an undated £2 coin is likely to be of great interest, can you put any pictures up?

Its very scary....i suspect the Chinese have already sorted out the problems...the 1905 fake shillings are much easier to spot......personally I would avoid the 05 halfcrowns in high grade...even well known dealers have been fooled, believe me......stick to the 03 for the time being .. Apologies to all you techies out there....i am an old dog....still, I havent done too badly.....woof What's the weight of your's, Colin?

I use the 2x2 adhesive flips with windows, and keep the flips in little A5 Numis wallets, which have 6 2x2 slots per page. It really suits me, and a great 'read' in bed!

I've sure Dave will be able to add, based loosely on book sales, but how many micro-variety collectors do you think there are out there? I'm guessing the micro-gurus, Nick, Declan, Bob, & VS, could also have some ideas based upon their sense of competition for the coins? I'm speculating here, but I'm presuming the 20th century collectors are all using the DG Bible as their reference, with it being Davies and a bit more? I personally stop at the D numbers at present, but I do wonder at the rate of expansion into the Groom field?

I stand corrected Dave - 1922 penny on ebay- meant to bid on this but forgot. Flaw on both neck and ear are in the same postion as those on the 1918KN but this is a different obverse die. Must conclude that this micro variety is in fact a result of clashed dies You're right. The attached overlay shows (although not very clearly) that the features line up, so must be a die clash. Really interesting thread! Good image, Nick! Edit: Could have been very easy to forget to reverse the Britannia image first, before overlaying!

Incidentally, if you do get hold of any counterfeit Elizabeth coins, please do let me know, as I'd like to view a few more myself. The last counterfeit I bought was a bit of a disappointment as, despite it being listed as a contemporary counterfeit of an Elizabeth Threepence, and me winning it for .99p, it very disappointingly turned out to be a knackered, but genuine, halfgroat! I did resell it for a whopping £1.75 though! And one last thing...the 2 was under the E on mine, so your's is a very different coin, numismatically really interesting. Mine was dated 1572 (Ermine), so a very odd phenomenon!

Woodsman, don't worry too much about the hammered sixpence counterfeits, as below is the best example I've seen of a hammered sixpence so far, and the only date I tend to look a little more closely at. The milled Elizabeth sixpences however are much better done, and require a slightly better eye.

Not a rare coin but not in a decent condition either, particularly the obverse which is quite flat. This isn't an issue/date/type that is known for forgeries or modern copies, so suggest it is real. At a few Euros buy it, you can't lose. No, no convincing copies of sixpences at all (not hammered, at least), shillings and groats, mostly! Looks good to go to me! I must look on the PC tomorrow because I speculated on the basis of one coin that maybe somebody lost the 'L' punch on an obverse I had, and used a 2 instead! This is definitely a different obverse (I think...will check tomorrow), yet another 2 for L in Elizabeth? Edit: incidentally, when I spoke to Chris Comber about the 2 in legend, he believed it also to be a 2 (it's dimensions were exact to microns with the reverse 2 in date), and that he had never seen it before. This certainly looks like coin number 2? I've appreciate a good image if you're going for it woodsman, otherwise I'll have a go myself? Ha ha, should have kept my mouth shut then....!!!! Yeah, I'm going to bid on it alright, probably would have put in something if it was fake too as it's something I need to learn more about anyway. If I do end up with it I'll scan it and put up pics here anyway. Thanks for the opinions on it It's all your's, go for it! Just would appreciate an email of the best you can get, image wise, though!

Not a rare coin but not in a decent condition either, particularly the obverse which is quite flat. This isn't an issue/date/type that is known for forgeries or modern copies, so suggest it is real. At a few Euros buy it, you can't lose. No, no convincing copies of sixpences at all (not hammered, at least), shillings and groats, mostly! Looks good to go to me! I must look on the PC tomorrow because I speculated on the basis of one coin that maybe somebody lost the 'L' punch on an obverse I had, and used a 2 instead! This is definitely a different obverse (I think...will check tomorrow), yet another 2 for L in Elizabeth? Edit: incidentally, when I spoke to Chris Comber about the 2 in legend, he believed it also to be a 2 (it's dimensions were exact to microns with the reverse 2 in date), and that he had never seen it before. This certainly looks like coin number 2? I've appreciate a good image if you're going for it woodsman, otherwise I'll have a go myself?

Newly listed...'amazing gold crown of charles 1st' http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/amazing-gold-crown-of-charles-1st-lovely-golden-tone-very-collectable-/181145934398?pt=UK_Coins_BritishHammered_RL&hash=item2a2d239a3e

Thats a great business strategy by London Coins I must say...."We have a lot of business on the go so lets leave the phone off the hook so that we dont get any more..."....God forbid that any new clients get through to us whilst we're busy doing admin... You could always get them slabbed by CGS and sell them that way!

A whole new grading challenge! A lot of these must have slipped through as 'clipped' I'm thinking. I'm presuming this is a phenomenon consistent over a number of flans, and they've been on the button, weight wise? Could it be that the engravers were expecting larger flans, but the silver was just coming through too thick? There are 3 decent examples of the 1645 F7. Mine (ex-Lockett 2460), Carlyon-Britton (1921) lot 337 and Morrieson 534. All are well centred, but missing the reverse periphery. Attached is a less desirable example off Lloyd's site, which although off centre on the reverse, is still too big. Great coins...it doesn't take much to get me whoring with a different monarch or denomination! Thanks again, Rob!

Pray tell, I have a fake 1905 half crown and wish I knew what points it out as a fake. From what I gleaned on this very forum, there's a small break in the R of EDWARDVS that is the prime giveaway on many of them. But there may be other flaws on those from other sources? Are you certain that this only appears on fakes? I have seen more 1905 halfcrowns with the defect on the R of EDWARDVS, than without. The EF example in the Andrew Scothern collection (being auctioned by DNW later this month) also has the defect. The only giveaway of fakes that I'm aware of is the wonky I of QVI on the reverse. As I say, I only heard about this on this forum, and only in connection with fakes. There may well be genuine examples with the same defect, but I hadn't heard of them here! I pointed out on here some time ago the broken R but it was pooh poohed at the time. My fake is 0.900 silver so not quite sterling. It's got the wonky I. Thanks, Gary! Where did you get the .900 analysis from? Was it cheap?

A whole new grading challenge! A lot of these must have slipped through as 'clipped' I'm thinking. I'm presuming this is a phenomenon consistent over a number of flans, and they've been on the button, weight wise? Could it be that the engravers were expecting larger flans, but the silver was just coming through too thick?

Morrieson's BNJ articles on the Bristol, Oxford, Shrewsbury, Aberystwyth, Coombe Martin & Lundy. Besly BNJ, York & Truro/Exeter. Allen BNJ, W/SA + Vincent supplementary data. Lockett BNJ, Truro & Exeter. Then combine all these articles with hundreds and hundreds of sales catalogues, sylloges, Bull, Charles I halfcowns etc. Thanks, Rob, I'll be taking a look!

Have you read about the ghost of Matthew Boulton on it? Pffft. That's nothing. I saw Jesus in a Big Mac I AM John Lennon, and he was even better than Jesus...Oh, no, don't get the press going again! I AM Mark Chapman. Don't answer your doorbell, ok? I'd have to sign your album first, and I'm not going to fall for that old stunt again! But you went back to Yok - oh, stunt. You said stunt. Ya got me!

'Kin hell! Edit: this is what I meant by grade! What a fabulous piece of hammered history that is! I'm always surprised to find so many people either disinterested, or shying away from, such an exciting coinage! It ticks all the boxes really...size, weight, history, numismatic mystery, discovery, etc. etc. Boy oh boy!

This will kill a few birds with one stone. Below is my 'Hartlebury'. By the OL of CAROLVS you can see a lion. This only appears on York coinage. To the left of it on the inner circle is the remains of the sword and another example shows the flaw between Charles' foot and the 3rd leg to be a foot and spurs. Clearly this is a York die, and appears to be the 1A die pair, but I can't confirm yet. This creates a problem for Besly's article on the York coinage in the 1984 BNJ where he states that the equipment used at York involved the use of a cylinder press with the dies engraved on the cylinder. The evidence for the shillings is quite compelling with 5 discrete die pairs and 5 pairs which appear to be rotated by one die. The same cannot be said for halfcrowns as my 2F is clearly a re-engraved die (details to follow), coupled with the fact that some die pairs are common whilst others are out and out rare. I suspect the rare ones are recut dies, such as the 2F. There is also evidence that some of the W/SA dies are ex- York dies. Clearly you cannot take a bit of the cylinder, so the assumption must be that the equipment either had some sort of clamping arrangement to hold a number of dies, or they were used as individual pairs. This also throws a spanner in the works regarding the attribution of Hartlebury which is considered to be struck in 1646 as there is no way the dies would havve been removed from York by July 1644 and lain unused for nearly 2 years. Also, the siege at Hartlebury only lasted a day, and Worcester wasn't cut off at this point which isn't favourable for a siege coinage. A somewhat larger spanner is the fact that the 'Hartlebury' dies are recut to form the CHST below the horse Chester issue, whose obverse was recut to form the Chester declaration obverse which is dated 1644. 1646 it ain't. 'Hartlebury' it ain't either. The pear/3 pears marks are I believe, gerbs. The obverse has only one stalk, but the reverse 'pears' have 3 stalks. The pears are lion paw/claw punches as seen at York. I think the HC coins are probably Hawarden Castle, and were struck to pay the troops returning from Ireland in Dec. 1643 because there is documentary evidence that Byron arranged for all these troops to be paid 2/6d for each common soldier (they hadn't been paid for 2 years previously). Hawarden is 4 or 5 miles to the west of Chester on the road from the landing points at Mostyn etc. Anyway, enough spanners for the time being - to the 2F next Unfortunately, I'm unable to comment on the historical data, as yet, but the HC series of C1 would be another logical step for me at the end of the year, they've always felt like a serious bit of silver, very nice in the hand, I wish I still had some! I'm thinking C1 HC's and Mary are on the winter cards for another numismatic adventure? Where does the literature begin for the HC coins?

Pray tell, I have a fake 1905 half crown and wish I knew what points it out as a fake. From what I gleaned on this very forum, there's a small break in the R of EDWARDVS that is the prime giveaway on many of them. But there may be other flaws on those from other sources? Are you certain that this only appears on fakes? I have seen more 1905 halfcrowns with the defect on the R of EDWARDVS, than without. The EF example in the Andrew Scothern collection (being auctioned by DNW later this month) also has the defect. The only giveaway of fakes that I'm aware of is the wonky I of QVI on the reverse. Are the fakes Silver, and the right weight? This is the sort of detail the forgery website needs if it's going to be useful.

Hammered coin dies were just a piece of diestock with the design engraved on the end. When a new design was required, all they did was rub down the old one and re-engrave with the new. A die could therefore have many re-incarnations. Sometimes there was sufficient detail remaining from the previous die(s) to work out what it was before, so the Chester declaration reverse die was previously Oxford halfcrown 1643 rev. 23 for example. It also appears to have been one of the small date 1644 dies too, but I'm still working on that one. The obverse die with which the declaration reverse is paired was recut from the CHST below the horse die, but the re-engraving was rotated and displaced from the original, so we can be certain that the die was of a greater diameter than that of a halfcrown because they wouldn't have engraved only half the design with the remainder off the side of the die! Next coin up would be a crown, but equally could have been big enough to accommodate a triple unite or a pound/half-pound. It also explains why some dies are far too big for the denomination on which they are found. A Shrewsbury shilling reverse and Oxford halfcrown 1645 rev.7 immediately spring to mind. That's really interesting Rob, and something I'll be looking out for in future. You'd have to have some staggering grades to spot it though! A good comparison/example of your point would be very welcome if you get five minutes spare?

I think it all comes down to an attempt to best describe the grade of your coin, using contemporary descriptors, as best as you can. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you're buying two VF coins (in your opinion), one from a dealer, described as NVF, and one from eBay, described as GEF, you still have to decide for yourself what you have, and whether you're pleased with it. You won't find out whether you bought well until you come to sell it. When it comes down to selling a coin, it's very difficult in a world now full of UNCs, not to use the term yourself. 95% of coin collectors probably still rely on someone else to tell them what grade their coin is, which means if my coin is better than someone else's 'UNC' and I call it a GEF or AU, it's never even going to get looked at! Personally, I 'm still trying to be true to my own standards, but it doesn't line the pockets so well!

Interesting re crown-sized dies for halfcrown designs, something I'd never considered before! Oh, and another nice example coin again!

No online bidding that I know of, you'd be crazy to distance bid at Croydon. From the two visits I've made, I'd say the grading's very ambitious, and major flaws are largely overlooked in the descriptions! I'd be there every time, however, if I lived on the doorstep as you do!

In theory, forgerynetwork.com should be a place to consult for such things. But I have to admit that I've not posted anything there for a while and I really don't know how many people are aware it exists .. I tried making use of forgery network on a number of occasions, and mostly gave up in frustration. The principle's great, but the actuality is less than satisfactory! Also, it's really hard to trust the additions on a site like that...who verifies? I bought an Elizabeth I coin recently, that was being sold as a contemporary counterfeit of a threepence. How gutted was I to find it was actually a very knackered, but genuine, halfgroat!