Coinery

I'm assuming that you're the winning bidder, Stuart? Cripes, no! I couldn't see for a moment where he'd got the 1 or the 7 from...it would need a very complex overlay of PM's to get a 7 in there! The LIS and lion punches say straight forward '62...I didn't 'mail him! I did email someone about a threefarthings that wasn't, and got a really decent response...he's even going to go for a BCW book! I reckon I've sold 4 or 5 of those now...should be on commission!

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. Which takes us back full-circle to my first point about a clog, which is an unlikely choice for a mint ID. Equally, that would suggest it's either a coincidental clog on two different dies (which Declan's looks to be) or one die produced a hell of a lot of coins! Can a matrix be clogged/blocked, as this too would explain it?

UNRECORDED 1561/7 threepence http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/400449321792?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

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?

A great move, obviously, looking forward to more of that! Are you an Australian and living there? Always amazed at the breadth of this forum! Incidentely, presuming you are an Australian, is that a common and happy pastime down under, to collect the older English coins, or do most there stay G3 and younger? Or do most just stick with the homegrown material? I know I've sent nearly as many to Aus, as US and Canada, so there's obviously a healthy base of collectors out there!

Mmmmm. Blinkin' blimey, Nicholas, is that yours? Very nice!

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?

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. If the teeth were represented by just a single 'ring' punch, used on multiple dies, then that would seem the most plausible explanation?

Have you got a spare one, Rob? Edit: if Nicholas didn't want any spares first, that is! No, but might have soon. Waiting for a list of books and catalogues off someone and it's the sort of thing he would have. You've got my email!

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?

Have you got a spare one, Rob? Edit: if Nicholas didn't want any spares first, that is!

You're quite right, Gary: 1915 top, 1916 below.... So how did one die make so many coins? Now the debate heats up because, whilst I too proposed a block, your 2 images now make it unclear! Is it possible that the tooth was played with by the mint? - your 1916 image looks far less sharp, which would concur with an overused die, but ALL the teeth look shorter, and their appears to be some differences in angle on a couple to the left of the 'broken' one. Also, the O looks wider on the '16, maybe recut, but doesn't look it and, of course, the gap between the colon dot and O appears different between the two! 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? Can you see anything else on the two obverses that might further confirm a die match or not, Declan?

which also suggests a single die variety..? Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die? On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable? That's a good thought - the deliberate marking of a die (and thus, potentially, more than one) Numbers: 1915: 11.4% of 47m - loads more than one die could do 1916: 18.7% of 86m - well that's conclusive then. It's more than one die, which means that the broken tooth has to be deliberate. Wouldn't it be more logical to 'add' a mark to the dies to identify them, like a hairline or something, which would appear raised on the coin? Breaking a tooth would actually mean blocking the tooth on the die wouldn't it? I of course have not actually looked to see how the broken tooth appears on these coins, but will tomorrow!

which also suggests a single die variety..? Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die? On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable? I haven't got the book to hand, but didn't I read that it's 'most' manifest the broken tooth, rather than all? I'm not sure though????

Oh, my God, you're ALL at it! Even Rob with his C1 halfcrown micro-varieties, if I remember rightly! I only ever recall Richard in denial of this micro-disease! Once I have the entire G5 set, I too will likely seek out the micros, and add the occasional proof coin as and when they appear! Having said that, I do have the flat AND hollow neck farthings!

I think I was more chuffed they had actually listened to me, than annoyed that they had made an error Does anyone know off the top of their head what our DG added to the Freeman and Davies catalogue? Just out of interest, Steve, do you also draw the line at the F numbers, or do you fish out the extra Gouby's and Groom's? 1959 1/S 1944 1d 1918 farthings 1915/16 recessed ears 1912 halfpennies 1911 6d 1911 1d 1911 halfpennies 1911 farthings 1906 1/- 1904 1/- 1903 1/- off the top of my head (kinda). Sorry if I missed any, Dave! Declan's actually wrong about the 1915/16 recessed ear varieties - they have been known about, noted and collected as long as I have been, which is more years than I care to admit! I just knew he wasn't perfect! Despite his Superhuman reflexes in responding to the enquiry, and his bright yellow jacket, he's just a man beneath that lycra exterior! Just out of interest Peck, where were the recessed's first documented as an official variety; as I'm guessing, in view of the previous posts, that it must have been officially recorded somewhere to have been officially collected?

Thanks its one of my best i think, prob paid alittle to much for it at £24 but im happy to own it. I'm away without the bible to guide me, but I'd feel pretty happy shelling out £24 for ANY top-grade E7 (poor old farthing excluded...though even they must come close in my mind, if you really want the Uncs!)! I like it, nice addition!

Some companies offer 75% Spinks so I guesss it comes down to you to prove the grade of the lost coins. I think I need to think seriously about photographing my collection. I think the company I'm with offer 100% Spinks. If they use Spinks as their benchmark where does CGS come into it. Yes, that's the bit that would worry me! How many people could really prove that? Even in-hand there are indifferences but, with photography, how many can take a picture of a coin that captures tone/lustre/grade/perfection all in one snap? I'm fearful that a coin payout might meet with the same disappointment I've experienced in the past.

Has anybody ever had to make a claim against coin loss? What was the outcome in financial terms? I often wonder how they'd pay because, if it's anything like motoring claims, it's been my experience that you never get close to the value you're insured for!

Does anyone know off the top of their head what our DG added to the Freeman and Davies catalogue? Just out of interest, Steve, do you also draw the line at the F numbers, or do you fish out the extra Gouby's and Groom's? 1959 1/S 1944 1d 1918 farthings 1915/16 recessed ears 1912 halfpennies 1911 6d 1911 1d 1911 halfpennies 1911 farthings 1906 1/- 1904 1/- 1903 1/- off the top of my head (kinda). Sorry if I missed any, Dave! That's just got to be worth a

It's a shame these figures can't be meaningfully gathered, as Tesco's might gather their percentage customers buying Tetley against PG Tips! Are you going to have a table in September?

What I am curious about, and now making reference to the list that Declan put up, is the number of people who actually collect those particular additions, to determine the number of people who are actively collecting the newly catalogued varieties of the 20thC? As we have loosely established that varieties only tend to be collected when catalogued in print, I was thinking the number of collectors of the new Groom additions, for example, would not likely exceed the number of copies distributed. A correlation must exist between new publications distributed AND the number of active collectors of the new varieties contained within it? Everson might also be another good contender here. I wonder how many farthing collectors actually collect the E numbers? Or do they collect the BMC varieties and list the E numbers just because they are available, much like SKI does by adding the Groom die-pairings? I'd pay for an app. Dave!

Justorum semita lux splendens. Sorry, that was my school motto... Semper in Excretio, Solum Profundum Variat Not sure if I've remembered this correctly, but this was on the the wall in Frenchay Main Theatres Recovery...and it was true!

Does anyone know off the top of their head what our DG added to the Freeman and Davies catalogue? Just out of interest, Steve, do you also draw the line at the F numbers, or do you fish out the extra Gouby's and Groom's? 1959 1/S 1944 1d 1918 farthings 1915/16 recessed ears 1912 halfpennies 1911 6d 1911 1d 1911 halfpennies 1911 farthings 1906 1/- 1904 1/- 1903 1/- off the top of my head (kinda). Sorry if I missed any, Dave! Crikey, Declan, that's an impressive response time! Thanks for that!