Coinery

Ou est le £300 coin? 230855983448

Could I possibly have your thoughts on the following four images? If I can describe what I'm seeing to support what are 2 dimentional images, it may help? This is a W3 Shilling, and I'm wondering if this is a NO stop after DEI coin? In the second of the first 2 images I've circled what are two micro-deep (so concave) areas, the lefthand depression being fractionally deeper than the right, making me wonder whether we are looking at the result of a blocked die? All areas surrounding the 2 lower areas are lustred and untampered with. So, does anyone know firstly whether the 'NO stop' die was actually a BLOCKED DIE, or was it a die ommitting the punched stop? Any thoughts/instincts on the images, all elucidations gratefully received.

In the overall context of a collection it is unlikely to have much effect as very few people have a collection that could be counted on their fingers. For any single coin in a collection, when the time comes to sell, it may or may not recoup the amount paid. Collections should be looked on as a whole rather than as individual pieces and accordingly will only register a loss if coins are routinely bought way in excess of current market values. A balanced or diverse collection will probably increase in value over time as long as long as the bottom doesn't fall out of the market across the board. With the exception of Scott , we all overpay for something along the way. The key to building a collection that will hold its value is to only do this occasionally. 100% agreed! I confess to spending more than I should on certain individual coins, but this is only a recent phenomenon. I have always tried to make each coin 'individually' count, stand on its own two sides, as it were, in order that i might stay ahead! I guess this all starts to go awry once you get collectobrain! This is the science applied to those who suddenly realise they are closing a number of gaps in their collection, and then further realise they can create an even bigger block of 'finished' coins with one or two lavish purchases! Also, it applies to those who have a 'complete' collection, except for a particular coin that 'irritates' them to the point where they'll pay double to replace it!

A very prompt response from Spink's, thank-you very much! "Thanks for this which seems to confirm that the no stop after Dei variety we list for the 1700 Shilling is actually due to a worn die in which the pellet has become damaged or blocked. As such your coin should be considered as an ordinary type 1700 Shilling.  I’ll forward this to the Editor of the Standard Catalogue. And thank for your thorough research on this.  Regards" It does beg the question whether any of the no-stop varieties should be catalogued at all, if a blocked die doesn't count as such! How would you prove a no-stop IS an actual no-stop, as opposed to a blocked die? If there was a significant run of coins from a blocked die, it would only then fall upon the malicious to find a die-match WITH stop present, and bring tears to an awful lot of variety collectors who have paid double the money for a 'rarity'! As an example, if Spink subsiquently removes the no stop after DEI shilling from their catalogue, it makes me wonder about the many collectors out there who have paid a considerable sum for a coin they'll no longer be able to enjoy as a rarity, or market as anything other than a regular shilling?

Just out of interest then, when were die-punches finally phased out? I'm presuming there was a transitional period, where both processes were used (punching in of last digits on dates, and die repairs, etc.)? But, what was the finally currency die known to have used hand-punched components?

Unfortunately, as you would expect, I'm unable to add any academic weight to your proposals, though I find the reign of Henry VII far more attractive than Henry VIII's! He would likely be the next stopping place of mine if I were to take another monacular step back in time (and probably the Edward pennies). Anyway, I can't imagine for a moment that they aren't genuine, on account the contemporary public would have picked up on any counterfeit metals very quickly. If they were silver counterfeits, you'd have to launder an awful lot of underweight silver halfgroats to make it worth the while? Unless... With the number of individuals involved, a potential conspiracy like this would have to be overseen from the VERY top, wouldn't it? If there was a Crown involvment, this could possibly explain away the missing pyx documents? The Halfgroat would be the coin to put out underweight if you were to attempt it, with it being the denomination of the peasants, and amongst the coins to wear the fastest, and be clipped the quickest, better disguising any irregularities, maybe????? There would probably be a fall-guy/Bishop if any misdemeanors were exposed but, in the absence of any major public trials documented, we might presume any irregularities went undetected (until Oct 2012 that is ) I often wondered about the great variety of Lis IM's in the opening years of Henry's reign, LIS/sun, LIS/rose, etc. was this intensity of indistinct marks related to any underhand coining? Do we know the total weight of LIS halfgroats coined? What would the weight potentially saved on the halfgroats be worth? Would it be significant enough to justify the payoffs and risks to a king? ALL speculation, of course! A really interesting reign, and an interesting observation, Rob.

I had a Savage York one at 1.49g if that's any help?

nicely done!

Oh, yes it is... Oh no it's not! See the corrected photo in my post above! Now I'm totally confused! It's the highlighted bit in bold that's throwing me! Honest, it really wasn't me! I'd have taken a poorer, more distant, photo and said something like 'there's something odd about this coin. It look like they must've made a mistake at the mint, it's got what seems like a 1 underneath the 2, so damaged, I'm afraid, please bid accordingly,' and hope Dave or Steve spotted it! Oops, my mistake - I interpreted Peter's remark as meaning he thought it was a foreign coin. He should have used a capital C then I'd have 'got' it!!

No! I did look at that when Pies said! That bulbous end on the bottom loop wouldn't be on a 6! It also looks too much like a 5 to be a 6 IMO

Oh, yes it is... Oh no it's not! See the corrected photo in my post above! Now I'm totally confused! It's the highlighted bit in bold that's throwing me! Honest, it really wasn't me! I'd have taken a poorer, more distant, photo and said something like 'there's something odd about this coin. It look like they must've made a mistake at the mint, it's got what seems like a 1 underneath the 2, so damaged, I'm afraid, please bid accordingly,' and hope Dave or Steve spotted it!

Oh, yes it is... Oh no it's not!

Christ, Dave, is that one for the Mile-High Club? I'd say it's beyond doubt! Another hole in the series I'd say! Without looking to see if it's in the series, of course!

'Worn extremely well!' It certainly has! How did you guess it wasn't me?

Looking at the flaw in the bottom, or top (the image is upside down), that's got to be a split O punch hasn't it, that's been repaired on the die with a broken 0?

Sobering! The first things that came into my mind were the heavy chains of wedding bands and old rings, the endless small charms and sovereigns...the old Romanies knew a thing or two!

The Peter we know and love! Where would Waitrose be without you?

Didn't Ray Stevens sing about that in 1975? There's only one thing to say about that coin - "Don't look, Ethel!" "But 'Twas too late, she'd already been mooned!"

Purdy, Dave, real purdy!

It took me a few years of contact before I got Spink to recognise the 1920-1926 obverse as a new obverse, and to include the 1946 die flaw penny. And even then, it took a reproduced Coin News article and photographic evidence for the former (they still got it wrong!), and a scan of Gouby for the latter. I believe they will act, but it could be a long slow process for which you will need persistence. Cheers, Chris!

AHH, got it!

GONE, so let's see! Dear Sir/Madam, I'm wondering whether you could assist me in a small matter regarding the classification of your 2012 catalogued 1700 shilling (no stop after DEI)? If your no-stop is defined by a blocked die, rather than there once being an actual die in existence without the stop punched in, then I have a high-grade example which I'd like to submit for auction? I have located a matching die which, with transparency software, allowed me to overlay the two coins to confirm an exact match. My coin has a very shallow reccession in the precise location the second coin has a raised stop. I appreciate you are very busy, but I submit 3 high-resolution images for your consideration, I will of course post you the coin for auction if you think it a likely candidate for your no-stop variety. The attached multiple image is as follows: Top: This shows the two overlaid coins (using transparency), my coin and the die-match coin with a circle marking the perimeter of the stop on the second coin! Middle: This is an unadulterated crop of my coin. Bottom: This is the die-matched coin (with stop) slid down, leaving the circle in position on my coin to clarify location. If I could just further clarify, there is absolutely no raised component in the field between the 'I' and the 'G' on this coin, merely a light and partial concaved recession where the stop would've been on the original die. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind regards,

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/300785097856;jsessionid=FC9E7E191ABE14B1B1FF86357C0F40E6?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_sacat%3D0%26_from%3DR40%26_nkw%3D300785097856%26_rdc%3D1

Do you think it would be 'regular' to approach the editor of Spink, Philip Skingley, and request their source for the NO STOP, and whether they believe it to be nothing other than a short run from a blocked die or not? Has anyone made any similar such enquiries before and got a timely response?

I nearly asked them if they'd like to post the images on here for a second opinion! 1577/6 300785097856