Coinery

Here, here! Top result, Dave, definitely adds value I'd say. However, I'm also with you Ski on the toning issue. Whilst it may add sterling value to D's HC because it will now appeal to a wider market, I have to say I could very well live with both the pre AND post dip coin. It would very much depend on the general tonal trend of the collection it was going to sit within, I guess?

I've had some REALLY mixed results with acetone! I've previously stripped off what was a lovely golden tone over a nice lustred 20c XII, turned a reasonable silver hammered a strange yellowish colour, and gave an unnatural tone to an E7 farthing. I do still use it on really grubby coins, but I'm much more cautious with it nowadays! Will trial some of this dip, though, I've got a few 1887's in the sacrificial hold!

I can't not (double neg.) say thank-you for putting that effort in Richard so, truly, many thanks! Two days ago I would have thought it a simple numismatic formality, drawing the line between varieties and micro-varieties, naively believing the criterion to be extremely well defined! I'm amazed to find out how wide the grey band actually is, and of how much interest it really is to collectors generally! Another enlightening thread for me! Thanks to all, once again!

Ahh, now you say that, but out of around 20 coins I've bought recently, either because they were unusual or pretty, two of them are not in BCW. One is an un-noted die-pairing, and the other an un-noted legend feature! Small stuff, I know, but with an estimated (mine) 1000+ dies for the sixpences alone, there must be plenty up for grabs! I don't think many out there would care a toss about it, really, or pay any more for one, on account it would be a Very VERY long time before any collector got close to having only a few holes in their Elizabeth sixpence collection, and anywhere near thinking about paying a premium to fill it! I might just work backwards and collect the uncollected, now there's a challenge! Yes, I wasn't actually including hammered in my definition, as each coin is almost a micro-variety in itself! And that takes it back full-circle to whether they're micro or not? With clearly defined differences, which are so very different from another of the same type, I couldn't decide whether that made it a variety or a micro-variety! I guess the comparison is, if there was a 20 degree rotated E on a 1918 penny, would that be a 'variety' or a 'micro-variety'? It's quite a subject, and had me scratching my head for a couple of days now! No wonder I'm all but gone on top!

Ahh, now you say that, but out of around 20 coins I've bought recently, either because they were unusual or pretty, two of them are not in BCW. One is an un-noted die-pairing, and the other an un-noted legend feature! Small stuff, I know, but with an estimated (mine) 1000+ dies for the sixpences alone, there must be plenty up for grabs! I don't think many out there would care a toss about it, really, or pay any more for one, on account it would be a Very VERY long time before any collector got close to having only a few holes in their Elizabeth sixpence collection, and anywhere near thinking about paying a premium to fill it! I might just work backwards and collect the uncollected, now there's a challenge!

Thanks, Peter! I guess though, that a 'clear' variety is a variety, whether it's been published or not! I think it's perfectly reasonable to collect unpublished varieties! Any serious collector would acknowledge them as such, whether it was published or not, wouldn't they? I suppose on a commercial basis it might be harder to get comparable money for it until it's catalogued, the rarity of it could be a tough one until it's published, giving the collector base an opportunity to discover they've got 50 of them already!

Thanks for that Rob! Can I just draw you on the above? Would you say all the BCW classifications were varieties, even though the humble sixpence would run into many 100's when using the LIS, lion, rose, leaf, bust, criteria etc. and the many die-pairings? I presume from what you are saying, that an ELZBETH or FR/FRA coin would fit the requirement of a variety? However, bearing in mind the clear differences in legend configuration (spacings, letter rotations, sizes etc) of hammered coins, compared to modern milled coinage, would these still be considered varieties, or are we moving into the realms of micro there? The sixpence dies could be heading a 1000 + at that level of classification, though they are clear to see without the aid of a micrometer! You can see how I've tied myself up in knots with this one!

Could be interesting but, as always, close-ups with better images are needed, especially with a coin that's low-grade. Could be a 'T' ?TERITVS or any of a number of possibilities. There appears to be a second leg (?shadow) where the 'T' (as in fourth letter) should be, suggesting other potential rotational variables. You're going to have to start experimenting with the macro settings on your compact. firstly thanks for all input.ive taken another scan and lightened it as much as i can.also scanned it from a different angle.to me it now looks like an I over T I see the underlying right hand leg of a V to the right of the I? No, it's just a straight TIVS. the L or T is more visible on the coin itself than the pictures portray.whats the next step can i send the coin to someone to look at and if so who,or would you just forget about it. I'd happily photograph it and put the exploded images up here for others to see? I'd be surprised if a final judgement couldn't be made then. Just a suggestion (insured postage each way - paid by you, of course )!

Yes, probably best to try a gentler remedy first - if you dip a piece like that, it should be for only 10 seconds max. I'd add '03-'04 and '08-'09 shillings to that list, though the latter should be minimum EF. I know you've told me a million times, but what dip do you use? I seem to remember it being nothing special, just something from the local hardware store?

Oh, please, how do you do that? 'Timeline Originals' out you go! Do your normal search, then find "Seller" down the left hand side. Hit "Specify Sellers", then in the box that pops up, choose "Only show items from", "Exclude", and paste your blacklist in the little box that doesn't look like it has enough room for it. Do the list in a text file first, and separate the names with a comma, but no spaces (you're limited by number of characters, and spaces count). Don't forget you can rid yourself of an awful lot of crap with judicious use of wildcards in the initial search box too - here's mine: -1967 -197* -198* -199* -200* -201* -olym* -"Isle of Man" -framed -holed -enam* -polish* -token -damag* -empty -india -gibr* -decimal -proof -pattern -mother -wedd* -churchi* -£5 -£2 -£1 -diana -sover* -gold -keyr* -aldern* -jers* -guern* -1p -20p -50p -commem* -cuffl* -millen* Then save your search using the link at the top. Be aware though, that eBay, bless 'em, have a technical fault at the moment with advanced searches, and if your results only show gallery pictures for the first 11 items, you've fallen foul of it. They are working on it, they assure me. It's something to do with the complexity of the query - the more complex it is, the more likely you'll have the problem. Mine, predictably, is horrendously complex because I try to filter out 75% of all the British Coins on there, if I can. Used to work fine - it's only in the last week or so that their problems have occurred. Bloody 'ell, that's just saved me around 8-10hrs a week! Many thanks for that, you'll get your reward in heaven (or an auction house)!

Could be interesting but, as always, close-ups with better images are needed, especially with a coin that's low-grade. Could be a 'T' ?TERITVS or any of a number of possibilities. There appears to be a second leg (?shadow) where the 'T' (as in fourth letter) should be, suggesting other potential rotational variables. You're going to have to start experimenting with the macro settings on your compact. firstly thanks for all input.ive taken another scan and lightened it as much as i can.also scanned it from a different angle.to me it now looks like an I over T looking at the serifs on the previous 'T' it's more likely a 'T' than an 'L'! However, I can just about 'imagine' an 'I' if I really try, especially when I factor in the possible flattening of the top of the 'I', and note the right hand serif is not clear, and look at the corrosion pit at the left hand serif, so not conclusive without a really good close-up! Possibly a 'T' though...TERTTVS, different!

It's great ain't it! You've gotta luv the 'bay!

Oh, please, how do you do that? 'Timeline Originals' out you go!

Well, I haven't seen any with double striking. But then, there are few enough examples around so there may be some, or it may be less than perfect ones were disposed of. Even those that 'escaped' and have signs of having circulated are generally well struck despite the wear. I can see Peck's point, the coins could for example have been specially made using a screw press rather than being hammered. But it would be difficult to be certain, without documentary evidence to back up the idea. As to the 'best examples' of regular coins, I don't think so. They look like they were struck from special dies, for example the coin here. Currency issue coins do occur with the bell mint mark, however I've never seen one with the reverse garniture breaking the legend like this. Other fine work pieces such as the C3/5 shilling have yet to be found as a currency piece. And lastly, all bar one fine work shilling are struck with the first mint mark for a new design, suggesting they are trials, or similar. If the best early coins were picked out I'd expect to see later mint marks too. Pretty compelling evidence I'd say.

Could be interesting but, as always, close-ups with better images are needed, especially with a coin that's low-grade. Could be a 'T' ?TERITVS or any of a number of possibilities. There appears to be a second leg (?shadow) where the 'T' (as in fourth letter) should be, suggesting other potential rotational variables. You're going to have to start experimenting with the macro settings on your compact.

Could I ask opinions on this coin re its class/pedigree and grade? 310428456958 (again a proper link would be appreciated)!

Ok, what do you think of this theory.. We know that milled technology goes back to Elizabeth I but was initially rejected - violently - by Mint workers who thought it would put them out of a job. Also, it was apparently noticeably slower at producing coins in the early days. What if "finework" coins where quality counted for more than speed as only a very few specimens would be produced, were milled rather than hammered? This seems even more likely with Briot's issues, as his milling presses were introduced to the Mint in this reign. What I'm saying is, that BM example looks too high quality to be hammered, and it looks in all respects identical to the milled issue. Although regarded as a hammered coin because the currency strikes were indeed still hammered, the finework specimens could have been milled, yes? Don't know at the moment, but if so you would expect the flan to be of even thickness throughout. Gut feeling is still no because the flans are still not perfectly round and were produced at times other than when Briot was making his milled coinage (e.g. James I). There is also a degree of excess metal which is not normally seen on either Briot or Mestrelle coinage. I think it quite likely that the flans were cut out using a circular punch as was the case certainly in the case of Saxon pennies. Or were they possibly struck on oversize flans and then trimmed afterwards? Are there ever any subtle signs of double-strike on the fine-work coins, as this would surely add weight to one theory or the other? Also, what if they weren't fine-work coins at all? What if the first few hundred coins struck on new dies were just pawed over by mint officials looking for the very best examples to send to the king or whoever? One would think the top official's reputation would be governed by such examples of quality workmanship, even if they were not truly representative of the coins hitting the market place. All speculative on my part, of course!

To right! Your right, there!

Can't help wondering if this is part of that strange phenomemon associated with the internet where people seem to get overly aggressive and abusive at a distance, yet are mild mannered face to face. Forums are littered with such examples. On the PCGS forum the world coins section is always praised for being a haven of civility, whereas the US section is usually mentioned for being its antithesis. I don't mean to bring cars back to the table, but I think the above phenomenon is well documented in many activities of life! When I was a young cockerel I once indicated to pull in to the left about 20 yards or so before a turning, which caught the driver out behind, who 'assumed' I'd be travelling on a little further and turning OFF the road. The driver of the other car, who wasn't paying enough attention, slammed on his brakes and then must have punched his horn through the back of his steering wheel, where he held it there for a good 5 seconds. In my rear-view mirror I noticed his arms flailing around and his mouth wide open, exhalting things I care not to think about. My blood was up now, and I leapt out the car...to find the driver was the local vicar; a kinder, more gentle man, you could not hope to find! THE END!

Not a terrible reverse! The milled edge looks like it could be shocking though?

I was lucky. The listing mentioned it was from "an important collection of English coins" so I did an auction search but didn't see anything recent. The Bole collection of sixpences was next (the DNW listing is still online) and when that turned up nothing, on a whim I looked in Brooker (Coins of Charles I, The John Brooker Collection, volume 33 of the Syllogue of Coins of the British Isles, by J.J. North & P.J. Preston-Morley, London 1984) and there it was with the provenance above. Where it's been since the Brooker coins were sold I don't know. Maybe Rob might be able to track it? As to the dealer, I've seen his ebay listings before, but don't know anything about him I'm afraid. Andy Holds has a sensible grip on munismatics and is ok. I was chatting to him yesterday at the Midland. I've known him since St.James's 3 (2005) when he bought a pattern halfpenny because I was asleep and I had to buy it post-sale from him. Thanks again! I wish I'd sniped with more, though lord knows what the other guy was prepared to go to? I guess with the recent heritage accompanying the coin I should have done better! I've got a real problem developing, in that I find far too many coins attractive. Can be absolutely anything, G5, Celtic, Roman...I think gold, copper, silver and tin, can all look staggeringly beautiful when right! I guess it's possible to have a generic collection, with quality the criterion instead of cohesion? It just presently spreads the knowledge base a tad too far, unfortunately. A collection of 100 or so coins, each with wow factor, and related to each other only by country of origin might be the only solution! Tsk, wish I never got involved sometimes!

Thanks anyway, Rob! As Richard said, a good buy for someone!

Thanks, Richard, where did you get the provenance from? Does this dealer have a website? I came second, such a pretty coin!

Apologies, but I can't for the life of me find the original thread with Declan's 1899 pennies in it, so here's a new one! I wanted to re-read the original to make sense of what I was trying to achieve by overlapping the two images with transparency? The below image is the two pictures overlapped with transparency, not that clear unfortunately as one of the images is, as Declan himself declared, pants. However, I think it shows the last nine to be a different size. It is probably much simpler, and much easier to see this in the bottom image (if this was the only point of the exercise???). I'm wondering whether in the narrow date coin, with what appears to be a full-sized last 9, the bottom tooth had been damaged by the 9 (others will know, of course) and that subsiquently they shaved a little off the bottom of the 9 for future dies? Just a thought, as the other components of it look identical, excepting the length of the tail? I wish I could remember what I was trying to achieve!