Coinery

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory. My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together!

I only meant to take a quick peak, I ended up reading the whole lot!

I'm not 100% clear from your description, but the shilling never had a rose? I may have misinterpreted your post? Quite right! I meant to say I checked my sixpence. Ahh, right, yes! It seems to be a very common practice, and nobody seems to know why? I wonder if it's ever cropped up in ancient text? I'm sure the facts are out there somewhere!

Ah. That 1923 was the one of the two I got. Still don't have a telly, thank goodness!

Snap Me too. I think there was a football match on at the time, or something? I was mildly interested in the 1908 penny, but not for £77. The only coin I'm really annoyed to miss was the 1923 florin. Pity I missed that one. I hope it went to a good home. Damn England and their bloody football team!! Football team?

I'm not 100% clear from your description, but the shilling never had a rose? I may have misinterpreted your post?

The problem is that it has not formally been done yet!! There have been catalogues that have detailed known varieties, but to my knowledge no detailed study of the series has been undertaken other than the information released by Colin Cooke in his farthing lists. As a result the best chance we had of a detailed study was the work being undertaken by Colin Cooke, but whether it will now ever become a publication is not known. Gosh, what a shame and a waste it would be if his efforts didn't fruit in the way he likely intended!

That net is getting bigger and bigger, Dave!

Your not asking for much The best information for CH 11 would be Colin Cooke catalogues and web site where you can see two major collections. Pecks book will also assist. Thanks, Peter!

Anyone have links to any published information on the C2 copper farthings, the mints, the coins, the milling, etc. (BNJ?). Also, just as a starting point, can anyone stab a guess at how many obverse and reverse dies there may have been for each year (including minor legend varieties)? What would be the BCW equivalent for a C2 copper coin?

Now all the comments, and indeed my own opinion, seem happy to run with the suggestion that this is a 5/3, can I ask how would I next go about getting it validated for inclusion into the Charles II farthing series as a variety? Who would be the leading incontestable expert in this field, would I be looking at the late Mr Cooke's remaining players?

That look legit to me, the top half of the lamination is missing. What you see has been struck through the missing bit. My thoughts too, Gary!

"Sign 'ere!" Class!

Yes, but given that this would have been done to create a 5 from a 3, not the other way around, wouldn't you expect to see a downstroke to connect the top of the 5 to its loop? There doesn't seem any trace of it at all. I'm of course no great master in numismatics, but I have noticed with Elizabeth (the REALLY old one), for example, that there were no special efforts taken to disguise the underlying numeral, they just seemed to bang in the next standard number punch, as used on the other dies for the year, and seemed happy with it! I've seen an 8/7 looking more like a dollar sign than a numeral. I wonder if they became more exacting as die preparation and milling got better? Not that I'm claiming this is a 5/3, of course!

I managed to get a look on a grown-up computer today, rather than an 'iphone' (thanks Peck ), and this particular 5/3 looks different again to both coins on Colin's site, guess that's at least 3 reverse dies then? Getting to be more and more common all the time!

Keep it coming, Pies, you'll come upon it before me at this rate! Adjustment marks were made on the planchets/flans before hammering/milling, so were typically/mostly squeezed out by the manufacturing process (except where you see adjustment marks, of course)! The marks we regularly see on these coins are post production, so get your thinking cap on!

Bugger!

I've had a further photographic attempt at the 5/3, trying to use added lighting to replicate what I can so much more easily percieve by rocking the coin back and forth. The top tail of the 5 does seem to be clear, stretching much further back than the arm of any three would likely do!

Many have assumed they were made as a mark of protest against the monarch, but that doesn't explain why the fields are always defaced and not the bust itself. If the bust had been defaced I would say it was on religious grounds as this was the political hot potato of the day - catholicism vs the various forms of the protestant religion that were followed in northern Europe. I don't have a satisfactory answer. I don't have any definitive figures for percentage distribution, but can say that 1B is rare, 3A is quite rare, 3B less so and I don't know anyone who has a 3J. When I was actively seeking a 3A and 3B about 8 years ago, only one or two 3A coins came up on ebay over a 12 month period and probably no more than 5 for both busts, suggesting the bulk of the cross crosslet shillings are 1A and 3C with a guestimiate of say 1:3 or 4. But don't hold me to that. Thanks, Rob, all makes perfect sense! I won't hold you to it, though I'm confident it would be incontestable!

I guess that's likely as an easy way to spot most counterfeit coins. However there's also the possibility that some marks were made for identification or accounting purpose. This would mean a mess of lines across all denominations, though, wouldn't it? Also, thinking suspiciously, as I'm inclined to do, I'd never have taken receipt of a 'scratched' coin in that period, thinking hmmm, 'two lines,' must be safe, someone else has already checked it? I'd be thinking 'that's just what I'd be doing to any fake produced'! With the accounting possibility, I know notes are marked in banks, but generally the top note, which can be conveniently banded to the top of the pile...how would that work in the medieval realm? Interesting point, though, would love to have a definative answer!

Possibly, pies, it had crossed my mind, but this would mean ALL the silver hammered coins of the period would be a mess of cross-hatching, and this doesn't seem to be the case? Also, as Rob has said, it is unlikely to be political/religeous defacing, as people would be much more inclined to vent their aggression upon the portrait itself. It's a consistent activity, usually 2 lines only, and of the same width/gauge, so probably scratched with the same type of impliment (knife probably?), would be good to get to the bottom of it!

Following an email from NGC the other day, explaining 'there were gliches in the system' preventing me from accessing the verification details of a couple of coins, I've been checking other coins to see if the verification remains intact. Anyway, I came across this one, that has been described as a 4p http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/CertResults.aspx?CertNumber=3625167-001 now they either meant BUST 4B, in which case it's still an error, or they've got the denomination wrong...not good whichever! So, am I missing something obvious here, or is it a boob?

I've just had a read of the above mentioned thread, your drawings are a useful example. I'm going to try and take some angle-lit shots tomorrow (today), to try and get a full 3D view of it!

Man after my own heart, then!