Coinery

Never noticed that before!

Just cast an eye over that neck mark and eyebrow to make sure there's nothing untoward. It'll have been cleaned before, but it's starting up a new tone already.

The thickness makes me think 2d, but I haven't access to a book to confirm by portrait. Regardless, you would have to walk a long mile to find an example, especially of a 2d, with rims like that! A bargain in my opinion! Clean the other coin up and chuck it on eBay to offset some of your costs! ?

Seeing your profile picture @1949threepence reminds me that, IF I had the money, I'd be buying the two aUnc '46 and '49 brass 3ds that are on sale. As it is, I will settle for my 3rd desire, which will be quite a bit cheaper I hope?

Thanks, Rob, I got thrown by this Red Herring... https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/london-coins Let me know if you plan to go! Anyone else planning to attend?

Do they still sell via 'the saleroom'? Anyone attending live?

Goodness, I so wish I had something to contribute here, but I don't know a single thing about this period, but so love reading posts about coins of this age. There's an inverted triangle with its top edge covering the 20th C period of numismatics, and the bottom point being somewhere about where you are! You've probably got less than 1% of this forum who can engage with your field, but I guess you knew that? Still love reading about these coins, as I do all coins! ?

Yes, that's true! I'm guessing they must have some other better coins in the sale too! Also @The Coinery a lot of the bulk lots are generally not photographed, Guy, you've just got to get along there, unfortunately (or should I say fortunately)!

I do love the description of 1710 "fine, dark tone, on a slightly irregular flan!" I was nearly sea sick just looking at those waves. Borderline melt pot for me, surprised it got anywhere near being catalogued as a single lot! ?

Oh, dear! LOT 1709 http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=1709&f=o&s=l

I'd say 'something' is going on, but it could be absolutely anything in my view...even a tool dropped on the die, who knows? There is a tiny fleck sticking out of the right centre of the 8 too, but what can you do, that's all we can say about it? Speaking only for myself, when an overdate or overmark is inconclusive, it should be documented only as an example of a particular die, much as we do for repairs to lettering, etc. until such a time as documentary evidence, or subsequent die examples, prove the case otherwise. The OP coin is not worn to a degree that compromises the details of the underlying shape, suggesting to me that a better example will not reveal anything extra, though I stand to be corrected. To be true to numismatics we'd be correct to catalogue this kind of coin along the lines of something like 'the 1861 new moon die,' for example, in the same way we have 'dot' pennies! They will be valid and useful one day in the chronology of the dies, so absolutely 100% worth documenting in locations like these, until such a time as they can be collated together in a future online repository!

Don't be tempted to mark down the value of a high-value coin on the customs forms to avoid the duty. The insurance company wouldn't even look at you if it went missing! Even if they did, you've have to prove you weren't behaving fraudulently first...you'd likely end up with an unwanted fine and sentence, well in excess of the original tax. If you can find an international courier that will fully insure a £2k coin for a reasonable price I'd be interested to know about them!

10cf2 for me! ? The ornaments stand much taller, and the right hand fleur is far less splayed on crown 5. And 100% with you on Blunts article. Have you got Withers' book of Edward I and II pennies? That's worth every penny from Galata too!

The Plantagenet coins worth having are very crisp indeed! A lovely series of coins, as is the OP coin! ?

No, not at all, you mentioned the weight...anyway, got to go, take it easy out there! ?

6g ?

Only for the reasons I raised...if they were perfectly straight on the flan pre-strike, would they really be so straight post-strike? If they happened during the striking process, and the marks were left on a fully struck up coin, wouldn't wear, as can be seen on the coin, infill and smooth over at least some of the lines? If you look at the lettering on any coin, even 20thC coins, wear spreads the metal out!

You brought the weight into it which made me think you may have thought I was doubting authenticity? ☺️

Bit odd that people can randomly post without so much as a registration, though! Not sure of the wisdom of that, or of its potential to destabilise some hard-won and sensitive relationships on here? Hey ho!

Yes, all my comments! ?

Not doubting the authenticity, Paul, just answering your question about the origin of the lines! Whilst there is no explanation for it, I think they are post mint, as are the others! How they came to be across SO many coins I have no idea. ?

If you know what I mean?

No, I'm only talking about the overdate proposal. I personally think the circles are post mint damage.

Without overwhelming other evidence, I'd also say no, though it appears to be the same 'error' that's being reported as that overdate. It's my thought that the 3 might have curled around much more on the freshly made die, but over a short period has become clogged and damaged, maybe even rusty (the general state of the dies shown are pretty poor overall). Then at some point a repair happened, quite possibly using the punch that makes up the tail of the 6 and 9 (could challenge the 9/0 variety too, if the original 6 and 9 weren't composite, but repaired with a new punch?), which was used to create a slightly different and lower line, which may have been intentional to make for a clearer looking 3? Clear as mud I know! More likely a recut in my opinion.

I'm personally not convinced about this overdate at all, though it'll be interesting to see your's, C44. The fact the feature appears on different dies weakens the argument a bit. The inverted 2 idea was interesting, excepting the even greater unlikelihood that an inverted 2 would've been mistakenly punched into multiple dies?