Coinery

Was that auction or BIN, Paulus?

It's the irony of the double-standard, Rob, that's all!

love it, and love 'em!

You'd also of course be looking at getting the 8 o'clock obverse fixed at the same time, so I'm guessing it genuinely is an expensive coin-man job? Thinking about it, there'd unlikely be any lustre left following the initial process of soldering, and certainly following the subsiquent removal of the reciprocal clasp. You're probably best off just enjoying it as it is, and saving your money to spend on a nice gothic florin to go with it!

Don't go anywhere near a jeweller! If you can't find or afford a specialist coin man to do the job, leave it where it is! There are some things a jeweller doesn't understand, and that is the effect of heat on a metal that 'can't' subsiquently be cleaned in a jeweller's 'pickling' solution afterwards! Trust me it'll be a big mess, or a a bright shiny coin, whichever you prefer?

Coin vandals Perfect response, brilliant!

This thread has been brilliant! What it's all about!

Yes, of course, BR, great point! And 999 you don't have to open a new thread, just post it in this thread!

Don't apologise for your English, it's perfectly adequate to follow this conversation, it's very good in fact. You can however post the other image in a new post if you want? The crowned letters do look reminiscent of a royal mark, but I can't imagine a good reason for a genuine royal mark to be there? As I said, I'd love to know more!

No idea, but extremely intriguing, would really love to know!

This tiny mark is incuse 1699-01.jpg And interestingly, this was the only giveaway on my 1700 hopeful no-dot shilling, which had a slight incuse flaw where a stop should be. After stumbling upon a perfect die-match with a partial stop, I concluded that when the clog gets big enough it will bulge and produce an incuse mark on the coin, as it did on mine, leaving also a tiny stress crack, which you'd expect.

OK I'm confused now! I can't follow the point...when we say one example of 5 dies, I'm sure there are plenty more, but all so worn or rusting below ground that we can't include them. This very much makes the point that, with so many coins of this period either clogged, poorly struck, pitted, or plain unidentifiable, it's difficult to catalogue a definite variety without a high-grade example to die match it. The fact there are already 5 different wannabes all vying for a single variety says it all to me?

But, according to Rob, and I'm only reading between the lines, he was suggesting there looked to be at least 5 reverse dies here in this thread, if I'm interpreting this correctly? Now, if he's correct, we can only suppose 2 things...5 obverse dies, or not all of you have the variety you are claiming? Edit: correction reverse dies

Unless all 5 dies were produced by the same engraver, who really didn't realise a stop should be there?

That is just staggering!

Clogs and pitting are a massive issue unless you have a couple of examples from the same die! I proved this for myself with a supposed no-stop 1700 shilling by finding another example of the same die with only half a stop, ie before the full clog! It's on here somewhere!

You won't be the first to lose the plot on here Speedbird!

Uh, oh!

If it IS a fake, then someone is certainly knocking out some awesome dies, as this coin is clearly hammered. Is it a rare and valuable type? If not I just can't imagine anyone making that kind of effort, especially when they could instead be faking the comparatively simple Anglo-Saxon coins?

But no!

You could balance a powerful magnifying glass over the coin, or maybe even a loupe, and take a macro photo of the glass itself? Just a thought?

Just out of interest, on the E2/3 coin, is that a reverse denomination mark?

I'm not in the frame, as you may well guess, but hoping for good prices all the same!

I'm definitely in the Vicky/Copper camp on pricing.

Utterly amazing and, as I've said before, I can't believe the stability of the image! It's as if it's attached to a fixed arm...it's that good!