Paddy

Further to the above, in replacing my old ones I noticed this 1699 farthing, date in legend. It appears to have no dot before or after the date. In Spink, they refer to "No stop before or after" but I think that refers to GVLIELMVS not the date. All the examples I can find have the dot before the date - is missing this a known variety anywhere?

I am picking up a bunch more from the same collection later in the week, so you never know... 😁

Thank you all for the feedback. Both the 1721 dot and the 1863 3a+Bb will go into my collection as new variants. I still can't see the thin eight underneath, which reverse Bb is supposed to have, but I can live with it being there. (I certainly can't say with certainty that it is not there, so cannot argue for a new combination!) @Colin G. are there any plans to extend your excellent website back into George III and earlier? I notice 2 distinctly different reverses on 1679 farthings that are not mentioned in Spink and I would be interested to know if these have been identified before somewhere.

Thanks both! I hope to get to see it finally on Wednesday, so I will have a better idea then. He says he has a bunch of other hammered coins he has found, so there may be others of interest. I will report back.

Thanks for that Rob. Does that mean you think it is a fake or a contemporary counterfeit? I think I can see part of the F before the RA - the foot and the lower bar. Could this just be wear or a filled die?

I read somewhere else on here that the 2017 and 2018 £2 coins will not be in circulation, and I am pretty certain the Gruffalo and Snowman will also stay in packets. I have always liked to get one of each coin each year to stash away, but with so many coming out now that are not circulation, I will stick to circulation only in the future. As far as I am concerned, if it is never in circulation, it is not a "coin" just a gewgaw.

Thanks for all that @Coinery - that helps a lot. I had not particularly noted the red areas where copper may be showing through, so I will take special note of these when I see it. As most of you know, I am not very good at IDing hammered but I like to be prepared when I know someone is going to bring me some. I suspect he will want to sell me some or all of what he has, so I need to be careful I am not taken for a ride!

I strongly suspect this is one of the fakes knocking around. I have several other examples - one of Magna Carta and one of the HMS Belfast. In each case the appearance at first is proof-like with very shiny fields and a cameo effect to the bust. Further examination turns up edge errors and other "not quite right" features.

Either this one has been up for ages, or he has relisted it with the same daft photo! I remember seeing the same picture on a listing at least a year ago.

... and if that is the total for all letters, then stand by for another year of craziness. I begin to despair of the Royal Mint - they still haven't replaced the mintage figures page and they are bringing out more and more "direct sale only" issues. Profit is more important to them than fulfilling the task of a national mint.

When I was in the Engineers they had a rectangular piece of rock, which had been the high point of Rockall and had been cut out by the first landers to form a table piece for the officer's mess. It was nicknamed "The Square root of Rockall"... PS - further research - I believe this was the 1971 landing when the light beacon was fitted to the top of the rock. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall

Yes - same problem. No error message, just a blank page. Seems they have a problem!

I agree with most of the above - my only concern is that the fakers will use such a site to improve the quality of the fakes until we can't tell the difference anymore!

I can see from the screenshot that they are on Easylive as well, and that provides a reasonable search facility. See; https://www.easyliveauction.com/catalogue/2caef58f63420be6cca65aadbec3663d/0af8d24542e81eb9357e7ef448a6646f/private-collection-of-gold-proof-sets-gold-sovereign-sets/?currentPage=1

A less well known Monty Python sketch and one of my favourites - if nothing else because the Ozzies tried to get it banned!

Thanks for that @Coinery that would be better for me as I need an improved Edward I penny! Anyone else with a different opinion?

I no likee. The English lions on the reverse look very worn for what should be a proof coin - and as the rest of the coin shows virtually no wear, where did that come from? If a weak strike then that does not fit with proof... All that combined with the seller's reputation means I would not be risking my hard-earned cash in that direction.

How about this one for offending modern sensitivities - "The English are Best" by Flanders and Swann:

It does read Maximinus, not Maximianus and I think this is therefore Maximinus II Daia, as Augustus 310 to 313 AD, not Maximian who was 286 to 310 AD with gaps. Reverse is Iovi Conservatori Augg NN. The excellent Roman Base Metal coins from the banner advert has it as CRB430 on page 58. Siscia mint - which is modern day Split in Croatia. Nice coin and well worth your £8. If you are going to collect the odd Roman coin cheaply then the two Rotographic books (one for Silver, one for Base metals) are a great starting place.

... and here is the second. 1874 Penny - after much peering at images both in the book and online I am still not certain if this is Obverse 7 or 8. The curve of the top lip looks 8 but the ribbons look 7. Reverse I think is G. Please put me right!

After a prolonged period of abstinence I have picked up a bunch of reasonably decent Victoria Pennies. Two I would appreciate opinions on. Here is the first - 1869 penny. Apart from the obvious damage, is there any problem with it? I know there are lots of forgeries of this date around, but I can't see any fault with this one - anyone spot anything I have missed?

I do a lot of trawling around local and small scale online auctions for coins - both bulk lots and individually. You get to spot the different sorts of bulk lots after a while - there are some that are genuine "Grannies old jewellery box" lots, and that is what you really want to find. There are some lots that have had a cursory, non expert, sort - these generally have any gold or silver removed or put into separate lots, but may still have a few interesting bits left. (The non-expert rarely looks closely at coppers or tokens and has poor knowledge on foreign pieces, so you can do well there.) Then there are the dealers' junk lots - accumulations of the coins they cannot sell, sometimes salted with a few slightly better things to tempt the bidding and persuade you they haven't been through it with a fine tooth comb. Telling the difference is not always easy as some dealers go to great lengths to make the lots look original! But they can be great fun and provided you know your stuff and view carefully before bidding, you can do very well.

The link doesn't work for me - pops into a request to download the webloc file...

I can't say I know for sure what this is, but it looks religious - possibly a baptismal token or keepsake. The Sigma letters hint at Greek, but the rest of the letters look more traditional/Roman alphabet. Metal looks to be the cheap pewter-like metal used during the 19th and 20th century for low-value medallions and tourist pieces. Just thoughts.

One of the misuses that gets me every time is "amount" instead of "number", as in "The amount of people collecting coins is on the increase". You use amount for commodities such as flour or sand. You use number for things you can count!