Colin G.

I can't believe you have put that thought out for the RM to get their hands on you should have at least entered the next competition with that one

The whole forum's gone bananas! I think we should all drink 'bottled' water until we can work out what the hell's going on around here? LOL I think it's partly what Rob says, it's a big collecting world and other people's enthusiasm eventually rubs off on us. Plus I don't know about other areas, but there's little quality hammered Chas I around as far as I can see. After a period of buying very little I started to think beyond 'that looks nice' to actually considering expanding my horizons a bit. It is interesting that there is certainly a reduction in the number of larger hammered coins being found by detectorists. I think as the largest detecting targets it was inevitable that the numbers being found would reduce. I have no doubt there will be more hoards, but your hammered frisbees may be a smart area of investment.......you watch a load of Charlie hoards will be found now!!

My copy has 5p on the cover, which came as part of a larger parcel of books. It's a super little reference volume, even if only 40 pages of less than A5 size. My copy came today and is also priced at 5p Useful info on the dies and, more importantly, the die pairings known - possible a cheapish project to track some of them down Interesting to note these bronze coins were not minted by the Royal Mint, but contracted out :- 1864 Henry Jay & Co 1868 & 1874 Partridge & Co Never heard of these two before . The Royal mint used Watt & Co and Heatons for 1860-3 UK bronze (also without mintmark), Watt & Co also used for Hong Kong bronze cents It would appear no mintmarks appear before 1874 on any UK or Colonial Bronze coinage - I wonder if any other stuff was farmed out in these years prior to the major refurbishment of the RM in 1882? That's another book I have got to track down now!!

Unfortunately no examples in my collection, but in relation to the dies you have noted, I would add the following from a brief check: There are 3 obverse dies involved on the proof dump issue farthings (CC 458 would also be a different Reverse die, position of B in Britannia) 1. With the S underneath the laurels – CC463, 464(LP). Peck plate coin P787. All 1717. 2. With the S just clear to the left of the laurels (later strike of 1 after die polishing?). CC462. - Different die note the I is clear of the head due to the lettering meeting in a slightly different position. 3. S with clear space to the laurels. CC455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461. Bald BM20470(LP), Z42539. (1717 & 1718) Reverse dies are as follows. 1. Badly flawed, lower exergue line touching inner circle. 1717 Bald BM20470(LP) 2. No flaws, exergue on inner circle, laurel closer to A than N.(1717) Bald Z42539, CC459, 460, 462, 463 3. short exergue line, no flaws. (1718) Z37110(thin Ag), CC456. CC455(1718 Cu) 4. short exergue line, laurel closer to N. CC461, An area for a bit more study in terms of settling die combinations, and therefore potential sequencing. I have to agree that the addition of the lacquered proof in Peck does surprise me. Peck is quite dismissive of others in his publication...rightly so in many circumstances, but as a result he seems to try and stick to the proven. Whilst there are clear cases where this is not true, it would inevitably be expected in a work of this size, but the inclusion of this piece really does surprise me. How could it be included without certainty...it is such a unique record in terms of a lacquered coin being included that you would expect there to be clear evidence. I am also not convinced yet, and as you say unless you are willing to part with the cash to view a couple of examples in hand it would be difficult to change my current view. It is also worth noting that the CC example was suggested as a possible? lacquered proof so I would suggest not too much could be based on that particular example either.

Don't you just love daylight robbery!! Those charges are so infuriating when you are on the receiving end

Your example is showing signs of some form of machine doubling, where the machinery involved has caused the die to chatter resulting in the "effect" of doubled lettering in the legend. It is usually more evident in the legend/outer areas of the coin, you will notice that the doubling will all be to the same extent in the same direction.

Can't help with your question, but I would be interested in similar for the 1 & 2 double coins if anyone does have the information.

The coin shown appears to have the portrait of a colonial coin such as a Straits Settlements cent. The coins referred to in Peck between 1860-1868 which show numbering are much fainter in terms of the scratching and are explained in detail by Gouby (images can be seen on his website..I think).

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each. Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely? I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but there is a weighty tome explaining the entire working of the Royal Mint (c. 1870) in excruciating detail (and I really do mean that) which may contain some useful information. If not, it's a handy cure for insomnia. The publication is "The Royal Mint by George Frederick Ansell" and you can download a PDF free from Google books. The pages relating to matrices, punches and dies are 63-67. Thanks Nick I will have a look through

This is an area I am currently looking at and struggling to find any certain information, from information i have, it appears that three tiers of production were used (matrices, hubs/master dies, working dies). The "matrix" is an incuse image of the design, and is used to strike "hubs/master dies/punches" (which are positive) from which "working dies" were then produced (again incuse). A fault could easily occur during the striking process when creating master dies and therefore, this flaw transfers to a number of working dies and then these flaws can potentially be repeated across a vast number of coins. The matrices and master dies were produced in fairly low numbers, with quite a few working dies appearing to be struck from each master die. If anyone does know of any good sources of information on this subject please let me know!!

You're quite right, Gary: 1915 top, 1916 below.... So how did one die make so many coins? You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices.

Yes that is a big problem. If the micro variety is rare enough so that its value goes above the threshold where you have to give an individual valuation its no longer a problem. We need Spinks to take more notice of micro varieties otherwise we're screwed. This is one area where CGS may offer some real benefit, it would be interesting to know how their valuations have held up in the case of a claim, but certainly the item is catalogued, photographed and valued....which must offer some benefit

Technically yes, but if you do a verification check on the coin it will come up as rejected, and the yellow label also highlights this fact. However it is something that needs a bit more prominence on the CGS website. On a separate issue a few coins I submitted are due to be collected tomorrow less than 30 days after they were submitted.

You get the same with 1895 OH farthings, bright finish but there are some really nice proof-like examples out there.

I believe about a 50/50 split. In CCGB they are priced roughly the same. Both are easy. Thanks, Peter, much appreciated! I agree, not far off 50/50

Yup Peter is spot on you have a George IV farthing

Dan, Welcome to the forum, it will be difficult to give nay advice without a photo of the coin, there are just so many possibilities. Even if the picture is not brilliant at least we should be able to narrow it down for you. Out of curiosity which way is Britannia facing?

They may have done, but I find the "edge view" holders ugly, if CGS go down this route Bill, please ask them to look at a more attractive alternative!!

The fact that the other datal figures have a similar stepped top, would make my initial thought damage where something has spread the top of the digits. I can see why you are questioning the 3 because the top looks more curved, but it does not align with either example I have. You would need a much better example to be certain of it being a separate type of 1843/2 die, although it is likely there may be other 1843/2 dies out there.

Yes, welcome aboard, Adam! They're a good bunch on here! Welcome to the forum, what are your collecting interests?

I gave up and walked away in the end...someone else can have my cash instead

Those farthing prices were crazy!!

I just bid on a proof, it said bid sent and then nothing...and then it sold to someone else again for less than I would have been willing to pay

I could understand it from a small regional auction house but this is ridiculous

I understand it was more the fact that the sizes/weights had started to align in different countries due to the same blanks being used, and the quality of the coinage was also comparable with many of the countries using the same suppliers (Heaton et al). Therefore people had become confident in accepting the foreign coinage in transactions. It is surprising how many foreign bronze pieces are found when metal detecting, it was obviously a fairly common practise.