Leaderboard

Looks ok to me. The 't's in tenth on some 1859 florins look recut (or otherwise malformed).

The coin is encased at the time they are produced,, there used to be an organisation called the Encased Collectors International who solely focused on encased cents. I spoke to them for a while and sent some modern coins and farthings off to be encased of which they returned me a few samples of each.

Patience. You need to find something matching the ticket info and the Bulletin listing. There is always a chance that the coin in question never made the Bulletin, especially if it was a good example with a ready buyer. The ticket in question has 45/- on it, but that would mean looking for other examples in the market between 1949 and 1959.

I think you may be right Jerry. At any rate, I think I might keep out of it from now on. At least until something definite begins to happen. Can I just say, if I've had any disagreements with anybody, I don't think they've been too sharp, and it's definitely nothing personal. I like and respect everybody on here. If we were meeting in real life, we'd have a bit of a discussion about it, say how racked off we were with the entire thing, then have a drink and a laugh, and talk about coins or something else. Face to face never seems to get as personalised as it does in writing on a forum.

It is the same for me, but the prolongation that seems inevitable does increase the opportunity for things to get out of hand and perhaps a bit too bitter. I agree that tolerating and respecting our differences is essential, but there have been a number of heated exchanges over the months (years?) and I hope these don’t threaten the integrity of the forum as a whole. It has been absorbing (in a horror movie sort of way) watching the parliamentary process progress- or not - but in this forum, where we should be pulling together in our love of numismatics, I do worry that we are learning a bit too much about each other and getting a bit too emotional for comfort. Jerry

It is madness. And there is another dealer on the USA EBay site who has hundreds of slabbed common uk coins at similar prices, many artificially toned (which seems to pass muster with the slabbers). Is there really a market? Talk about the fool and his money.... Jerry

$300 for the second or third most common coin in UK history??

If the subject to deemed to be off limits, I'll abide by that decision.

grab yourself a bargain,

The obvious error is that St. Paul's is on its side

This is a moot point and I'm not convinced. It is also part of a much broader question. Rawlins was in Bristol making tokens in 1652 whereas Ramage was employed at the mint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rawlins Note the lozenge stops so characteristic of Rawlins' work. However, both Rawlins and Ramage studied under Briot, so the pair will undoubtedly have learned and practised similar skills and methods. Ramage also used lozenges, but I can't make a case for Rawlins ever using mullets. It is somewhat unhelpful that Ramage and Rawlins share the same initial for their surname. With Rawkins in France from 1648 to 1652 following the Civil War, there is no debate about the engraver of the 1651 patterns, nor the significance of the mullets. As the resident engraver at the mint for the duration of the Commonwealth, the R is unambiguous in the case of the early three pillars dies and those of the Cromwell farthings for the simple reason that Rawlins was known to be elsewhere, but from the restoration in 1660 things become a little muddy. The reinstallation of Thomas Rawlins as chief engraver would lead one to think that the R referred to him in every instance post-1660, but with David Ramage also employed as engraver at the mint and having similarly signed the dies with an R, the jury is out. The three pillars was a symbol of the Commonwealth and as such, unlikely to find favour in the court of Charles II. It is very tempting to say that anything with 5 pointed mullets was done by Ramage, but all the pattern farthings and the 1651 pattern halfcrown use both a mullet and a lozenge in the legends. This is not unexpected as a former pupil of Broit's. The early 3 pillars dies had an R below the central pillar. This P473 (which has both mullets and a lozenge on the obverse, as do the other 3 pillars dies) has a disturbed area in the field below the central pillar when angled best towards the light and this is commensurate with a filled die. Further clues may lie in the pattern farthings P474, 483 & 484. The first has a large bust with both mullets and a lozenge in the legend; the second has a smaller bust, signed R below, and only lozenges in the legend; the third uses the same smaller bust punch, but isn't signed and is a different die with the bust entered lower on the die and uses both a lozenge and mullets in the legend. If anything is to be interpreted from this, it is that Rawlins consistently used lozenges but not mullets. I also think it is reasonable to say that those with mullets were done by Ramage. If everybody gets their copy of Peck out , they can contribute an opinion. Discuss.