Rob

What's wrong with people. It's not even as good as the Spink plate coin, and that only cost 34K last time out with a handful of bidders.

Like the guy who took exception when I suggested they were collecting opinions. Was it MS65 1967 pennies? Whatever, really rare because only a handful had been slabbed in such exalted grade. Thus proving that most people still retain their marbles.

Come the expected world food shortage, this should have value when we're growing our own.

Portrait is fairly flat, which is typical. Is there any trace of solder from a suspension mount on either side or the edge? Spink ticket and price suggests it will probably be in the Circular, but when? I'd have to plough through them to find out. I can't see any case for it being a touchpiece, as these were typically angels - the combination of saint and king provided the cure and/or protection . The milled Charles II touchpieces were produced later than this coin FWIW, this is my 3rd issue shilling. Again, flat in parts, though the portrait is above average.

Some die pairs are rare, but in terms of common, over half the 1551s use obverse A, which given there are 9 obverse dies across both marks seems disproportionate. No idea if the catalogue is online, as I always use my own copy. Must get around to doing a census of these at some point as I want either a crown or halfcrown to tick the y initial mark box.

You need to refer to the Lingford catalogue, where all the legend varieties described by him are listed (13 obverse and 20 reverse varieties). The top one is 1552 obv.A and the second was not listed by him, though the obverse configuration with just a colon before the tun does appear in 1553 as his 1553 obv.B, so is likely a late die. I haven't compiled an exhaustive database of images for these, so can't say how rare the bottom one is, but don't have any examples to date. I wouldn't lose any sleep over the lack of stop - it's just another die (even if not recorded by Lingford), and probably specific to just this one.

That's two in a short period of time. I bought the 8+J in the CCA/Nantwich auction at the end of November. It was described as 8+I (also described as such on the accompanying envelope) but obviously wasn't. I paid just under £45 for it. I'm looking for a 8+I, 9+K and 12+L if anyone has anything available, as long as it's not a washer.

And another one. https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1626272395819450369 Just waiting for Prigozhin. Hope springs eternal.

That's ridiculous. Any celebrity wearing that would need to arrive by chauffeured lorry.

Stabbed with a knife point to check that it is silver and not silver plated. The preferred Scandinavian method of checking for dodgy silver. It was used in the Baltic area long after the cessation of Danegeld payments. eg. one of my William II coins also has this. The TPGs are inconsistent in this method of rejection, frequently passing peck marked coins while rejecting others as damaged - it doesn't seem to rely on the quantity of peck marks! Pay no attention to the label, as it was a normal occurrence at the time.

I concur, it looks like the same coin. He could have used a few more pixels though - they don't cost that much.

Is it even the same coin? There's crud around the L which isn't in Zo Arms' image and a dig in the upright, not in the seller's picture which also has a small protrusion at the top of the F upright . I would say someone is being less than honest.

Well, you must live in a small world as there's 48 in the UK for a start, unless you don't consider us in Europe. As for the rest of Europe, I guess 26 in the Irish Republic, as non-English speaking countries will use a different word.

Mike Veissid (dealer)

Richard Groves (dealer)

I think it should be zero VAT. The main thing is that it is recorded as investment gold on the import paperwork.

There's no VAT on investment gold. It depends on what the coin is. I think investment gold goes back to the introduction of the sovereign in 1817. If you look at past catalogues, then these onwards have a g against the lot indicating they are investment gold, but up to the end of the 18th century it may well apply at the 5% rate.

Is part of the problem terrestrial vs satellite signal transmission?

Jon Mann collection ticket (as opposed to dealer)

Same old, same old.... A French newspaper cartoon from 1854. Not much has changed.

I googled his name and address during lockdown and it came up with the standard solicitor's advert in the Gazette(?) asking for anyone with a claim on the estate to contact them. I think the period runs for a month or three. That covers their backsides and after that there is no obligation to pursue a claim. I wasn't in regular contact, and just found out by chance.

When I was young it was a proper noun. None of this lower case nonsense.

Peter died on the 23rd July 2019

I think you have to put it into context for bronze pennies. Take a collector of pennies in 1894 as an example. You are still in the period of the bun head, so the design is essentially the same as in 1860. The value of an 1860 penny would be little more than a few pence even in 1894, so it is unlikely any of the major collections would have an example. A comparison would be a modern day major collection that had a 1988 to 2023 penny date run in it! Nobody would give a damn. You have to wait until the publication of things like Peck to provide the documentary background for what is essentially a date run collection with a few varieties for certain dates. A few acknowledged rarities with a healthy following will also help as it generates interest from people with deeper pockets. A collection has to be practically complete as per a reference and in high grade (or one of the highest available in the case of rarities) to become a recognised major collection. Historical major collections were type collections with a good smattering of 'best knowns'. It is therefore unlikely that many bronze pennies will have a pre-Peck provenance, and I would suggest that any proofs probably came from either Montagu's extensive milled collection sold through Spink in 1890 (and significantly, documented), or Saward (1910).