Rob

I think we all have the same problem. The solution of course is to inform her that you intend spending 5 times more than you actually do/can. She informs you that you can spend to a certain limit, then you have a row and you back down so that when you only spend twice the amount you can actually afford or think wise you earn lots of brownie points for your restraint. Then she who must be obeyed may even raise her limit as a bonus.

There are a few pictured on this website. link Most put there by David Magnay, I presume the same one who had the pattern sale at DNW 3/2/1999.

That's because both the predecimal and rotographic links are not obvious at the top of the forum page. The colours are too similar to stand out clearly and this is compounded by small lettering. I always forget they are there, in fact I found Rotographic via Google months before I noticed the link.

Spink 3611.

Probably just a lower 5. The whole issue is plagued with misaligned dates. I have 1821, 2x1822 & 1825 and all are rising left to right except for the P1411 which has the last two digits level.

Mr Consistency

This is a touch esoteric. Does anyone have a book containing an example of either Weyl's or Lauer's handwriting. The image below is inscribed on the reverse of a Freeman 881 uniface and I am trying to find a link to either of the above. The reading I have interpreted as GB - ?J 15A although any opinions would be welcome. The ? could be an L as these pieces are thought to have been produced just prior to the golden jubilee in 1887 although dated 1860 and 1887 for the two series. The 15A I suspect to be the set number and denomination type, as these were produced in sets of 3 i.e. penny, halfpenny and farthing. Freeman lists 17 types of penny for the 1860 issue including BRITANNIAL which is likely to be a trial error. Additionally it is likely that a uniface gold piece with grained edge exists and tin pieces with both plain and milled edges also definitely exist, so more than 15 sets would have been made in both edges, different metals and some uniface obverses. Anyone with anything to say other than go away would be appreciated. Thanks.

Davies reverse D with cross touching bead and date covering 10 beads on an 1883 6d. Normally this is reverse F with SIX PENCE wider spaced, cross to space and date covering 11 beads.

For currency pieces it's not really a problem. British base metal coins (fractional farthings to twopennies) were mainly copper prior to 1860 (with a few tin examples in the late 1600s). After that they changed to bronze. 0.925 silver was used for 3ds upwards until 1920 when it changed to 0.500 silver. From 1947 onwards silver coins changed to cupro-nickel. Gold is obvious. Maundy money has always been silver. Some modern stuff is copper plated steel. Foreign coinage generally uses the same materials, though you may find things like aluminium bronze as well. Hammered currency before the onset of milled used gold and silver where the face value of the coin was equal to the precious metal content. There were also a few James 1st farthings in copper.

Just for you master JMD, here's a picture of the obverse. Unfortunately the blue and green iridescence is lost with the scanner, but it's one of the most attractive bronzed copper pieces I've ever seen

It's definitely 15A. Here's a scan with the light coming from the other direction.

I would say no because it is clearly of inferior standard to Taylor's work. He may not have had the ability of Droz or Kuchler, but his proofs are better than this. I don't think he had the ability to put on the security edge either as all the proofs and patterns listed by Peck have a plain edge except for those where he used the RENDER edge. Also, I am only missing the KH32 variety for the 1806 1/2ds and it doesn't match anything I have.

An 1806 currency no berries 1/2d (Peck 1376) with a ball below the trident prongs in exactly the right place for the ball found on the proof halfpennies. This is rare and unrecorded to my knowledge. Since finding this piece I have checked 446 images of sufficient quality without unearthing another. Some of these will be the same item resufacing on eBay but not many will be. Peck states on p.375 that the ball is an infallible means of identifying proofs, however this is the exception. The rim/edge, legend and quality of the die are all not of proof quality with much striking weakness in the legend together with die wear and clashed dies apparent. It therefore appears to have been made from a proof Britannia punch but which one I can't say as yet. The coin is uncirculated and the variety unambiguous. The only proof 1806 1/2d without berries is Peck 1365 and it is definitely not derived from this reverse die as the ship is of the rather crude design associated with the currency pieces.

I also have a second piece with a ball below the trident prongs, but this is slightly closer to them and is bigger than the proof ball size on the piece before. It doesn't match the position of any of the proof reverses in my collection. I therefore have assumed it is either a flaw or a punched error during manufacturing. Again it has clashed dies, slightly less wear than the previous piece, is uncirculated and unambiguous. If anyone has a KH32 reverse (Peck 1356) I would appreciate an image of this as I am missing this piece. Also if anyone has info along similar lines could they tell me. Thanks.

Define your collecting taste if possible and then read as much information as you can find. Most importantly learn how to grade because this determines price and most sellers up the grade a bit to give the appearance of a bargain. If you don't know what you want to collect, search the web for coins and see if anything takes your fancy. There are a few dealers and auction sites with good quality pictures in their catalogue sections. If you want to expand your existing collection, it looks as if you have the whole world to choose from. It should therefore be relatively easy to amass a broad collection quite cheaply. Most people start out as generalists, but then refine their area of interest as they research their hobby. Resist the temptation to buy the first thing you see that seems to be attractive as it may be overgraded and you could pay too much. On occasions you will do this, just try to keep them to a minimum.

I refer you to the 8th posting on the previous page.

It's the same as DNW lot 448 on 12/12/05 which is the same piece as has been on the Colin Cooke list for most of 2005 @ £775. Neil Paisley said he had put it in the auction but it didn't sell. Make him an offer if you are interested. It was in the list saying it looks as if it has been plugged, but has a provenance being ex- Lingford and Comber.

It's BMC3. According to Peck the details are as follows, 18mm diameter with an average weight in Silver of 34.5 grains. Cast as well as struck pieces exist and the former have details of the design altered by tooling. It is probably relatively common as Peck ascribed a VR rarity whilst giving the copper version ER and of these he examined 6 specimens.

None of the feedbacks are coins on this account but very well informed about Peck so a copy and scam is the most likely. If I didn't do coins, I'd like to find the occasional high grade 1919H penny to sell. Don't be surprised if the next offering will be a painting of a vase filled with sunflowers. RRP £25m, but available to you starting at only 99p. An absolute bargain and garunteed genuine, just like what van goff done.

Problem solved. As it's in eBay speak, rearrange the words and stick in a bit of punctuation and it is clear. I think it should read. 1919 PENNY TO BE. FOR CONDITION BEAT HARD

Chris. What are the rules for this section of the forum? i.e what is "sensible"?

And it will probably sell for under a tenner. I listed an 1826/2 shilling once and it sold for £1.71. Even in dire grade it had to be worth more than that. Still, Footandankle was happy. What is it about ebay that enables a piece of crap worth literally nothing other than scrap value to sell for £10, 20 or 30, yet start a piece worth £10 for £4.99 or even £1.99 and it doesn't sell because you didn't start at 99p?

Only a lot wide of the mark as opposed to being greedily and hopelessly over-ambitious. There's hope yet!

It looks a bit more serious than just the T. It looks as if the top of an R is visible, a bit more I and the second T breaks the linear circle although the first T is the most obvious. Check the rest of the legend.

Awful New Year