Ron

I have just acquired a couple of Charles II crowns, both dated 1664 - Spink ref: 3555. I just happened to notice that the edges are different. I shall try to explain :- If I hold each coin obverse uppermost and turn them so that the edges are pointing towards me, on one I see the word 'ET' immediately below the bust. On the other one, I see the word TVTAMEN, but it is inverted. Just to clarify - the entire edge lettering on one is inverted and the other isn't. Is that normal? Did the manufacturing process allow for the edges to be either way up? I notice in Spink ref: 3357, there is an inverted edge variety for 1668. Is this a similar thing?

I bought the 2007 Version of the Collector's Coin Book, activated it (some months ago), but now it doesn't do anything. I double click on the file (CCGB2007.exe) and it loads, but just leaves a blank screen with an icon (red square, green circle, blue triangle) in the top left corner - nowt else. When I click on Help, About, it shows copyright info and 'This copy etc. has been activated with the following activation key: DCDAA, etc. What's up doc?

I have a 1799 farthing, which looks to be either a bronze proof, or a copper gilt proof. It looks more golden in colour, rather than bronze, but is there a more scientific way to establish what it is? What about weight? Does anyone know what either of these should weigh? Mine weighs 6.1 grams if that helps. I could supply a picture if that helps, but I don't think it would look exactly like it does in 'real life'. Actually, the same applies for the 1806 farthing. Anyone know what the weights are for proofs?

That's exactly why I checked it out with you first. I became suspicious that perhaps it wasn't a proof. You confirmed my suspicion and I have altered the listing accordingly. What more can I do?

Sorry, didn't quite get what you meant there. Are the pictures you supplied proofs? Here is a picture of my edge. Does that make it proof, or are you saying that proofs have plain edges?

The reverse.

Here is the obverse. Reverse in next posting due to upload limits. PS - The edge is normal, i.e. incuse rope.

I bought this half crown a while ago and it was only when I was photographing it for sale, did I notice that the word HIB on the reverse is actually HIR. It is not a failure of the die, it is clearly an R instead of a B. I have never seen this before and it is not listed in Spink (3434). Has anyone else come across this before and if so, is it one of those 'Extremely Rare' jobs, or is it quite common? If is is rare, how do you get valuations done? Spinks themselves, presumably?

I agree with Chris. This is what I would call a wacking great error, not just one letter inserted over another which is barely discernable, but an error brought about by the illiteracy of most of the mint's then employees. Suggest it should go to a major auction house (perhaps even Spinks' themselves) who would give it maximum pre-sale publicity. You might just make a profit on this one! I have listed it on eBay, but will cancel the listing before it ends unless I get a decent price. There are some fairly decent pictures on eBay, which, unfortunately, I can't post here due to the 150k size restriction. I would post a URL, but that might seem like advertising. I'll let you know how much I got for it if the eBay listing completes.

Chris, Is this book available as a download? I have the previous version which was downloadable, but I can't see this mentioned anywhere. If so, how do you manage the downloading of the free coin? :-)

I have a 1699 sixpence, which is in About Very Fine condition, apart from it being covered in black staining on both the obverse and reverse. Shame really, because it looks quite nice apart from that. There is very little wear. Someone however, has suggested that this is possibly a fake, because it only weighs 2.1 grams. It is quite thin, but has normal diameter, around 20mm. I appreciate that dimensions can vary a bit due to the manufacturing processes, but the weight does worry me. If it is not very worn, which it isn't, why is it so light? I thought they were supposed to be around 2.8 grams. The edges are still quite milled, so it hasn't been clipped, or filed. If this is a fake, then why would the manufacturer (faker!?) add staining, or is it perhaps a contemporary forgery, which has become stained over the years?

Try this then - http://www.watfordcoins.co.uk/1699SixPence.htm Thanks in advance.

I'm impressed that you can tell via a photo. Here are a couple of photos. Unfortunately, I can't get good images due to the dark staining on the coin, which contrasts with the much lighter areas. As I said before, the edge milling is good and outwardly, to my eyes anyway, looks real apart from the weight. I'd be interested in your opinion though. Thanks. I'm impressed that you can tell via a photo. Here are a couple of photos. Unfortunately, I can't get good images due to the dark staining on the coin, which contrasts with the much lighter areas. As I said before, the edge milling is good and outwardly, to my eyes anyway, looks real apart from the weight. I'd be interested in your opinion though. Thanks. I'm replying to myself here, but ... I tried to attach 2 pictures by browsing to the picture, then clicking the 'Add This Attachment' button. I did this twice, once for each side of the coin, but nothing has been attached. I just noticed the following when I try to attach images :- THE FOLLOWING ERROR(S) WERE FOUND The requested file upload failed because suitable permissions have not been enabled on the 'uploads' directory. Please contact the board administrator and inform them of this error.

I'm impressed that you can tell via a photo. Here are a couple of photos. Unfortunately, I can't get good images due to the dark staining on the coin, which contrasts with the much lighter areas. As I said before, the edge milling is good and outwardly, to my eyes anyway, looks real apart from the weight. I'd be interested in your opinion though. Thanks. I'm impressed that you can tell via a photo. Here are a couple of photos. Unfortunately, I can't get good images due to the dark staining on the coin, which contrasts with the much lighter areas. As I said before, the edge milling is good and outwardly, to my eyes anyway, looks real apart from the weight. I'd be interested in your opinion though. Thanks. I'm replying to myself here, but ... I tried to attach 2 pictures by browsing to the picture, then clicking the 'Add This Attachment' button. I did this twice, once for each side of the coin, but nothing has been attached.

I just bought this coin and when I received it, I noticed that it had a William III type '1' in the date as opposed to a 'J'. It is the Edinburgh variety (Spink: 3605). In fact the picture in Spink clearly shows a 'J' not a 'Z' shaped 1. As far as I can see, all Queen Anne coins used 'J's and William III coins seem to have changed to 'J's around the year 1700. Are there different varieties of 1708 E half crowns, or is this an error? I can't find any reference to this variety anywhere.

Here's a dumb question - If you are measuring the width of a coin, what part do you measure? Is it the collar, the centre of the coin through the effigies (which is probably the widest part except from the collar), or the thinnest part (probably the field)? I just wanted to know for future reference.

Thanks for the response, Chris and all the other s who responded. I must admit, I didn't think I'd get any, bearing in mind that I wasn't a member. I've fixed that though - I was so impressed, I have enlisted, so to speak. I don't want to make an issue of this, especially as this is my first post, but I was genuinely interested as to what 'Extremely Rare' means according to Spink. As part of this investigation, I downloaded your Collectors Coins e-book and found that some of the 'Extremely Rare' coins according to Spink, are listed at anything as low as £200 in the e-book'. Anyway, the specific coin I was referring to (which sparked off my interest), is a 1723 Half-penny - the thin flan variety (Spink ref: 3660). It's about 1.5 mms larger in diameter than the 1724 which I have and is slightly thinner if you compare them side by side. To be honest, I wouldn't have realised it was the thin flan variety if I hadn't just been handling the 1724 and thought that the 1723 looked a bit bigger! I am assuming it is the thin flan variety, if anyone has a picture of a real one, I would appreciate it. Thanks again.