arthurcrown

Was examining my new arrival of shillings and noticed what looks like an overdate of the 5 on this 1745 (roses in angles). There's an 1745/3 listed in Spink but I'm not sure if it's maybe this or a double struck 5 Any opinions pls

I did wonder if old dies might of been re-used, i.e date changes or plain angles engraved with roses etc. In the case of a double struck number in the date, as mine and Michaels, would that mean the 5 was already there in the old die, possibly 1735 ?

Seems strange that as it's from a different reverse die it still has the same double struck 5. Would something like this occur if the die got damaged and needed re-engraving ?

I suppose that's the only way they could adjust the weight as milled coinage had been introduced to prevent common clipping. As you said though, a shame as it looks like damage.

Just been grading some of my collection with the help of my new and very helpful book. Thanks to the other members on here who recommended it to me. I've come across this strange possible overdate of the 4 on this fourpence. It's definitely not a double struck 4, any ideas what it may be ?

Thanks. That's a shame, were hoping it was something rare that might pay for Xmas !!

Paid a visit to a dealer yesterday and came home with a (not so) shiny silver sixpence, 1697 Chester mint (1st bust, small crowns). Checking the guide prices I've noticed there is quite a bit of variation between the provincial mints of that year - Bristol, Chester, Exeter and York. I've searched for mintage figures of early milled coinage but am having trouble finding information on this period. I was wondering if anyone knew roughly how much silver was struck at each of these mints and if that could explain the price difference, either due to initial numbers produced or surviving examples ? Thanks

I read the provincial mints of this period were notorious for producing badly struck pieces, the reverse of my coin is an example of this by the looks of it. Weak crowns and french arms which I'm not sure if has also been scrapped ? I've seen other provincial WIII sixpences with exactly the same issue.

Jobs a good'un !!

Right, I'll put into practice what I've picked up tonight and please put me right if i'm wrong. I recently picked up this Chester mint sixpence from a dealer and didn't ask his opinion on grade. Good milled edge. Clear legends and portrait but quite a bit of wear so not great detail. Weak strike on reverse at French arms. I'm going with GF on both sides ??

Ordered !! Thanks for the advice

I've noticed it covers coins from 1797 onward. Is there one that covers early milled aswell or is this a bit of a black art !?

That's cleared things up a bit thanks. I was previously under the impression any damage affected it's grade across the board, slabbed or raw. I've seen coins listed as EF/AUNC with severe edge knocks, corrosion spots etc and questioned the grading. I'm guessing I should look more closely at just the wear when assessing. Personally I'd prefer a problem free coin of a slightly lower grade with no damage to a coin of a higher one with issues. Unless it's for investment purposes I'm going to be looking at it for pleasure. Think I need to do a bit more swotting up on the subject ! I notice there's a book titled 'Grading British Coins' advertised on this website that may be worth a look.

So I'm guessing at the end of the day grading is down to the individuals preference as to what is taken into account. Bit of a grey area then with early milled, as you mentioned for some reason a lot of the other coins I've seen similar to mine have a weaker reverse but slightly less wear around the edges on the obverse. Makes it a bit tricky when trying to ascertain value when looking at guide prices and there's such a big difference between grades.

When grading coins is it the obverse which takes priority, i.e if the reverse is stronger is this taken into consideration or is the lower obverse grade given ? My Charles II Halfcrown is a good example of this which I'm unsure about. The reverse is strong with good detail ( VF ?) while the obverse has more wear plus a couple of nicks on the portrait (GF ?)

Exactly. That's why I chose to send them to a well known reputable dealer in the first place. Biggest isn't always best apparently......at least that's what the missus told me

The valuation was for home insurance purposes so I'm guessing it would be replacement value. I've a couple of Charles II farthings (Fine) I picked up cheaply valued at £50 each and a 1712 R&P Shilling (GF/VF) valued at £145. However a few of the other coins are valued a little over optimistically in my opinion....... 1861 Farthing (VF) £40 1827 Halfpenny (F/VF) £65 1834 Sixpence (VF/GF) £125

I had my collection professionally valued by a VERY well known firm in the North West recently. A couple of surprises were thrown up when they came back, this is one of the more unpleasant ones..... This 1787 sixpence was graded AVF/GVF, which I pretty much agree with. It's a fairly common coin which has some wear but is problem free with pretty clear detail. However, it was valued at £5, little more than its bullion value !!. When I questioned this and pointed out they had one advertised for sale in a similar condition for nearly x10 times that ammount I was told this is what the expert had decided at the time due to mine being very worn and scratched, and that they were sticking by it. I realise grading is subjective but surely this remark contradicts what they have put it down as ? Don't think I'll be sending anymore of my coins there in the future.

So I believe, no 3 square meals a day and warm bed back then. The link that Scott posted reads that the authorities made an example of a young lady by publicy hanging then burning her at the stake !! If you were to give your coin a quick glance you'd probably never notice it was a counterfeit unless examined. No wonder there were so many in circulation. Few seem to have survived though compared to regal issues and they're commanding a premium. I guess collectors back then weren't interested in them and they were simply melted down and re-coined ?

Good spot !! . The initials font and Britannias image are the same as on mine aswell so definitely from the same maker. This I'm guessing would probably date it to around the same time.

I've seen a couple of George III pieces with the same reverse legend and a slightly different obverse one reading 'George rules'. This is the only one I've seen so far with the initials under the bust though. Is there anywhere the various known evasion pieces might be listed ?

Thanks for that, I've just compared it with my 1744 farthing and can see the similarity now. There's some initials below the bust, is this likely to be the makers ? I've read they were a bit brazen and sometimes did it.

Thought I'd resurrect an ancient post on the subject !! I was looking for a George I halfpenny to replace my current one and came across this evasion piece on everyone's favourite Marmite site, ebay. As these cheeky pieces are historically interesting themselves I put in a low bid and won it. It's dated 1721 but the bust is facing left as George II and with the legend reading 'George ruled' I'm wondering if it was probably produced at a later date ? R.Ingram Coins have a 1730 evasion halfpenny listed with a George III bust which would back up my theory. Most of the others I've seen listed are also George III pieces so I'm having trouble finding one to compare it with and get some info on. As regal issue coins are usually my thing i was wondering if anyone knew if this a listed variety and it's possible real date ? Thanks

Hmmmm......Sounds like I've more chance of winning the lottery without even buying a ticket

I've messaged Rob on the subject, thanks