TomGoodheart

Yes, they are all webmail. And no, we never bothered with ISP mail as we've changed providers several times and hotmail offers us everything we needed. It seems daft they don't like web-based mail as it's so commonplace. Unfortunately there's no contact details so I can't even mail them to ask! I just wanted to see a recent find someone had posted about (and maybe offer some IDing expertise) so it's no real loss to me, just strange.

I tried joining just out of interest but when I tried to register it said "We do not allow Registration with Free Email addresses" Anone know what that means? And why? (My email is a Yahoo account and the only other one is hotmail, so I can't register?? Seems daft).

LOL Nothing wrong with a diverse collection if that's what appeals. I think Rob's is based on examples from each monarch, but not restricted to particular denominations. And if you can afford to buy quality then I'm sure you'll enjoy your coins and it will ensure a better chance for a reasonable return if you ever wish to sell. In the end there is no right or wrong way to collect. Though obviously I'd recommend doing so in a way that preserves the coins so having the all mounted as jewellery or stuck to a board with araldite wouldn't be my choice. Me, I balance my likes with my limited budget. Plus I prefer my coin trays the same size! But how you collect is .. up to you, as long as you enjoy it and don't have to do anything illegal to fund it! As to sniping this coin, well, there is an advantage to collecting a limited range because it's a bit easier to have a handle on prices and availability. Particularly when your memory is failing like mine! I just checked. I have over 1100 photos of Charles I shillings with the price that was paid for them, where they sold and when, plus any other useful info. It's a brilliant resource, but if I did that for all denominations, or more than one monarch, I'd .. probably be on the laptop even more of my life than I am now! However the old addage, 'it's what you've not seen (in terms of coin design, type or grade) rather than what you have seen that matters' is still a good rule of thumb, whatever you collect, I reckon.

I was lucky. The listing mentioned it was from "an important collection of English coins" so I did an auction search but didn't see anything recent. The Bole collection of sixpences was next (the DNW listing is still online) and when that turned up nothing, on a whim I looked in Brooker (Coins of Charles I, The John Brooker Collection, volume 33 of the Syllogue of Coins of the British Isles, by J.J. North & P.J. Preston-Morley, London 1984) and there it was with the provenance above. Where it's been since the Brooker coins were sold I don't know. Maybe Rob might be able to track it? As to the dealer, I've seen his ebay listings before, but don't know anything about him I'm afraid.

Group D, (Fourth bust) North 2240, Francis 3, Hawkins 3. This coin is ex Brooker (604), R Carlyon-Britton (307) so a decent coin and nice provenance. Which explains the final price. I'd grade it at nVF, but though sixpences aren't my area I suspect it's in better than average condition, being on a nice full flan with some good detail and as Stuart says, eye appeal. So strictly the grade isn't so important. A better than normal example with that history? I'd say someone got a good deal. .

I think that's the fun of here. Exchanging ideas and knowledge is good, but it's also nice to let others know when we see something that might be of interest. Particularly when it's not a series we ourselves collect.

Though I have to say that I LOVE that Geo III engraving of Britannia! Well they've only just been listed (assuming Peter hasn't spent all his claret money!) on Antony Wilson's site if anyone is interested. http://www.yorkcoins.com/septi2012newads.htm

Yeah, the full title ( IND IMP ) obverses were struck for the Commonwealth, but the reverse is the British one (which also has IND IMP). Very curious. It could of course be someone has stuck an Australian obverse onto a British reverse. There would be some sign of that on the edge, or a slight join near the rim in that case, like 'double headed' coins.

COnfused? Me? Nah. I just haven't had my coffee yet! (Thanks Stuart!)

Hi - the reverse is the same as the GB crown though? was there two types of aussie 1937 crown? Looks like a mule. How it would come about though, I'm not sure. OK, feasable, because presumably they are the same size and were struck at the same time by the mint. Oops, no. Apparently the Aussie coins were struck in Melborne. I wonder if someone has concocted it? What does it weigh argentum?

Sandwiches?? Who has teeth to eat a sandwich these days?

Not sure as to numbering, but I do get irritated on ebay by people who don't post photos at all and only add them later. Especially when they list as 'Hammered coin 1' Hammered coin 2' etc. Just seems lazy. I also wonder why people who have 20 Charles and Di crowns feel they have to list them individually? Do they not know you can multiple list in one and ebay will adjust the number available as they sell so whole pages aren't clogged up with rubbish the same thing? And away from ebay, I agree, there need to be photos and they need to be clear. I'm tired of dealers who just list things by Spink number and having to ask for pics, in fact I generally just pass on by. And there's no excuse for poor photos. Why should I take a risk and hope I'll be pleasantly surprised something is better than it looks in your photos? If you want to sell me a product you need to represent it well. Two other things are not updating websites when things sell and automatically having today's date on there. If a site hasn't been updated since 2010, I'd like to know that, not think it's still live, waste my time looking and emailing only to not get a response. Similarly, if you're setting up a business website, do so. Don't have it sat there saying "We're just setting up, come back soon" for months on end. And if you ask "what do you think?" and I email you, perhaps a reply would be nice Keith. Oops. I'm obviously a grumpier old man than I thought!

Tsk. They didn't have iPods back then Peck!! It's very clearly a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.

It ought to be good for that price!! I did see a shilling for £1300 and thought of you, but the seller only (!) tends to add about 25% premium, so not so much scope for a reduction until it's been on the books for a while.

Here she is all proud and regal And just 60 years later and she looks like she's sick of holding that olive branch and is just hoping someone will take it off her!

Not a laugh, just an interesting (to me) coin. Ebay no 350597432623 As some will know, Stephen pennies are notoriously .. well, crap. Finding anything that's not off centre, weak or even getting one that's easily identifiable is a challenge. And while this is far from perfect, I was very much taken with the detail on the arm and sleeve. I'd assumed that the dies for this series were just poor, but it appears that wasn't always the case. Shame the rest of the coin isn't a bit better (though it does have 'eye appeal') An EF (or just good VF) example would I think be stunning! Possibly Watford type (BMC. I), London, Wulfword, [….]D:ON:L[….]???

True that they look different from our current coins. That's largely the difference between hand made and machine made coins. Wobbly edges. Parts of the design unclear due to wear or poor manufacture. But I think one of the nice things about coins is the link to the past. Here for example is a vary similar shield design. The first is a shilling of James I from 1624, the second is a pound coin from 2010. Apart from the lis of France being dropped from the design in the 1800s they are pretty similar I reckon.

Trouble is Rob, I suspect not everyone who says 'tested' means what we do. Spit and aluminium foil, a cheap metal detector, a 'ring' test are not scientific in the way we'd understand, but people use them and for all I know trust the 'results'. I'm pretty sure the 'testing' didn't however involve either weighing the thing or doing a google search for similar items though.

What's the betting he flipped it and it made a metallic ringing sound and he thought 'aha! Silver'? Which is almost as accurate as looking at it and thinking 'hey, that looks silver' and listing it as such. Shame only winning bidders can rate sellers for accuracy and so on. Good that it's gone though ... Now if only ebay would say why a listing was ended early or closed .. that would be useful to future buyers.

I have emailed him twice. The first time telling him it was a pewter replica. The 2nd time asking him why he hadn't added this to the listing. Reported to ebay who do diddly. I reported it this morning too! He's a 'top' seller with a lot of feedback, bet they ignore it! What really annoyed me about this one was the blatant 'what is it'? You mean he couldn't actually read ELIZABETH on the edge of the coin and, putting two and two together (ie the date), realise it probably isn't Elizabeth II? And another! 170906386505 please do add link please! Link is here: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/170906386505?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_from%3DR40%26_nkw%3D170906386505%26_rdc%3D1 Also reported by me. I cannot believe the earlier one went for £84 and this one is at £30+!!!! WTF are people who clearly know nothing doing bidding on replicas? There should be the equivalent of a driving test or you need to have your IQ checked before joining ebay. Seriously, I don't know whether I feel more annoyed at the sellers ripping people off or that these numpties deserve to get their fingers burned for being taken in. OK, because I'm nice it's obviously the former, but people need to learn before they spend. If I had a couple of ebay accounts to burn I'd relist using the seller's photos and a blistering description showing these things aren't worth more than the couple of ££ they cost at most museums and stately homes.

I suspect all of us here started picking coins out of change and keeping the more interesting or nicer ones. I had a variety, including pre-decimal coins I got from my Dad. Later I was looking in the library and found a book on shillings, which were used before the 1970s and which I remembered fondly from my childhood. An ice lolly cost a shilling and for two you could get a paperback book. I decided to collect shillings, just like the ones in the book I'd read. Of course, I soon found out that some of the ones I wanted were really expensive and I decided to just collect one sort of shilling. That way I hoped to be able to afford more coins for my money! But you don't have to spend much (or anything!) Get different design Euro coins from holiday or friends and family that have travelled abroad. 50ps (especially with the ones for the olympics) come in dozens of different designs. Or charity or junk shops often have a box or bowl of old (pre-decimal) money, most coins going for under 50p. In the end, you have to find something you like. We all collect different things in different ways. It's your choice!

My local library has coin books under Art / Antiques, so it may vary a bit. But staff can direct you. As for mules, they have probably been around for as long as coins have! Here's one of mine. The mint designed a new obverse (front) die, possibly for smaller diameter coins than previously. New reverse dies of a smaller style were presumably made at the same time, but a few coins were struck using the older, larger, reverse. As you can see, the lettering ('legend') around the reverse shield don't all fit on the coin! Not terribly exciting perhaps, but quite rare! Oh, and if you're thinking 'what a scrappy coin!' it's because earlier coins were made by hand, rather than machine and so varied much more in quality. ... plus it's been around for over 350 years.

BwaHahahahaha!

Very interesting! I can quite see that the shape of a flan could be a clue as to which were made at a similar time or by the same workers. I agree that we all develop techniques for mundane tasks and variation in how we do them can show up in the product. I think for short run coins like these it may also be an indicator that similar shape coins were struck around the same time. I think the technique might be more difficult to apply with smaller denominations however. My understanding (and do correct me if anyone knows differently) is that shillings (and probably half crowns and sixpences, smaller and larger coins proving more tricky) were crudely shaped and then the planchets were stacked a bit like modern coin rolls. The stack (roll) of coins was then clamped at the ends to hold it together and the resulting 'sausage' hammered along its length to round it into a cylinder shape. I can imagine therefore that planchets made together might all have a similar shape. The problem with, say shillings, is that I also imagine that the planchets, once rounded, were then thrown into a bucket and the coiners would just pick out some when they were ready to hammer the next coin. Thus a batch might not be used by only one coiner, or separate planchets will have been struck with different dies or a planchet from one batch might be overlooked and not stuck until some time later. There is also of course the problem of clipping and sample size. But a while back I mentioned the Shuttlewood privy mark ® shilling as having a 'squarish flan'. Well, my ® shilling has a squarish flan (!), as do these few others from a random sample: And although it's a bit of a leap, I find it tempting to think that they might have been made within a few days of each other, by the same team of workers, from a batch of planchets made at the same time.

Not really my area, but my guess is silver unit of Cunobelin, griffin/winged horse reverse. Possibly Spink 310 VA 2049 Some links here: http://www.detectingscotland.com/index.php?topic=4738.0 http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/438175 http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/299155