TomGoodheart

Very hopeful: 300777011911 "EF condition" EF in this case being, er .. extra flat?? And as for " the price that fit's the coin", well, I think it depends on the size of font you use for the numbers, don't you? Sorry, that should be don't you's, I think.

Well, I haven't seen any with double striking. But then, there are few enough examples around so there may be some, or it may be less than perfect ones were disposed of. Even those that 'escaped' and have signs of having circulated are generally well struck despite the wear. I can see Peck's point, the coins could for example have been specially made using a screw press rather than being hammered. But it would be difficult to be certain, without documentary evidence to back up the idea. As to the 'best examples' of regular coins, I don't think so. They look like they were struck from special dies, for example the coin here. Currency issue coins do occur with the bell mint mark, however I've never seen one with the reverse garniture breaking the legend like this. Other fine work pieces such as the C3/5 shilling have yet to be found as a currency piece. And lastly, all bar one fine work shilling are struck with the first mint mark for a new design, suggesting they are trials, or similar. If the best early coins were picked out I'd expect to see later mint marks too.

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.

Oh, it's hammered. But struck from a specially prepared flan and probably very carefully, or by one of the most experienced mint workers to get that quality. Many of the Charles series can be found in this, what's known as 'fine work', condition. They appear to have been struck early on, when the dies were fresh and sometimes from dies with an earlier privy mark. I guess they were trial pieces or made as examples to be given to important individuals. Obviously the combination of condition and scarcity (they were never struck in number) mean they are pricy. But as a benchmark for what details to look for they are very useful. I actually prefer my coins to be a little less perfect. But I would like a coin that has a reasonable size flan so most of the legend isn't lost and with a decent portrait.

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?

Yup, but some bloke called British (who apparently owns a museum) has it. Museum Reg GHB.582 HSBC.1361 Location G68_12_33 AN356726001 I'm guessing it's the best of the known examples and a bit nicer than the Fitzwilliam coin (below). Although if anyone happens to have one like the Fitzwilliam coin, I would be prepared to compromise and give it a home.

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!

And here's a fine work one for comparison:

OK. Just putting this out here. I'm looking for a 1643-44 Charles I shilling, privy mark (P) (Spink 2800, Sharp G1/1, Tower mint under Parliament. I'd like one in decent condition. Usually they are knackered, clipped, uneven or otherwise lacking. This for example is the sort of condition you usually find them in: I'd like one ideally like this or better: And as I'm making wishes, provenance would be nice too! Oh, and my Chas I shillings are still available, if anyone is interested!

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.