Coys55

Looks more like a 10cf to me. Definitely London.

Looking forward to seeing this.

I find it interesting that we'll argue for days whether a letter is pointing at a tooth or gap or if a tide is high or low on a penny, but no one is interested in Victorian die numbers, which are as clear as day and surely worth studying and would throw up new and possibly unique dies. Some of the money paid for what seems like tiny and obscure penny varieties really astounds me. We're a strange bunch, and I include myself in that statement; I'll spend ages identifying the die pairing on a Rhuddlan cut half, or even a quarter, and could easily get interested in said penny varietes, but I have no plans to do so. Yet. I think I'll steer clear of the die numbers too TBH. Hmm, there's a lot of die number shillings on ebay... 🐰

Oh yeah. I missed that.

Is it just me or would the "low tide" P point more at gap than a bead if the arrow was drawn as close to the edge of the P and as straight (rather than at a slight angle) as on the "high tide"?

I'll go with class 9b too; the unbarred Ns (I don't think they are pothook) are disinctive. Also not my main field of interest or expertise, although I did somehow end up with 35 or so of the things and a copy of the Galata Guide. Post as many short cross (including cuts) as you like and I'll have a go though.

If it's Gilbert on Canterbury then the full reverse legend would read either GIL/BER/TON/CAN or, if the moneyer's name was spelt Gillebert, GIL/LEB/ERT/ONC So directly to the left of the cross should be L, R (or B), N (or T) or C, although I can't honestly say I can make out anything. On the obverse, starting at the far left, I think I can see an E and the ligated NR and would agree it is a class 5 which would imply the presence of a sceptre off-coin.

Great work Stu.

Exactly. There are no H’s on those two pennies, or faces on Mars or images of Jesus in toast.

Interestingly, when I zoomed into your 1877 (no H) I can see a similar ghostly H. And it's in just about the correct position too. And no, I don't really believe it's an H either, but the more I stare at it the clearer it becomes.

I can’t see an H either. I think there may be a blemish in there that the brain may try to interpret as something meaningful, especially if one is looking for it. Like the image of Jesus in a slice of toast or an alien face on Mars.

That’s what I thought. I wonder what the chances are of getting all that stuff off? Difficult to know without knowing exactly what it is unless we’re sure it’s degraded foam.

Would silver dip even get under the foam if it's covering most of the surface? I've been googling the "degraded foam" issue and some people suggest bathing in acetone. I can see why that may work if the fone is plastic based and I believe it's safe for silver coins becasue it's not a polish or abrasive. Any comments?

Ah that’s a thought; I once had a nice set of technical drawing instruments in a foam-lined case and when I opened it after about 40 years in storage it was a horrendous mess. It was so bad I just binned the whole lot. But no, I wouldn’t clean it myself in anything other than soap and water, and I assumed that silver dip would fall into the cleaning category and be a non-starter. Do you think that silver dip get that stuff off, if that’s what it is?

It’s a 1932, mintage 2,935. I don’t own it, but am thinking of bidding if it’s probably OK (although I’d be covered if it wasn’t) and recoverable from its present state. it would be a pity if it is OK but not restorable.

Anyone know what the uneven, patchy discolouration on this wreath crown could be and if it may be possible to rescue it (i.e. clean it) from its present sorry state? It doesn't look like normal extreme toning to me and if it had been left in a draw for almost 100 years I would have expected the discolouration to be more one-sided than almost completely even. Although it looks horrible like this, beneath the crud it looks pretty good. Maybe even EF+? Oh and I'm assuming it's OK...

Test has appeared ever since the new site was launched, so I don't think that's got anything to do with it.

A bit like all those fake round £1 coins that flooded the market before the 12-sided bi-metal ones were designed to combat forgery. Apparently 3% of pound coins in circulation were estimated to be forgeries at one point.

I can assure you I was not being patronising and was definitely not accusing you of being evil, stupid or trying to avoid tax; I was genuinely curious about your question regarding CGT and wondered if you belived (or knew) of a legal workaround that could be beneficial to others. If you look at my posting record I have always been welcoming to newcomers and have tried to help them with their questions. I have never been rude to anyone and don't intend to start now. But whatever, I'll refrain from replying to this thread again.

Just out of interest, are you going to attempt to convince HMRC that (for instance) an 1847 proof gothic crown is only worth 25p for CGT purposes because it's legal tender and you could use it in Tesco to buy a couple of spuds?

I agree that halfs and quarters are often in almost perfect condition because they were easily lost soon after they entered circulation. I too look for nice examples, scarcer mints, errors, etc. and enjoy the challenge of identifying them. This is one of my favourites. Walter (Waltier error) on Northampton, square E's on obverse (round on reverse), class 1a2/1a5 mule, possibly Mass 148, although the X looks different.

That's amazing. Very good spot.

I think the half is Brand dies 2540; the offset halves of the O are quite distinctive.

That's a very nice find Stu; I'm really annoyed to have missed that one. I used to check daily for Rhuddlans and picked up about 30, mostly halfs and quarters and one full Halli, but got fed up with the quality and asking prices. I'll definitely start checking again now. Steve.

It's definitely a London coin, but not class 1 or Henry II because the N and D are ligated (joined together). If memory serves me right that feature first occurred on class IVa, which was issued under Richard I, but the lettering style isn't right for that. My guess would be class V or VI (so John or Henry III) and judging by the position of the O of ON probably a moneyer with five letters in his name. A bit more research could probably tie the class and maybe even the moneyer down a bit. Edit: you beat me to it Ukstu; I was glancing through my copies of Mass and Slevin for inspiration, but we seem to broadly agree on class 5 or 6.