Rob

I concur, especially if you were dealing with a mint state piece, which in this state looking at the rims clearly isn't. However, it could be that it was being electropolished to remove crud and toning marks - in which case, a beautification project. As one of ebay's 'must have errors', the condition is probably irrelevant to a great extent. Road kill status is likely to be the biggest impediment to value, when the knocks are impossible to disregard.

For me it would depend on whether the brightness indicated by the one on the left is a result of polishing to within an inch of it life. I can live with faults if the coin is sufficiently rare, but it isn't. Personally, I would bin (sell) both and put the proceeds towards something better, which would be easy given the number extant. The detail visible has been covered by the previous posts.

Living proof that the education system is broken. I guess that makes Charlie's coins post-medieval, or maybe it is something to do with the date, given we are in the AH1400s. Too much detail to be hammered, but has certainly been through the mill. Unless it was one of Elon's ice-picks to blame for the obverse dent. I am not from Manchester.

Lobel or Noble? Trying to work out if it is a misprunt. Jim Noble in Oz used to send out lists too, hence the request for clarification. Good luck finding someone who keeps Coincraft's price lists. most aren't even read before the bin calls. I usually peruse them before binning, but only keep them if there is something worthy of recording. And amusing as it may seem, 1967 pennies at a fiver a pop, or whatever, is not a good reason.

Yup, madness. I bought the Marshall coin in 2004 and I am perfectly happy with it - £87 delivered. I did have a go at the Lockett piece that was sold recently, but that made silly money,, and I like mine for the quirky shape and outrageously large distinctive tickets that came with the Marshall coins (44m dia).

Those are all ones I have sold in the past. I only have 2 hammered (1st issue and portrait) and 1 milled (Briot) in the collection, nothing spectacular, just presentable examples. The first issue is always relatively easy to acquire in reasonable grades, but portraits are a problem. Trust me, for all its shortcomings, the last issue was an upgrade. Briot not included as they are invariably ok and it was too big to add to the post. It is probably more difficult to find a dog than a presentable example of the milled coinage.

Tower Mint Charles I, 4th bust, Group D 3a1 penny, mm. pellet/2 pellets (assuming no extra pellets off flan), inner circle obverse only, garnished oval shield with no CR, standard legends both sides CAROLVS D G M B F ET H REX / IVSTITIA THRONVM FIRMAT with single pellet stops both sides. S2846. The bust is not directly comparable with the larger denominations, but broadly follows a style which can be dated 1632-1635, with a preference for the last couple years. It is a single arch crown, but the Gp. E bust typically has a double arched crown and is in any case a very cosmopolitan mix of styles given the introduction of the 'Aberystwyth' bust from 1638. Pennies were struck with pellet(s) as initial marks for most of the reign from 1630 onwards, meaning there is much dating conjecture. Stylistic comparisons seem to give the best results. I will do a bit of digging through Dave Greenhalgh's reference collection when I have time and see if I can find a die match. Chas. 1 pennies are a bit of a b**ger to find in high grade, with yours being a typical example. Lots of mucky detail, but not much really clear. Your best bet for a good penny of the reign is the last bust which crops up more frequently in thoroughly acceptable condition. Typical examples shown of a few busts.

I'm afraid I will have to agree with the vendor here. It is problem free - because the coin is too flat to see them.

Retrospectively, only when you win. At the time it is useful to have a spare set of underwear to hand if a coin in demand has to be bought. Not so thrilling trying to explain that one.

Not only the pennies were good. It was an all-round interesting sale given things like the unique 1847 6d and the Henry VI (restored) farthing. I picked up a couple things, so in a good mood today.

Oh dear.

The only example I have seen in hand which is completely unambiguous was the Adams coin. You will see that the underlying 3 determines the profile of the last digit with the 3 clearly present, but also clearly overpunched with a 5 given the vertical section to the left on the upper part of the digit. I have seen various others which purported to be over 3, but none with the same profile and arguably contentious. The 1845 over ? that I had stolen at the Midland last year looked to be to be more likely over a different font 5 than a 4 or a 3, but 4 would be a good call if not a 5. Not to say that the coins with a taller 5 are not over 3, but definitely a case of caveat emptor IMO. There are many coins listed as such, but most are reliant on the vendor's description. There is one coin listed on ebay that I thought unusual which is claimed to be 5/3, but it was the irregularity of the date which caught my eye. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335246363284

Supply and demand. Everything that is traded is subject to these three words. That is why seemingly rare types go for peanuts, yet a common coin will frequently sell for more if in unusually good grade for the type. Also, special strikings have a smaller following with many collectors happy with just an example. Personally, I wouldn't lose too much sleep if intending to get all or most denominations as all prices tend to hold within a reasonably narrow band over time. Collectors are in the majority, sheep. There is also a slight bias for larger coins over smaller ones, and similarly for those values most frequently found in change.

Given there are 240 guests on atm, I suspect a few more gremlins. A few will be genuine, most won't be.

Notifications are still going for a hike. Stalingrad perhaps?