Rob

I deleted the images to stop clogging up the thread. I originally added them to prove the upload facility was functioning properly.

This is bad enough to elicit a moan as it is precisely things like this that lead to ever higher numbers on slabs. Overgraded items languish in their slabs to the end of time, whereas those with a chance of receiving a higher grade are broken out and resubmitted. How this got anywhere near a 60+ number escapes me, but it only encourages the resubmission of a less bad example to try for a 64 or 65 label. From the next DNW sale, a 63 slabbed P1051. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=507&lot_id=50957 And my EF example of the same type, which I would contest, wins every time.

Presumably it would have been similar to the 1910 patterns engraved by A G Wyon, unless it was decided they were inappropriate for whatever reason and together with minimal demand for the denomination in everyday life, the crown was dropped.

When I drag images into the attachment area, as long as the total size doesn't exceed 500kB, then it will accept as many as you want to add. e.g. see attached. Is it a compatibility problem?

You won't find any expansion on the generic full reading in North. There are many legend combinations in this period, so the best you can do is a lot of reading looking at as many past sales as possible, with Lockett, Montagu, Ryan, Dangar, Fletcher and other important named sales a good stating point. Small sales are likely to have a description of reign, denomination and type only. North 1383 states trefoil left, mullet right of shield. You are wrong about quatrefoil in your OP - it is a trefoil. There is a shortage of readily accessible references for gold of this period. Brooke, (NC 1930) discusses the quarterly marking in connection with the pyx trials, but only gives the generic legend. I don't think you need pay too much attention to the mis-spellings seen in this series, as they appear to be common. According to Stewartby, FRANC is the normal spelling, FRAC & FRAN are unusual. Anecdotally, EXALT/EXCVLT etc together with their various readings are very much 'think of a combination'. Mistakes are frequently seen. Sorry, I haven't compiled a corpus of Henry V gold, so can't be specific on varieties.

Thanks Paul. I was expecting to see a link, not something I am suppose to intuitively understand. It's better, but on my computer only gives a full screen image, not further magnifiable, unlike previously.

Does anyone else think the recent changes to the DNW online catalogue viewing has been a retrograde step? You used to be able to click on a full screen link and magnify images such that they literally filled the screen. However, digital 'progress' now means it is blown up within a hopelessly small area covering a fraction of the screen, which makes viewing considerably more difficult.

Which would be an excellent way of presentation if such a site were to be made. It will double the number of images, but aid identification. However, you must get them the right way round.

That's a tongue in cheek nothing wrong. Having listed what is wrong with them, it is somewhat contradictory to then say they are good.

The important point to remember in my opinion is that it is always assumed that the well punched digit is the intended one, however, it is not guaranteed that the intended correction is punched in greater relief than the original. A clear case of this is the GEOE shilling. Nobody is going to change the final R to an E. I believe that the GEOE was punched in, but the intended correction wasn't deep enough giving the appearance of E/R. This is quite easy to justify if the die has been hardened. I can certainly show an example of a hammered coin where the overmark struggled to reach the same depth using numerous blows and there is no reason to expect a die for the milled coinage to be any different. If the above is added to the list of permutations of die sinkers' errors and corrections, you are led to conclude that virtually everything is possible. e.g. Sometimes the date starts too far to the left or right, the correction leading to apparent overdates.

Any effort is better than none. Here's a couple to get you started. 1887 £2 & £5 known as 'Beirut' copies, as they came out of the middle-east in the 1960s. The degree of misalignment is as indicated. The weight is marginally down on the genuine article and the edge milling count is appropriately wrong. The mint analysed them in the late 60s and established them to be approx. 0.890 fine. Apart from that, there is nothing wrong with them.

Given that import fees are levied where appropriate, I find it incredulous that someone would refuse to pay on the grounds that they haven't managed to avoid paying tax owed. Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of import taxes, it is incumbent on people to accept the legal position on the day, and probably more pertinently, account for it when making a purchase.

Rather than a punt (not available in Ennis), you will need something to beat away the little green men guarding the poly bag at the end of the rainbow.

Given my last purchase was 590, 616 times face value, I suppose there is an argument for buying something only marginally over melt.

Blandford has a very attractive bypass.

No, both best are in private hands as far as I am aware, as I have specifically excluded the unavailable (in museums). In my database I have noted the top 2 or 3 examples for each die pair in case I decide I need one. It doesn't exclude the possibility of a new coin appearing, but given the size of them, I feel anything decent would have been illustrated at some point.

A couple of second bests for the Exeters.

It's a rare coin. The vast majority of gp.B sixpences are cross on steps which is what the price in Spink is based on. After that the mintages nose dive. £5 of silver in the Anchor pyx is not a lot, with only heart (£4) and Negro's Head (£3) having a lower value. If it didn't have the crack it would be well into 4 figures. As it is, they paid £950 hammer for it in the December DNW sale where it was one of John Hulett's coins. It looks to be the same dies as Brooker 588, but this coin appears to show the reverse mark over a castle on the flukes - this not recorded in Brooker. Find me a decent one without a crack and I would buy it.

Using lot numbers from past sales is quite a sensible thing because the specialist collectors will tend to have the reference material from specialist collections to hand. If the reference means nothing to someone who is into that specialised area, then they haven't done their homework properly. It is also the only practical way to reference new and unrecorded material when another example turns up.

I was aware of that and think it's a cop out. Given the cost of slabbing, you with think they would do the same as auction houses such as Spink, DNW or CNG do and include insurance as part of the shipping fee. e.g. for international shipping, the last lot I won in CNG had a shipping, handling and insurance charge of $50 on an invoice total of $3150, so 1.6%, of which shipping will be 1%. It's not a lot to insure goods on a company wide policy, say 1/2% of sum insured.

Oh well, if it has to be. Hopefully I won't click on the wrong link and get cooking program or whatever updates in perpetuity Tracking users previous sites in order to provide 'relevant content' is a pain if you want to broaden your knowledge.

I go to iPlayer, but then have to sign in or register to play it. So much for public broadcasting.

Why do I have to sign in to a public broadcaster to view something that by definition should be in the public domain? Maybe I don't want to have things tailored to what they think I should be watching, and in any case, my inside leg measurement is none of their business.

Better still, use (YY)YY/MM/DD depending on how far back you need to go. It makes filing soooooo much simpler.

I find the BBC's insistence on writing 'the Spain (or whatever country) player' instead of 'the Spanish player' somewhat annoying - but that's just me being Britain