Rob

It's a halfcrown, not a florin. Florins weigh just over 11g, not 14.

I concur. The BIN price is essentially $s converted into £s. Note the stock numbers suggest they have been there for a while, being 1 or 2000 short of the later listings.

It also isn't very logical. The wife sold something weighing 1.13kg on ebay, which AI determined should be passable as a Royal Mail large letter (max weight 1kg). Maybe the taxman will round down my bill to £1 on the grounds that subsequent zeros mean nothing. Hope springs eternal.

Given the scarcity of it, I would think a few dies are involved. Most of the metal composition/flan preparation/striking force issues were solved in the multitude of patterns struck in the previous few years, with some types only known with laminating flans for example. Never underestimate the Mint's ability to produce a number of rogue batches from time to time. In the mid-1840s, they were only getting a couple thousand from a die pair. A quick perusal of Linton's article in the BNJ regarding the 1848 halfcrowns is quite enlightening regarding flan quality for much of the decade. ‘The half-crowns of 1848’, 29 (1958-59), p.191-93. According to records, 91872 halfcrowns were struck in 1848. The mint had 13 obverse dies available at the end of 1847, all dated 1846. A further 16 (presumably unfinished) 184(-) were made in 1847, but not required, leaving them available for use in 1848. A potential 29 dies for the 91K struck, but only a handful of the unfinished dies (2 or 3) were completed and dated 1848, most being 1848/6. (One can assumed to be dated 1847, just to test the die batch). The previous year, a total of 22 obv. dies were used to destruction for an output of 367,488 coins. Hardly a long life by normal expectations. Again, there was an 1848/7 in the Adams collection which was possibly 8/7/6, but not conclusively so in hand. Similarly for the 1849/7/(6?). All very interesting, but requiring much speculation until clearer examples come to light. The 1849 in particular, was a real dog of a coin, but even so, unambiguous for the 9/7. Just because it has been given R16, it is only a reflection of the percentage of coins examined during research relative to other 1861s. What if a ton or two of output was lost at sea following despatch? We don't know.

FWIW, this is my 5+G. The obverse die is close to destruction and the coin somewhat spotty, but all features are clear.

I am not aware of any other obverses which show a similar flaw, but that is only what I have seen. The lighthouse is reverse G because the shape is more of a gaussian distribution with a pointy hat. E has straighter sides. I know 6+G exists with the first 1/1 as I used to have one, but the recut is lower, not higher. I do wonder if your coin has been slightly double struck on part of the flan, as the obverse rim shows a slight discontinuity(?) at 11 o'clock with another between 1 and 2. That could account for the crazy date alignment which is what sticks out most to me,, unless I am seeing things.

The lack of credibility (perceived or imagined), stemmed from the conflict of interest of the owners given the connection to LCA, through which many coins were sold at auction. Grading of their slabs in my opinion was rarely an issue, which given their association with GB coinage is as it should be. They were more familiar with British coins than the US TPGs will ever be. As ever, caveat emptor.

Happy Days. I think I will have a few pints in the local tonight. Given their pricing, it is clear evidence of the cost of nationwide advertsiing in papers and TV is not insubstantial - or someone has run off with the bank account funds. I would go further than no great loss, as it removes a source of overpriced material sold to people with a limited grasp on coin prices, and as an afterthought, maybe the recent IHT adjustments for pensions etc has led to the wealthy gullible reviewing their methods for passing on things to the descendants.

Ignorance is bliss. There is a raised line on the hull, it just happens to be the ship's handrail running from bow to stern. Mine is very prominent in hand. The atttribution presumaby coming from a phrase search of their limited literature. At the end of the day, it is a business boxing above its weight in terms of knowledge when claiming to be all things to all people and (like Trump) never wrong - hence many fictitious attributions and for knowledgable people, just used as a pointer toward a potentially decent coin. However, an unquestionable marketing success. I don't know if they still offer a cleaning service, but it seems to have laid low after I questioned why they were so intent on selling 'unsightly' wax removal given it was historical evidence of past illustration in early catalogues.

Nice if you can get them, but Hobson's Choice requires my collection to have more than a few dogs hidden away. Still, mustn't grumble as I've done ok over the years.

I concur. The approach to the newsagent is a lucrative source of income.

I can only offer Peck's attribution to this idea as it was his designation. Applicable to non-currrency coin only and either contemporary with the date seen, or struck at some later date as presents to friends and visitors. I think it unlikely that any accuracy will be achieved without documentary evidence of specific visitors to Soho along with the dates, unlike the restrikes which being continually modified show clear underlying detail so that a progression can be established along with a probable date using other evidence.

ditto

Worn collars? Reduced striking force to preserve the dies? Different degrees of circulation? Wartime conditions will often lead to slightly flexible interpretation of the rules. Even within nominally identical parts, engineering tolerances can lead to something that looks wrong, even if functionally and usefully ok. Think along the lines of WW1 pennies that were often weakly struck to save replacing the dies so often.

id'ing and recognising a cleaned coin shouldn't be that difficult. Polished to hell and back again isn't difficult to recognise, but anything not dipped to a brilliant white finish seems to get lumped in with cleaned coins. I have seen a couple of early milled crowns this month to die for at cleaned prices. Sadly I wasn't the first to spot them. Mint state both. They don't use all the tools at their disposal for id'ing copper either, so again, bargains to be had alongside some odd designations. eg. My 1860 Weyl uniface penny F881 ranked 308th in the pecking order of NGC's 1860 halfpennies P- unlisted. See the thread in the TPG discussions and go figure. You are not alone in your distrust.