Rob

The obverse is a bit messy in the legend, so it appears to be an overmark - Bell over E rather than a 5th issue marked die recycled. This due to double striking looking at the SINE part of the reading

Frankly, I couldn't give a damn. Value of a blocked die 5p to me? £1 or £2 if I had gone to the effort of putting it in a 2x2 and writing a label.

It may well have been Steve Lockett's. He collected sixpences and would likely have hoovered up the surplus from the frequent offerings of mint rolls that occur. I know Alex Anderson had a roll of 1905s. Beautiful coins, every single one and all came back with big numbers after slabbing.

Which pretty much makes the irrefutable case for a proper paper library. Worst case is the house burns down, but then, even so, most of the catalogues would be legible, if somewhat smelly. As it's the 25th anniversary of another paraphrase/quote by an earlier incoherent Republican US president than the present incumbent, 'Never misunderestimate the frequency with which the improbable happens'. Sorry Dubya. They also hold their value if stored in dry conditions, so the frequently heard complaint that £5 on a book is a waste of money is total bollocks. My bound volume of Montagu pts.1 to 3 cost £175 twenty years ago. That would go for closer to £1750 than 175 at auction. Think back to a St. James's sale a few years ago when 3 years of Seaby's WW2 bulletins bound in one sold for thousands. Can't remember the years specifically, but I bought the same date run from a well known deceased collector living in Wakefield and couldn't shift them for 12 months because I was unreasonably asking £15/year (Paid £10/yr). Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately in the right setting - Oscar was right. People know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

The problem with all lower grades is that it is subject to the degree of dishing to the flan. The dies always seem to have a more dished reverse (probably by design to see the date (as opposed to the monarch which is easily discernible from the profile. The less dishing, the more even the wear. Whatever, Fine for me too on the obverse, the reverse inevitably better - say good Fine or nVF.

It will probably be a reworked 1717 reverse die. I wrote about mine on p.806 of the acquisition thread and another point where we had quite a lengthy discussion involving brg658 about this. More than one die may be involved, but it looks conclusive on the two coins mentioned in that discussion. There are at least a few die pairs, but haven't had time to pursue the maximum number I can identify.

Probably like that because they are maundy and therefore rarely used for payment, even though legal tender at the time. If that 1840 was a regular groat, you would feel far more comfortable with it.

If it is as you say, the obvious candidate would be Gilpatrick at Pembroke, the mint being written, PAN or PAIN. Have you tried searching the EMC database at the Fitzwilliam? If it was found by a detectorist it should be recorded with the PAS and the details will be uploaded to the corpus. An auction would not necessarily be recorded there unless found under the treasure rules. Where did you get it?

You can also get this year's Standard Catalogue of British Coins, otherwise known as Coins of England (COE) 2026, the title now owned by Sovereign Rarities, but before that Spink and before that Seaby's to avoid confusion down the line. All or any could could be used depending on the age of the person writing. It comes out every year in 2 parts and you need the decimal section (the cheaper one) which is £25(?) this year. The bigger volume covers British Celtic coins through to 1970 when we changed from imperial to metric money on 15th February 1971 (the other D-Day). Less informative volumes and therefore cheaper year books can be bought from Chris (Collectors Coins) here, or Token Publishing (Coin Yearbook), or Coin Market Values. None agree on prices, but given no two coins are the same, it is no surprise,

Again, I can only recommend Galata's excellent tome on the pennies of the Edwards. Real research has been done there. All Paul and Bente's writing is of the highest quality by a pair who know their stuff, and as references will struggle to be equalled. Go for it. Splash the cash. You won't regret it. Incidentally, I also have a set of North, vols. 1 & 2, both new. £40 per volume or £70 the pair pus postage. PM me if interested. Thanks.

If that is mm spacing then a farthing. Makes sense given the weights. Old sterling pennies were 1.4g down to 1g ish, so 1/4g =1/4 penny. Do you have any reference books? Just wondering because by Eliz.1 the penny was about 0.5g, but that had declined over a long period. Coin values are determined by the diameter of the inner circle because the outer one is too susceptible to spreading when struck. Rules for the future: 1. Get a Withers small change book. 2. Get a Withers small change book. 3. Get a Withers small change book. 4. Get a Withers small change book. 5. Get a Withers small change book. The surplus suggestions are to cover the 4 periods contained within the volume set, and allow me to book some copy and paste replies without having to make any other contributions. They cover Ed1 - Ed.2; Ed.3-R1; Henry 4-6;Ed.4 - Henry 7 and Henry 8-Commonwealth. You don't have to buy every one at the same time unless they are offering a discount to clear some stock. It is the best reference available and is regularly updated. Worse advise (sic) is available on ebay from some aspiring millionaire who found this in granny's change the other day, conveniently overlooking the moneyer Grunal. Hint. This is Dave Greenhalgh's name for coins he has made, (legitimately for the purpose of demonstrating hammered minting techniques).

ditto

I often scan my pictures in at 350 and the quality is adequate for a 500k maximum size. Even when I have a 1200dpi scan, the image quality is only an issue if you want to keep the original at that level. By the time you have cropped it to the required size, the image often seems to have reduced to a smaller footprint than originally anticipated.

Copy the pictures and post the reduced size image, or alternatively stick them in a zip file. Don't know how to do the latter, but it might help. Feels strange that someone with a 'Help for the digitally challenged thread' should be giving advice.

Yes. It looks like a cud, where a piece of metal has become trapped between the dies when struck, hence the excess metal. It could have been a flaw flaw which was the source of the metal or something external, but it ain't right. I suggested the latter because of the mess underneath the top of the F too. 3-D pictures required to be certain.

I think we should all be able to make our own and spend them in the shops with our names on, as with tokens in the past few hundred years. Personally I think the average person on the street has more credibility for financial responsibility than any politicians, who are trying to steer a sinking ship to a relatively safe grounding point. The average person has a moral compass and believes in paying his dues. One day the world will wake up to the fact that we are all living beyond our means, being unwilling to reconcile the cost of luxury with the actual cost. I include luxuries in the areas of general public services that are provided whether you use them or not. For a sustainable existence you have to make it just as easy to produce offspring as it is to get rid of the old. Nature, left to it own devices will always find a balance between supply and demand, but that is essentially based on the food supply. We don't have the luxury of natural balance, being obsessed with the concept of eternal life and have worked continuously since our brains developed to further our success. If we run short of food, we make a conscious decision to bugger someone/something else in life. We shouldn't have that right, or at least provide a quid pro quo to our ability to determine every possible outcome.

J G Scott wrote a book in 1975 about c/mks on Copper and bronze coins which I retained when I acquired DRJ's collection. I will see if I can find it tomorrow night and post what is useful.

I think it has been like that since the software was upgraded as I found I also had a trillion unread messages. CP should be able to confirm.

The one consideration you have missed is the possibility that the overdate (or letter) was not punched deep enough into the die to pass the lowest point of the previous digit. Using the same reasoning, consider the 1817 GEOE/R shilling. I refuse to believe the engraver thought 'Here'a correct legend, I'll just create an error by 'correcting' the R with an E so that some nerds 200 years from now find something to get excited about'. Clearly the E would have been put in first, but the correction wasn't sunk deep enough. Easy to do if you are looking at the lowest point in the field as a reference point rather than the bottom of a very small deep pit.

Have a word with Dave Symonds. He used to be looking after the coins in the Museum before they decided they didn't need him any more. He might be able to help with a contact.

Colours seen aren't very helpful. Is it a bronze currency piece or a cupro-nickel proof? I assume the former, but the colours don't tell me. If the former, then it has seen so much circulation that cleaning wouldn't change its value by much. They are quite common in mint state.

Maybe. It all has to be looked at in context, but is one of the things you would check. A band of parallel lines would likely be cleaning with a cloth, but you would only see that on a proof or a coin with otherwise good surfaces. Thankfully, the application of a Brillo pad is blindingly obvious. Interpretation is everything.

I think people get a bit worked up over the question of cleaning as the topic is somewhat nuanced. Every coin in circulation showing signs of wear has effectively been cleaned because the act of circulation ensures that contact is made with other surfaces which rub against each other. i.e. nothing different to taking a the use of chemical cloth to a coin and rubbing. That just speeds up the process. The only thing that is offensive in the eyes of most collectors is a case of a polished coin, with or without the use of chemical substances. Personally I love toning for the fact it gives added confidence that the surfaces have not been messed about with, but even that has a few caveats because silver dip will leave a residue on the coin which over time will give the piece in question a typically pinkish hue. Any coin in someone's pocket will end up from friction with lots of faint parallel lines, because they were there. Without polishing chemically, I defy anyone to see the difference between pocket rub and a soft cloth, though clearly it would be possible in the case of demonetised coins to use your loaf and conclude that not being in circulation any more, the only option left is deliberate. In the case of the Morgan above, if the surfaces aren't reflective, probably not other than 'cleaning' from circulation, because there is clearly wear to the high points.

I usually turn them down when offered, because I have never looked for one for the collection, and they are way overpriced for what they are. I was offered a couple of cleaned examples 6 months ago, but declined on the grounds that I don't like cleaned coins when much better alternatives are available, and the questions of iffy ones, abused ones and the rest are a bit off-putting. Give me a florin any day. Only problem is, if I get a type example of everything else I will have to eat my words. Not looking forward to the expense when I can buy fish and chips for a few quid.

The Gothic crowns probably had limited circulation due to the fact that they were vastly outnumbered by the large issues of 1844 & 1845 crowns. The mint has always produced coins based on demand from the banks for circulating currency. There could be two reasons for the gothic crown. First it was a commemorative piece celebrating the tenth year of Victoria's reign, but also the question of decimal currency had raised its head again since the beginning of the decade. This could also have been a test the public opinion for the new design issue, which as it happened to be popular, was then adopted with the pattern florins further refining the choice of design. I refuse to believe the monetary committee worked in complete isolation to the thoughts of the public, even if everything had to be approved by the monarch. For most people the circulating currency is the face of the monarch, so there has to be some sop to public taste. Where would you prefer to live? In a monarchy that is ruled by someone who is a bit of a dog, but tolerable, or someone you could point to on the coins and say, she's beautiful. Most people will prefer the latter given the state of the country 20 years earlier with the excesses of George the Fourth still in recent memory.