Rob

A lot of these come up looking pitted.

I still maintain cubing is just bad spelling. The apposite Ballsie75 couldn't even get his name right.

Can't differentiate between a really nice example of this or a really nice example of that. A coin that stands high and proud by a wide margin above all the other coins in a collection looks out of place. A collection needs a bit of balance to be aesthetically pleasing.

Good grief. I had assumed it was abbreviated text speak for clubbing (that's going to clubs for those who don't understand). As bad as my son. Me: 'Do you want a cup of coffee?' Son: 'I'm good.' Me: 'Sometimes you are, sometimes not. Anyway, do you want a coffee?' Son: 'I'm good.' Me: 'You still haven't answered the question.' Son: 'No padre, I don't.' So by deduction, am good means do not. Who could possibly have guessed that? I appreciate that all languages evolve, but at times I might as well be in a foreign country for all I understand about a conversation.

And I've found a copy of part 6 of 5 - the lots that missed the sale were included at a later date.

Get Dave Groom's two volumes on bronze and Cu-Ni. The Identification of British 20th Century (insert your own metal) Coin Varieties. DaveG38 on this forum is the person concerned. He might have a spare copy. As with any list it is continually being extended, but is a good start.

Most of the 2E images I have are quite well centred with a full ring of border teeth. What I was thinking of is things like the B of EBOR has the small protrusion above the top of the B from underlying detail, but then the letter positioning relative to the border teeth is all wrong, or the king's crown is too high relative to the inner circle. The stippling on the saddle cloth is non-existent in the copy, yet the reverse dots in the crown and garnishing are perfectly reproduced for both number and position. Compare with the attached.

Interesting. It is closely modelled on the 2E die pair, but isn't quite right. I wonder how they get it so close with some of the finer detail replicated, but then again so wrong with something that is more obvious. If the portrait was that good, they would easily have the hair detail down to a fine art.

0.5 - 0.6mm thicker than what number? Without a thickness for the flan, you can't work out the volume and by extension the density. If you can calculate the density it will be obvious whether it is gold or not. I personally wouldn't hold my breath.

But how thick is it at the moment? The thickness will tell you instantly if the material is anything like as dense as gold.

Given you are rubbing bits off left right and centre, why not take it to a bullion dealer and cash it in? There won't be much left soon. You can always do a specific gravity check. Alternatively, 17mm diameter, density of gold is 19.32g/cm3, density of copper is 8.96g/cm3 assuming it isn't alloyed with silver in which case use 10.49g/cm3, weight 1.6129g for the complete thing without hole, reduce the weight by about 7% for the hole, purity if it was gold would be 0.9000, volume of a cylinder is 3.14 x 0.852 x height. You can therefore work out if it is gold just by establishing the thickness, give or take a bit seeing as it isn't a flat disc. 19th century gold coins were not made from white gold. This is something driven by modern fashion tastes. It would be bog standard gold alloyed with bog standard copper or bog standard silver on a 9:1 ratio.

I've got Bole 1 -5 here, but they haven't been listed yet. PM me if you have no joy.

I'm going copy. It looks too new and a copy would likely be plated copper. I have no idea who would make them this side of Shanghai, but there will be somebody somewhere. Maybe France?

and the description is a bit disingenuous..................

The number of coins minted is pretty much a function of the orders placed by the clearing banks, with the first year of a reign usually oversupplied as this is not so easy to anticipate. If the banks order £100K worth of 50p pieces, the RM will make them. There is no predetermined formula, just a case of good old supply and demand.

Both.

Anything entered by hand can end up in any position. If a stop has been lost and the need was felt to replace it, then surely the actual position of the repair is going to be a lottery?

Not as good as GC's, but then, that cost him twice as much

I would question why he had paid £190 for it? That was the starting point for what is a massive pile of c**p

And a genuine one- ok it's the later issue, but it's why a provenance is so valuable. As both Coinery and I said - never ever throw away a ticket.

That might offer a clue if someone is looking for these varieties

What you see is what you get. Images that are small relative to the overall canvas are usually designed to hide all the warts. It applies to eBay and just about every scenario I can think of. If you want to sell something, the best way is to give an accurate description and a quality picture. It is something a lot of people don't seem to consider, things like 'half guineas' in gold cunningly disguised as 4.4g of worn tat in a shilling's clothing spring to mind. The detail isn't clear for a bloody good reason. If in doubt, leave it out. You can never get more than about 78% of a square box filled with one side of a coin, so it isn't unreasonable to expect say 65% or better coverage with the useful bits.

Unc 20th century farthings are always available. A particular year might not necessarily be to hand, but you shouldn't have to wait long for one to turn up if you look hard enough.

An 1867 die 2 shilling where someone has engraved an elephant on the relief.

For a quid, it doesn't really matter that it has light wear and a bit of verdigris in the border teeth. If in doubt, get two - one unc, one not