Rob

Yep. That's become a stock response. At least three times a day without fail.

1p

1d

Looks like a straight 5 to me.

Too many auctions this month with lots of boxes that could be ticked. I badly need a lottery win - yesterday.

Unsold

If you exit after posting and come back in you can upload another 500k. More importantly, trim the image so that the coin fills as much area as possible. OK, you are still stuck with an image that has a maximum of just over 78.5% coverage with the subject material, but it is a vast improvement on the 7.5% you are currently utilising. All foreground and background detail as posted is wasted image space.

Why not? The respected organisation that is the BBC produces programs like Eastenders and a whole raft of other s***e in its chosen field. Why should the RM have a monopoly on public service mediocrity?

Don't know who bits and bobs is. Who is making these? Are they all Chinese or is someone else involved. The large number of types suggests an industrial scale operation. Anyway, 1851 halfcrown, just like the non-existent original won't fool anybody, but the others are a bit worrying.

I'm not sure which of these listings offers the best chance of ridicule. I'm going for 'Anne looks a bit butch' as my critical contribution.

Letters can be repunched to extend the life of a blocked die. Equally, dies can be polished to remove old detail and a new legend/design entered. Obviously this depends on the depth of the relief, and is mostly restricted to hammered coins. From the advent of milled coins up to the 19th century, it was quite common to fill the old die and punch new letters over the top of the filled section. Depending on how effectively the die was filled, you may or may not see traces of the underlying detail.

Throwing away £100 pounds because you won't spend a fiver on a cheap set of scales isn't too clever either.

Weight 11.8g! Assuming that is correct then not a sovereign. Assuming the scales were crap, the vendor has shot themself in the foot. Who knows?

It probably stands to reason that a top end coin is likely to have good eye-appeal in any case having encountered fewer potential sources of problems. Having said that, it therefore dilutes the credibility of the grading system as the number then becomes dependant on the aesthetic preferences of the grader. All aesthetic considerations are personal. Wear, bagmarks or other impediments are facts - present or not and to what degree, i.e. not personal.

Toning should have absolutely no effect on grade which is a measure of wear (allegedly).

With a description to suit all collector types - 'Rare aquatics lines on face 50p (gap filler) mint condition very shiny, ' Not too many mint condition gap fillers about, unless that is, the seller knows it isn't genuine. Perish the thought.

The thing with the shape of the 5 is that the two ends are very close to their respective adjacent parts of the curve even when well struck and unworn. With such a small barrier between the two sections, it is easy for this to break off and so create a flaw, bridging the gap. The same goes for the 2. In the case of the 6/2, the underlying digits has the two corners at the bottom of the character showing clear of the loop of the 6, and this 6 is rotated acw (or at least in the examples I have seen).

Which in Peter-speak means what?

There was a perennial shortage of small change down the years. I'm sure that most were melted. Bear in mind that it was considered a majority of the coppers in circulation a century later were counterfeit and most counterfeits are lightweight. The copper had to come from somewhere. Copper supplies were similarly compromised during the Napoleonic War, so again there was an incentive to melt. Given the state of early 20th century bronze, particularly the halfpennies, it is likely that the coppers were similarly worn in view of the fact that the mint effectively stopped producing for lengthy periods, so the existing coins had to keep on working.

The figure on the right is the number of pence equivalent to the value struck (which is the table written in bold). It makes things easier when trying to manipulate the numbers. As only farthings were struck in 1679, it follows that £1409 is equal to 1,352,640 farthings.

That's what you have to try and work out. That's why I said it was possible to make a reasonable guesstimate. The dates are listed as new style because Feb 1673 would otherwise be later than April 1673, but the coins would be dated OS, so the first line and most of the second would be dated 1672. Striking stops in Feb 1675/6, so no 1676 coins. It also means that 1673 is rarer than the books suggest and 1675 commoner, thus making the case for the majority of 1675 halfpennies to be 5/3 based on the rarity of unambiguous straight 5s. In terms of the numbers quoted per line, the first line seems to have an unrealistically high strike rate for 5 presses, working out at 3104 pence/press/day continuously over the 169 day period given. There would be the inevitable down time to change dies and they might have been given Christmas Day off, but I think it is do-able. Based on farthings only with no down time it would be 8.6 coins/min over the whole period, or 10 coins per minute giving an allowance of 1 day in 7 down time. With output of 1 halfpenny to every 4 farthings, you can reduce the number of coins struck by appoximately 10% to make up the value in pence. One struck every 6 or 7 seconds on a fly press is achievable in my view, but the buggers would have been sweating.

Nope, that's an 1825.

It could be a trace of a former die. Top right corner of the shield has the remnants of a shield above with the square top showing even through the lower part of the 3, but the profile doesn't match the existing shape being too curved at the side and at the wrong angle relative to the top, which in any case isn't straight. I can't see any double striking elsewhere, so one for the pending tray methinks.

Get one and seal it, then you can use it as a dinghy to tow behind the barge It's the only way you could accommodate it.

It is still over 1.35m, so not particularly rare.