Rob

Usually someone has milled out the obverse and dropped a reduced size reverse into the recess. There is probably a sign on this just inside the rim on one side.

Construction of a reference site is usually the preserve of a specialist collector in that field. It has to be specialised because to incorporate it into a complete denomination database would be unwieldy and far to complicated for the average person. You essentially have two main targets - the general collector who is possibly looking for an example of each type and the specialist who will probably want more info than the programmer will ever know. As a rule of thumb, for British coins, the basic paper references such as Coins of England, Freeman, Peck, Marsh, ESC, Davies etc will form the basis of the collection. Most people do not dig too deeply into the finer points of a coin's design, and though there are some that do, they are very much a minority. FWIW I keep my info by denomination as this is the broadest category by which people collect. However, even that falls flat on its face when the coinage gets revalued, such as the 10% upwards revaluation of gold in the reign of James I. It would be perverse to list a coin issued with a face value of 11/- as a 10/- piece. If you can't untangle the sovereigns and half sovereigns, then your referencing needs some adjustment. The point of any reference is that it should be systematic and flexible. The first to provide a logical sequence for the coinage, the second to allow for missed items/new discoveries to be incorporated without disrupting the existing layout. The ultimate reference will list every die ever produced and the pairings arising. You would need a very large mobile library to carry the book around with you. I know what you are trying to do, but the complexity will kill the project. You need to find a way of keeping similar things together to save reinventing the wheel with every entry, whilst at the same time having the ability to incorporate a variety which will fit into the sequence. All collectors like a numbering system, as do cataloguers. If you don't have a numbering system, the work will be ignored.

I think the Furby offers the best collectability/investment potential. At £14.99, a relatively high value piece.

Yes, but at least the rest is struck up. Compare George's face or the horse's head, bridle, or the dragon detail. All the detail on your coin is mushy and ill-defined. It's a cast.

That doesn't look very nice. Where's the tail detail? Or the cloak, horse, dragon, George or groundline for that matter? Everything on the reverse is wrong. The obverse looks better simply due to the fact there is less fine detail. My 1893 attached. Ok, it's the other end of the time period, but the surfaces of yours look featureless with nothing clearly struck up, particularly on the reverse which is the bit with the finer engraving.

Bugger. He was quite a character.

Know the feeling. I went to view the DNW lots before the sale. Missed the 4pm cutoff for using my off-peak return ticket, then spent the coin fund on a non-numismatic book whilst waiting for the 7 o'clock Oh well.......

It would make a decent set if you put together a P1132 with 10 leaves, P1133 with 11 leaves and incuse dots, P1133A as previous but with raised dots, and an example of each of the unadopted obverse and reverse designs.

The coppers were lot 177. I finally have a H Young, Coin Dealer penny token as my example of that unofficial denomination. An early strike with the date intact, I have come second on a few examples in the past year or two which were all later strikes with the die flaw. The latter appear to be the norm.

Go for it.

I picked up one lot of copper and 3 lots of silver tokens. Got outbid on a lot of things though. Prices have been very strong for tokens in recent times with both today's sale and DNW's results showing some eye watering prices. Wasn't best pleased with the cataloguing today. A significant number of the multiple lots only had one or two at the most illustrated. There is no way a distance bidder can risk bidding up a lot 20, 30 or 40 coins if there is no image available to display the potential acquisitions. Some of the lots had 40+ coins of a single moneyer from a single mint, yet bids were made at seemingly silly prices. 46 Norwich pennies on one moneyer and a hammer price of 4800 suggests someone has lost the plot a bit. £120-130 a pop all in for a lot of 46 essentially similar pennies that you can pick up for less doesn't instil you with confidence of it being a stable market.

It's difficult to imagine a cabinet tray equipped to take them. However, there must be a sweet point where the size of the plate fits the cabinet exactly, and thus you have a tray with 5 holes to take coins as per your picture.

no it's not

Time honoured tradition that goes back a thousand years before this one

He shouldn't really say ESC 750 because it isn't - that applies to the genuine article. cf ESC 750 with a clear indication that it is a copy would be more appropriate.

Seeing as nobody has answered, I shall do so myself, albeit 10+ years late. Looking at the images of two dates below, it would appear that both exhibit traces of the same features, but are from different dies as one has a flaw from the edge to the U (coin 2) and the other a flaw to and through the adjacent S (coin 1). It therefore looks as if the 5 over 4 is on the master and not recut on the individual die, which would almost certainly mean that all are 5/4, and also that an 1834 could potentially exist. The third coin with the crappy image is from a third die which has a flaw from the edge to the I of DEI. That has long gone, so I don't know if it showed the same characteristics and the image quality is too dire to be of use. If anyone has an example of an 1835 third farthing, could they please check if it is a different obverse die to the three pictured and whether it is also 5/4. A decent image of the third die would also be appreciated. Ta.

No, but I don't follow decimal prices with any enthusiasm.

There isn't a procedure. There will be a certain amount of movement in any case from wear to the locating mechanism, so as long as it looks approximately ok I would be happy. Clearly it shouldn't be too far out, but given there are pennies and halfpennies I have seen that are say 10 degrees out, I would not be surprised to see similar variation in any denomination. Best bet is to align everything with respect to the shield which has a definite marker for 12 and 6 o'clock.

It's worth whatever it makes on the day. Ultimately, the greatest use for a catalogue valuation lies in it being a printed number for insurance purposes. What is the serial number and when in 2011 did you acquire it?

You can't equate rarity with price or desirability. I have more than a few unique pieces that would sell for a fraction of a perfect and thus desirable example. Blame the Daily Mail for planting this mindest in the public's heads

Sorry, should have been more specific. I'm talking about the reverse Ns. Yours only has one reversed. The June one has both reversed (illustrated) and says ex FEJ, the July one gives no detail. The sale was April, and the ticket says Seaby Dec.83, so only 8 months of Bulletins to peruse. There were 2 1d pennies in the lot of 5, one of which had both Ns reversed on the reverse, so that must be the other one. I looked in the Bulletin because it is obviously a Seaby ticket.

It won't add any value to the coin - in fact it is more likely to reduce it. It is a defect probably arising from impurity in the flan, but not a traditional error which is usually defined as design differences, either legend or portraiture, missing edge milling, double striking, off-centre strike etc

It is mostly a Seaby ticket, probably written by Frank Purvey. The description side will have a price underneath the tipex, so the overtype and Seaby 22/12/83 and dimensions will be a different person's hand who I haven't looked for yet. It was bought by Seaby in 1983, 7585 would usually be the stock number, but I am having difficulty reconciling that with either a Bulletin reference or a hammer price of 200. The letter to the right is usually the place or person acquired from, so H could be G(lendining) to hide the source with EOT the cost code as the denominator. On occasion these details were adjusted by one to hide the detail of round numbers - so my Ed.IV ryal has M(anson)C(hristie) / 919 (£9/19/- written backwards) as the cost code to disguise the fact it cost £10 for example. That would make EOT the cost code equal to 002 (£200) suggesting E is a multiplier, T is 2 and O is 0. On the other side, P24485 is also possibly the stock number. It is a bit confusing, so suggest you look at plate 33 to help explain. There was an illustrated class 1d ex FEJ in June 1983's Bulletin (E344) but that was the other 1d in the lot with both Ns reverse barred. This coin is probably E435 from the following month's bulletin, listed as nEF (£70), but not attributed to FEJ, as there are no further 1d pennies in 1983 Bulletins. I don't have the buyer listed for FEJ lot 1258, but assume Seaby's.

Now you've lost me and three of the four are out the country at present. One is back at the weekend, so I'll pursue it on his return.

As I said before, the idea has long seemed logical to me, but lack of computing skills means I have no solution applicable to a forum. It is easy if you compile your own database because all you have to do is choose a systematic file naming format and the files will self-arrange. Simple. Unfortunately I cannot envisage that being an option on a thread which must default to chronological order if it is to be intelligible in any way. I'm not sure Matteo's suggestion of posting a series of tickets and then putting them in order on a word document would work because only admin has the ability change the forum. Surely, by extension, any contribution will require an additional document to be uploaded, at which point it would be better if the position in the list could be determined at upload? It doesn't actually need to have the regular features of a forum as it would be more a repository for data than a discussion board. As a database, there would be no requirement to have a thread of comments as this would merely complicate an otherwise useful tool. All that needs to be uploaded is a picture of the ticket with a ruler alongside to show the size and a name together with any useful info such as sale dates. The ability to append info to the document would be an asset because you often find different sizes of tickets used by the same person. Writing styles also vary over time.