Rob

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.

sold

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.

I was thinking the same, but the problem is that there needs to be some method of putting them into alphabetical order. You have Eaglen's article in the 2001 BNJ which can go as a stand-alone link, but when it comes to uploading examples of named tickets in the thread they will go in chronological order - which isn't very helpful.

My personal preference is for an early date. I think it likely that a good number of portraits were produced before they settled on a particular design, which again would favour some time close to the accession. I don't think it would be extracurricular because the mint has examples which you would think means the punches were in house at some point. The number struck is considerable, so it is unlikely production for himself would be an option. He was sacked for making dies for others, but to actually get coins struck as well is a completely different level.

No I don't, but the shortlist of names is not very long. James Roettier is the obvious choice, but George Bowers was also on the scene until he died on 1st March 1689/90. The reason for their production probably falls into one of two camps - either to promote the accession of William & Mary as the protestant succession, or to commemorate the death of Mary. The latter would exclude Bowers. I can't add anything to the musings of Montagu and Peck. There are examples in the RM museum which would suggest an official product and point to Roettier, but no dies remain to confirm them as official from what I can deduce from Hocking. The key would be to find a medal using the same punches and definitely attributed to a specific engraver.

Trial dies are an integral part of numismatic history and as such collectable in the same way as regular circulating coins, proofs or patterns. There is ample evidence of pre-adopted coins in various stages of design going back at least a couple hundred years. I like 'em.

It was a mixture of commission bids, stock and for me. Not all for me, sadly.

I bought 4 groats 2 proofs and 2 currency and I also picked up a crown and a sixpence.

A ridge around the rim is often seen and is due to a small gap between the flan and collar which allows a small amount of metal flow into the gap. That doesn't mean anything regarding whether it is a forgery or not.

Zinc's density is only about 75% that of copper and nickel, so the weight would be even lighter unless the physical dimensions increased proportionally.

If it is nickel it will be magnetic.

Possibly not if his were made in nickel. You would be looking at something which was about 1.1g light assuming the dimensions were correct. Densities for Cu and Ni are nearly the same, so only the 50% silver component would be reduced by a factor of 8.91/10.49

Elmore Jones' tickets are fairly distinctive and he liked writing them judging by the number seen

I've seen a few copies of both G5 & G6 halfcrowns, but they have all been the right size. The reasons I thought the larger was the copy was the shorter serifs on the linked Gs and the C. The shape of the protrusion on the harp by the left Gs looks to be straight as well instead of being slightly curved.

For a start they are halfcrowns, not florins, but no. I assume the larger of the two is a copy, but god knows where it came from. China?

Part 1. I've got a spare catalogue here if you need one, but suspect the boat won't have room.