Rob

The description on the card is ambiguous. Difficult to say if it says pattern shilling nef, or pattern shilling not.

It is the same for virtually every denomination. Inability to add to a collection is often the reason for stopping and moving on.

Toning seems to be accelerated post cleaning. Every time I have our club quiz cup I find it needs cleaning before returning it the following year. I have coins in my collection that haven't changed in tone over many years. There must be a residue in the cleaning agent that causes it to retone more rapidly.

Still ok for the forgery/copy reference section at 99p though

Welcome. Interesting question you pose there. You seem torn between hobby and investment. There are no rules as to what you can or cannot collect and certainly no numismatic police. Collecting comes from within. If you like them and want to collect more of the same - do it. If you want to collect but not the things you have shown us, then selling or spending those would free up funds to buy something else. Coins from circulation are not typically worth more than face value however, as they rapidly get knocked edges or other contact marks and so lose any premium attached to the coin in mint state. there are a few exceptions, but not a lot. It is impossible to say what the error is on the E, but if a blocked die then this is part of the normal wear and tear experienced by a die.

June or Jan? They look similar, but the letter font can differ at times. Need to be certain.

Only in Wimbledon.

Antique and Furniture Ltd suggests a legit business. The description suggests they are at the start of a steep learning curve when it comes to coins and don't have a book of instructions on the use of an apostrophe. That they have four large warehouses (insert apostrophe if you want) is probably necessary due to similarly overpriced stock they can't shift. £400 for a pair of disfigured cupro-nickel coins and small piece of silver sheet is just silly, even if it was 130 years old. Don't take returns? What about the distance selling rules?

A recut 1. The height of the two (displaced) 1s is the same as the obviously uncut 7 and 4.

£10-15. It is a common date and not particularly good condition.

It's ok. I did it the hard way. Started with Krause 1601-1700 and moved forward in time, looking at all countries using squiggly writing. Still, could have been worse - 20th century instead of the 19th.

Stop looking, it's sorted. Bengal Presidency.

Now waiting for approval. If anyone is a member, could they post them for me. Thanks.

Failed the registration process! Couldn't answer the question True or false: spammers are useless and stupid: Not enough info to state one way or the other.

Thanks Jon.

It looks to be a brockage if the reverse detail is incuse (but I can't tell from the picture) and a normal obverse strike on the top image. The line of 5 pellets corresponding to the crown is at the bottom and REX is at the top, so the image is upside down.

The halfpenny mark is also worth discussing.

As I mentioned in the acquisition thread, the initial mark on the half groats appears to be lis over a full rose and not a half rose as quoted by Spink and Seaby. Potter and Winstanley quote the type I mintmarks as Halved Sun and Rose, Halved Lis and Rose, Lis on Rose, Lis on Sun and Rose, Lis, Cross Fitchee and Rose. The halfpenny also appears to possibly be lis over a full rose and not Lis on half rose or Lis and Rose dimidiated. Is this time to reappraise the early initial marks as listed in Coins of England? A full corpus of the known halfgroats is shown below. The top row is obverse 1, the bottom row obverse 2. The top left coin is the one with a Richard III reverse, the bottom left coin is the best known of those available, ex Cuff 946, Martin 135, Murchison 111, Shepherd 198, Montagu 674, Lord Kesteven 29, Murdoch 391, Walters 493, Lawrence 679, Carlyon-Britton, Norweb 305 and Shuttlewood 36. I don't know where it is at present.

I don't think the postage is outrageous because it will be a blanket amount for items up to a certain size. The hammer price of £10 is low for the typical coin lot. Had it been a sovereign, then it would have to go SD just to be insured. Two sovereigns and it probably go into the SD over £500 value bracket. I do have an issue with storage costs from day 1.

Clues please. Ta.

Sorry, I'd forgotten. You are right. It appears that for Spink the charge is only £10 for an invoice up to £1500. Above £1500, the £20 with no upper limit on the invoice value applies.

I think most auction houses have a flat postage fee, which would have to cover every value. Spink for example charge £20 incl VAT whether it is £20 or £20K. RM only cover to £2500, so more expensive items must be covered under their own insurance. I think a storage charge imposed from day 1 and before a reasonable period of grace has expired is a bit off. Everyone should get at least a week to allow for trips away, whether leisure or business.

It isn't the fact that different dies of the same year clog in the same place, rather the same characters that get filled time and time again. Unbarred As occur throughout the milled series. Sometimes described as inverted Vs for As, the crossbars were initially added to form the A and so you need a mint state example or thereabouts to show there is no trace of the crossbar.

It depends on what you want to collect. Davies goes back to 1816 only but has better detailed info. ESC goes back to 1649, but the latest revision is a disaster unless you have a previous edition to reference against. If you want a copy of Davies, PM me.

It is possible that auction houses could negotiate a small discount to rates if they send a certain volume of mail. That might bring the cost down to £7.50 incl VAT. Don't know what rates are on offer from the post