Rob

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

More likely April 1st

And the reverse if you want to check for a die match

Here is my 1858 obverse. A mixture of barred and unbarred and nearly filled with some recutting to boot. Same die as either of yours?

Putting the two coins in chronological order assumes you have two coins from the same die pair. Mintages in Coin Yearbook gives over 3m 1858 shillings, so we are talking about a few dozen die pairs, at least. I'd have a quid on them being different dies.

They aren't errors per se, rather the result of die use. Just an example of natural wear and tear, i.e. no mistake has been made at any point.

Special Delivery up to 100g and £500 is £6.45. The cost of jiffy bags, paperwork and other work required to ship suggests £10 all in is not excessive. As a VAT registered seller you have to add VAT to shipping costs - it is irrelevant that Royal Mail doesn't charge VAT. As I said before, the £5/day storage is moot and I would think is imposed to ensure people settle promptly. The vendor doesn't get paid until the agreed date, but this is based on the assumption that the sale proceeds will have arrived in that period. That is why auctioneers apply a sum after a fixed period in which to settle up, because a person who doesn't pay dumps the liability onto the auctioneer. It is in everyone's interest to have a smooth transaction. It is no difference to the slow payer on eBay who generates a fixed fee for the sale, but then decides he/she doesn't want the item a few weeks down the line.

£12 postage is not so much as a flat fee - £10 + VAT. £5 a day storage is moot given the size, but again as a business you would expect to apply a minimum charge for the provision of any facility.

Andy's ok. He likes his gold.

There isn't anything that screams fake. The obverse looks ok to the extent that the distance from the legend to the linear circle looks ok (i.e. variable) on the obverse compared to the illustration in Marsh. The image of the reverse isn't good enough to pass comment. What does the edge look like as I can't see any trace of the milling?

No. The list would be constantly changing in any case. Wean yourself off eBay. You recognise there is a problem with fakes on eBay, so it isn't a great leap into the dark to leave a site which frankly doesn't give a s**t if listings are genuine or fake and try to strike up a relationship with a few dealers. You will almost certainly forego the ability to acquire a coin worth a hundred quid for a fiver, but you will have a no-quibble return guarantee in 99% of cases. Coins are effectively on approval.

Not so well versed as you might imagine - I had to write down the dates to get the regnal years correct. Should be able to recite those just as you would the times tables or mental arithmetic. The edge is the regnal year, i.e. the twelve month period following accession to the crown and every subsequent anniversary. So in the case of William III, PRIMO will be 12 months from 13th Feb 1688/9 to the 1st anniversary in 1689/90; SECUNDO the following year to 13th Feb 1690/1, etc. Don't forget the years are old style, with New Year's Day falling on March 25th, hence the use of 1688/9 etc

I'm not sure why anyone would say it should be a SEPTIMO edge because that would equate to the year ending 13th Feb 1695/6. The existence of the OCTAVO edge on a 1698 dated coin is therefore a case of the wrong collar used because up to 13th Feb 1697/8 should be NONO and 1698 DECIMO or UNDECIMO. The edge is always likely to be DECIMO, though the overdate could have the UNDECIMO edge if the reverse die was used during the 6 weeks after 13th Feb 1698/9. This is unknown, but not impossible, as old dies were brought out of retirement and repaired/recut. William ascended the throne on 13th February 1688/9, so that only leaves a 6 week period for the later edge to be used for any date, hence the book price differential for 1698 Decimo (VF £225) and 1698 Undecimo (VF £1000). Looking at the coin, I cannot see any reason for an estimate as high as 800-1200. I would have put the estimate at no more than 200-250.

My camera does that too. Welcome to the CPC