Rob

Could be and more likely is a rusted die. 1882 is an odd year. The Royal Mint replaced Boulton and Watt's presses in this year and the mint was generally updated, so they had to outsource the bronze to Heaton and although silver was struck, is generally scarce for this date. It would not be surprising for the dies to be used intermittently, particularly in this year given the circumstances. They look like rust spots, and not casting bubbles.

The uncertainty in a provenance must be inferred due to the lack of direct contemporary documentation identifying the coin in question to the people named, but in the case of the two items referred to earlier there is very good circumstantial evidence to support the link. The info came from doing the spadework. My 1601 portcullis halfpenny came has catalogued provenance back to the Earl of Pembroke who died in 1733. The Pembrokes were noted collectors and patrons of the arts and it seems highly likely that Mary Sidney (the poet and author), who was one of Elizabeth I's inner coterie, was the initial recipient of the coin. She married the second Earl of Pembroke, and frequently entertained the Queen at Wilton House. She was clearly a favourite at court, both before and after her marriage. The coin would be passed down from one generation to the next. Again, in the case of the Oxford crown there is a line of descent through marriage prior to a documented catalogued provenance starting in the 1700s. As for a value, think of a 6 figure sum and take it from there, with or without the provenance. Both have to be supportive of the origins, because as a random occurrence, you would be incredibly lucky to hit the jackpot twice. These items did not circulate being presentation pieces, so personal connection would be everything. Whilst you might think coin collecting is relatively modern, there is also evidence indicating collecting coins has always existed. The Bolsena hoard found in the 1880s in northern Italy contained a large number of Sestertii and other denominations. These covered a period of nearly two centuries and contained a significant number of as struck coins. Clearly a sestertius would not circulate for that long without signs of wear, so the question is whether they were deposited around 200 AD having been collected during Roman times, or at a much later date with a requirement to be 'found'. The earth deposits suggest the former. There is no reason to suggest that anyone today is markedly different in habits to a bloke of two millennia ago. Lifestyles might have changed over time, but basic habits?

You can get coins that have a fully documented history from a shop. I've got one that I am reasonably certain as to whose hands it has been in since it was given by Elizabeth I. PC's Rawlins Oxford crown, we think has a fully documented history back to Sir Henry Gage, Governor of Oxford who was killed in an attack on Bletchingdon House in January 1644/5. I'd say both those were pretty personal, and not just a dream.

Those are probably contemporary with the half crowns etc. that you also see from time to time. All appear to be tin alloyed with 10-20% of something. Possibly lead as high mp solder is relatively hard.

It's difficult to see what personal history a detector find has given it has been lying in the ground for a few centuries. I would view a coin that has a documented history going back to when it was struck as far more personal. You find a coin in a shop or at a fair and you get a buzz. You find a coin with a detector and dig it up - you get a buzz. Vive la difference.

Should be M25. M8 is Cheetham Hill.

It has a full edge, it's the rim that is partly missing. Value, not a lot over 2p. It is only slightly off centre, or a little bit more if not the correct weight and struck on the wrong flan, but I can't tell that from the image.

At the risk of repetition, it is only a 63 because grading consistency is aspirational in name only. You need to remove the human input and work out a system that can measure wear without prejudice or sentiment.

There are probably more than 10 proof 1958s as well.

The picture isn't good enough to pass judgment, but the weak hair and the soft spot on the French crown are at the same position. That suggests a thin flan at that point. The rest looks half decent from what I can make out.

Probably a contemporary forgery, but without a picture we will never know

Only two grades are required. Acceptable or not.

'ere. Wot u doing back again? I thought we'd lost you forever. Welcome back

Second looks better than the first. Maybe the first was submitted by a more important customer?

That might have done me. I must look at Heritage again as I haven't bothered since they stopped sending the catalogues - something that doesn't seemed to have impeded the purchasing rate given the surfeit of suitable pieces over funds available.

Anything can happen right up to the point when the lot is announced. Even the printed catalogue is not necessarily the final article. In St. James's 13 (March 2010), the estimates on a dozen gold and silver lots I was interested in were raised on the day by about a grand across the board. All were submitted by a US dealer either on his own account or on behalf of a customer. This was on the back of a marked increase in prices at the end of 2009/early 2010 and was perfectly within the vendor's rights, however frustrating it might be for bidders. In consequence, I ignored them and only bought one lot that was unaffected.

I suspect they are merely resting and will burst forth cometh the hour. All that matters is what is for sale on the day.

It's not a coin. There are a few people on here who know medals and tokens - Bagerap is one of them. He tends to appear in the wee small hours. If not, send him a message.

It can be a real eye-opener looking at past catalogues. To keep it topical, Cuff (1854) had a lot of Carlisle siege pieces including a few duplicates that sold from a pound upwards. Today these would go for a five figure sum. I know that one coin I bought 10 years ago for 1800 was part of a 4 coin lot in 1909 that sold for 17s6d!! Or the Henry VIII testoon that graced the front cover of the 2009 Coins of England, sold for £34K in Marshall (2004). In 1802 it was one of a 2 coin lot in the Tyssen sale which made a couple of quid. Yes prices have gone up, but so has the number of collectors able and willing to pay for coins. 100 years ago, only the mint state or best(ish) known pieces tended to command top dollar with everything else seemingly going for a small multiple of face value, thus reflecting the relatively few deep pocketed collectors. Today, the average collector is unquestionably wealthier than those of yesteryear, and the population is significantly greater. When that is set against the reducing number of top quality coins available due to museum accessions and the fact that by and large the total number of coins available is essentially static, then there was only ever one way that prices could move.

Probably. Mr Average UK is stupid enough.

These are part of 'The Obsidional Money of the Great Rebellion 1642-1649' by Philip Nelson. Although the original books are not easily found in nice condition, there was a reprint run of 2000 copies made in 1976. Softback with 71 pages, it covers issues in both England and Ireland.

Welcome back. In collecting mode again after the move?

Nobody knows with any certainty. It is conjecture and as such just another opinion. I do think that there is a good case for revisiting all three Henries and starting from scratch because both the IV/V and V/VI divides have not been unambiguously made. Whether sufficient references are available or not to make a clear decision, then I'm not sure they are. It may have to be one of those questions that forever resides in the pending tray.

It's around the fine mark for wear, but has had a hard life.

Don't know where to start. What do you want to know about? You never stop learning, so the first bit of advice is to read, and then some more. And don't gain your knowledge from the eBay school of numismatics.