Rob

Weak at the bottom right and left of the 8s respectively and also at the linear circle. Couple that with a silly price, a vendor with baggage and the whole thing is a tad unappealing. It's a pity that he only states 'slabbed by CGS' and doesn't include the attribution given on the label. Could say 1882H for all I know.

I'd go for a minting flaw. A defective flan with lamination will transfer the design to the layer below the lamination break, so you would still see some semblance of what it should be like, even with the missing top skin.

Which probably stems from the spat with PCGS a few years ago on this forum attributing one as a mule.

Given this has now reached 7 pages, is there any way of indexing, or having sub-folders so that similar areas are grouped together? e.g. British Milled, British hammered, European, Tokens, Rest of World - obviously not exhaustive.

I had one once that was brass plated copper

I've noticed that rim nicks are not marked down by the US TPGs having seen and bought an MS64 in that state, as with the NGC slab above. However, in the former case that may have been a function of out of sight, out of mind because the plastic hid the edge defect and I didn't know until l got it out of the plastic. It was far more obtrusive than the nick seen above.

The US interest is probably pro-rata to the number of slabbed items. Many US coins in high grade are slabbed because the market dictates it. The bulk of British coins are not slabbed and so many Americans will not take the 'risk' of buying an unslabbed coin. Long may it stay that way, as it keeps decent quality at an affordable level. Another consideration is that Americans are collecting their own coins, but the market is just as healthy over there for Spanish American or other regions on account of their diverse immigrant populations. Relatively few are of British ancestry, and even that is ignored to be divided into English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish from conversations I have had in the past.

Says it all. The secret to any successful business is to have happy customers. When you return goods, the customer has already wrestled with the decision of shall I/shall I not return it and is likely to be less than happy at this point. I know I haven't bid with one auctioneer since they refused to accept the profusion of jewellers' rouge as evidence that it had been cleaned. And the person making the decision does know better

Found it.

There is a picture of them side by side somewhere on the forum, but I can't remember where I posted it. I'll have to see if I can find the original. Maybe 5-10% are straight 8s. They aren't that common.

You could if it was described as mint state or unc when it was manifestly worn, but graded anything less and you would struggle as it is a matter of opinion. I've rejected a coin for that reason, but it would have to be clear wear and not just loss of toning to the high points. At the end of the day we will all allow a bit of leeway, but a handful of auction houses do try and test the limit.

This is right up my street. The content will be really important if it contains any Royalist York coins as it might help in the dating of the various issues. The local events in 1643 may also help tie down the time it was buried. http://bcw-project.org/military/english-civil-war/midlands-and-east/lincolnshire-1643 Looking forward to the report.

Talking of Wood's patterns, was it you who bought the 6d in Bole?

Everybody knew that before the vote. It was even discussed on here.

Ah, I do that when a caller asks me if I need any windows. I'll just go and check..........................

Good news. They aren't that sharp. Seem to be getting daily calls from someone purporting to be from BT requesting email contact detail about the internet connection, which we don't have. Gave them another daily spammer's contact details info@kffln.com and Judith Carey if anyone can use them for wasting their time

Grueber & Keary, English Coins in the British Museum, Anglo-Saxon 2 published in 1887 (reprinted 1970) lists a coin with identical readings. That is why I said an image of another example would be useful as they made copies of things in the BM around the turn of the 20th century. The Ready electrotypes of milled coins weighed the same as the original, being identified by an R on the edge - something that is not possible with a flan as thin as a hammered penny. Modern copies of hammered coins tend to be noticeably thicker than the original however. I couldn't find anything doing a past auction search, but that is not altogether surprising given the number of rare to unique examples of a specific die pair.

The full mint reading shouldn't put you off. The shorter the name the more likely it is that the mint signature will be longer, but the whole is dependent on the spacing used by the engraver. IOLA, DORR and SCVLA are often encountered with full readings, but so are longer names such as STIRCOL and ARNCETEL. Examples are also known where the mint reads EOFERPICC, the last letter repeated to ensure there was no vacant space. I don't have any images of a STIRCOL ON EOFERPIC, so can't say if it agrees with an existing die pair, but unless there is something obviously wrong such as weight or thickness, I would think it was ok. Obviously any copy would likely be an exact replica of what is probably a unique die.

One gilt 'Soho pattern' a few years ago was a painted currency Christmas bauble. I told them, they disagreed, I said I was going home. Their minder asked if I wanted to leave any bids. . Silly man. I walked out and bought a York halfcrown from Lloyd Bennett instead.

Perhaps this thread should be deleted given the evidence?

If it was a penny it would have been well known decades ago. Victorian groats don't float many boats.

Looks like a straight 1848 to me. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=227791

G over sideways G on an 1848 groat obverse die. A quick perusal of past auctions came up with one other example of this obverse - DNW 107, lot 849, but that was paired with an 1848/6 die according to the description. So two new varieties unless anyone knows otherwise? Nick, Vicky?

I'd melt both

I'm not sure why they continue to list them. I returned it because they were cinquefoil stops. A couple others I have seen advertised as stars were also cinquefoils in hand. Cinquefoils were introduced in 1844, so any stars would have to be old collars used at a later date. I think it is possible that wear or fill has resulted in the misattribution. Hocking doesn't list any collars, so that is unhelpful, but given it would require the collar to be used in conjuction with an 1845 obverse, the regnal date on the edge being VIII in both instances, the best and probably only way of resolving this may be a ruling from the Royal Mint - if the information exists.