Rob

I got this 1861 for the obverse die, which seemed to present quite a problem in a good grade. Henry V halfpennies can be identified by the broken annulets beside the head

I've got Nicholson's and have had another as well. Peck's own coin was in Baldwin's basement and well worth getting when it comes around again. The brass one was also Nicholson's. The other example in the BM is horrible.

Henry VII 1st issue with the half rose and lis mark (below). Priced roughly the same as H8 halfpennies (above) in Spink, you will see dozens of the latter for every one of these. Quite chuffed with this one, ex-Shuttlewood. .........

Edward IV heavy coinage halfpenny with i.m. rose. The copious quantities of wax stem from this coin's illustration in Whitton's BNJ article where it was pl.11. no.12. Gold restrike type R64 by Taylor. Henry VIII halfpenny struck under Archbishop Edward Lee at the episcopal mint at York as denoted by the letters E L beside the bust. Dates to 1531-44.

To appease the milled brigade, here is a P607, a W&M 1/2d struck in brass. A 1718 struck in silver. As I noted on this forum 8 or 10 years ago, this coin is the subject of a typo in Peck. Footnote 1 says the coin weighed 157.3 grains, was 26.5mm diameter, had 2 file cuts on the edge and was somewhat worn. This matches the description in all bar the weight which is not 157.3, but 115.7 grains. i.e. the typesetter used the first 1 of the weight as being footnote 1. It came out of Baldwin's basement.

1st is an Elizabeth I 7th issue halfpenny. The basic design was carried over into the following reign of James I where it was used for the first couple of initial marks - thistle & lis. From James I rose onwards, a revised design was used with the English rose on one side and the Scottish thistle on the other. Although strictly a penny, the debased issues of Edward VI and Philip & Mary were used as halfpennies on account of their reduced silver content. This example was struck at York. The final piece is a James I with the initial mark cinquefoil current from 1613-5. This issue coincided with the granting of the Harington patent for copper farthings. As a result, the production of silver small change virtually stopped. I can only recall seeing 2 examples with this mark in the past 10 years.

Michael-Roo was saying that nobody posts halfpennies, so here is an attempt to rectify that. From Saxon times up to the medieval period, it was normal to use the reverse cross as a cutting guide to produce a halfpenny of which this Henry III long cross is a typical example. Next up is the Commonwealth halfpenny, the last hammered silver halfpenny produced in this country. Third is a so-called Pinecone-Mascle issue halfpenny of Henry VI, the name derived from the presence of pinecone and mascle (diamond) symbols in the legend. 4th is a 1694 William & Mary halfpenny with GV of GVLIELMVS struck over a B - the engraver presumably starting the reverse legend in error. 5th is an Edward I class 7 halfpenny.

He hasn't necessarily dipped things. You can only sell what's available to buy and there is a lot of dipped material in the market.

It's a cash and they were struck over a period of a few hundred years. They aren't rare for the most part, but the series is quite complex and some do fetch good money if you know what you have. The best reference book is Berger's PhD thesis (1976) - if you can find one. Obviously the market for Chinese reference material is somewhat limited, so you should be able to pick up a copy for not too much money, say £60-80. I had one a couple years ago and it sold within a week or two at the lower price.

Never mind, I'll leave it for someone else then. I want an example of a 1937-46 Maundy set for me - no great rush.

yes if you have the other three to go with it.

Done on a scanner so drained of colour, but wonderfully iridescent in the hand. Must look for a camera image.

Has anybody got access to a copy? If so, please could you PM me. Thanks.

Nope

Cheers Pete, I owe you one.

yes please

The suggestion that the RM is deliberately creating errors seems a little wide of the mark when they have no control of the market for circulating coins. They would not be able to turn round and say 'used undated 20p, forty quid if anyone wants one', so unless they advertise errors when new, I can't see how they can ask more than face value for circulating pieces

Almost every collection has a name put to it eventually, the only caveat being that it does need to have sufficient quality to be memorable. You can't buy in total isolation and so hide your identity indefinitely, eg, I was able to put a name to Declan's acquaintance with the old milled gold a couple years ago on the back of a date and a coin or two.

And there were quarter and half farthings dated 1868 as well, but these in the same design as the early Victorian coppers. I don't think they were made as sets because the halfpennies appear more often than the other denominations, certainly more so than the pennies. Maybe there were sets made and a few extra halfpennies. Having said that, I've never seen a boxed set, nor an empty box to take them.

The 1967 off-metals are probably the mint workers having a bit of fun as this coincided with the closure of the mint at Tower Hill and its relocation to Llantrisant. There are quite a few of them about. The 1868 cupro-nickel proofs were intentional as all denominations otherwise struck in bronze are known and it coincided with the introduction of cupro-nickel coins for Jamaica. Copper and bronze don't perform well in humid tropical conditions, so they switched to cupro-nickel for this reason. The same applied to a number of British possessions with similar climates. For example, here is a third farthing struck in cupro-nickel from the same period.

Ah, good. Thanks.

Possibly not noted before. Coincraft lists both A's unbarred but doesn't mention stops at all, so it would come under this reference (WMHD-065). I don't know whether Nicholson 049 had a stop or not and now the images are no longer available, so can't say. The die is different to both my unbarred A's obverses. Baldwins 47 lot 357 definitely has a stop.

If you could ever find one. They were made to be worn, and were, with pride. The likelihood of someone having one just to set aside as a collectible is not great.

Cleaning medallions doesn't affect the desirability as much as coins. They were things to be displayed, so the odd rub is only to be expected. Uncleaned original surfaces on a 2 or 300 year old medallion are somewhat rare and highly desirable. Medallion or medal collectors tend be less picky IMO.

But if it was just the bottom leg of the E missing, then you would fork out 400. People ask 'silly prices', whatever that means, because there are people willing to pay extra for something abnormal. Every dog has its day. You used to be able to pick up an 1839 proof set for £10-15. Today you might have to pay £180K because the market has lapped them up. Take the 1 off the front and reduce it some more and we will be approaching a realistic price based on rarity/desirability.