Rob

I wonder if it might be a template to make a mould. The lead could be moulded inside the mouth without falling to pieces when removed. Put clay around it and cut the mould in half to remove the lead, you could then rejoin it and fill it with gold or silver. This would overcome the softness problem with the lead. I still find it difficult to believe there is any merit in using lead for a permanent fixture. How many corpses have been found with a lead set in place? People have used gold and silver since ancient times.

That line isn't a problem, just a developed die flaw.

I can't see how they could be as described. You could bite through lead sheet (not that I would suggest you try). Lead is simply too soft to be used for any mechanical tool. Using it to enclose something is ok because you can easily beat the sheet into a sealed container. 50/50 solder is soft too. You would have to make the lead content minimal to give any meaningful resistance to wear.

P is right. At the 1816 recoinage the weight was reduced from 3.01g to 2.83g. That weight stayed the same until the end.

I would go with IIIb. No sign of a neck and a suitably round face.

What? And in English?

I see a disc of metal that can have an assigned value if you can establish the element or alloy. Sorry, feeling mischievous.

Yes, but those are coppers, not the bronze coinage.

?? Peck 1929 is a bronze proof. P1930 the Cu-Ni proof and P1931 the Aluminium proof. The footnote says the latter was untraced, and presumably was a late striking given the metal wasn't available commercially until the early 1880s. It also assumes the listing in the Saward catalogue was correct and not an example in tin listed as aluminium in error. (Which would therefore make it likely to be a contemporary strike).

The original bust assignation was by Evans, then refined by Brooke and further discussed by Whitton in the BNJ vol.26, part.3 of which contains the notes pertaining to the groats. These articles are the sources and show the development of the original bust numbering. Basically it just shows that opinions have changed down the years as to the order in which they were used, so nothing new here. All this of course implies that the mint intended to have a numbered series of busts, which I very much doubt. There will inevitably be some crossover with a couple of bust punches in use at any one time, and so the sequencing is best done showing the degradation of letter and stop punches. If you wanted to do something useful, a die link matrix would help. Given the number of attempts to set the record straight, the order in which they were used is going to be more or less right, but by revisiting the order in which the dies were used, someone might see an obvious divide between styles/stops/lettering. Busts 1 and 2 and their varieties are so similar, that arguably all could be considered discrete varieties. The tunic depicted on bust 3 is distinctly different to the others, but that might just reflect a different engraver's style. We have to bear in mind that there was no reducing equipment used in conjunction with a master, so all the punches were the result of the individual engravers' attempts to replicate a style. That to me is trying to read too much into the slight variations. However, if it was possible to assign dies to a marked change in mint procedures or say silver fineness, then there would be a valid reason to group busts accordingly, but only as part of the bigger picture for the reasons given above. I don't think people pay enough attention to the idiosyncracies of the individual. At any one time there may be a number of engravers working on the same coinage, but who will have their own individual markers or visual perspective of an object. This could easily throw a detective off the scent of they were intent on assigning portrait appearance to a specific time and group.

use photobucket or something similar and post a link to the picture. Otherwise you will have to reduce it to under 500kb.

Difficult to say. The milling doesn't look particularly sharp considering. Is the milling spacing the same as for a normal 1881? Heritage are just going by the TPG designation - they don't think for themselves. ESC could well be wrong. 1881 shillings are noted with an inverted die axis. Bole 1831 was described as 6h (inverted). Davies doesn't indicate any change in die axis from the norm.

Get the quarters out of the way first. Both 1718 & 1762 are cheap and readily obtainable, plus a 1764 pattern which is a bit elusive.

The cloak design certainly changes from the early to later busts. I haven't looked at them enough to say whether the punches are composite or single, but if the former then there must inevitably be some crossover as they progress chronologically. I agree that the saltire/broken saltire must be a progression. Breaking them down by the amount the bust is turned to the right as was initially done is also problematic and must depend on the ability of the engraver to reproduce the angle.

There will be scope for producing new references as some areas are very poorly served. A comprehensive book for gold pre-1816 is definitely needed and as far as I know is in the making - hopefully doing a better job than the revised ESC. The second half of the Norman period will inevitably need updating as this 50 year period is the least well documented due to the paucity of evidence. Half the coins of the period are mostly illegible, so new types for mint and new moneyers do and will appear on a regular basis. This will be further expanded by the baronial issues with new ones appearing every year or two. This is probably the only area where the knowledge base is lacking to a significant degree, with most missing only the occasional unrecorded type. I'm not opposed to new works, but given the advanced state of the best reference for a given issue, anything short of a comprehensive die study is quite difficult to justify. At this level, adding a new variety is understandable, but is best incorporated into an existing structure rather than someone writing a new reference with its inevitable new numbering.

What I am saying is not rocket science. 10 minutes spent perusing Shuttlewood, Laker, Spink etc would satisfy any reader that the above few paragraphs was stating the bl****ng obvious!! Of far more use would be for people to acquire more books and do their own reading. Then they can come up with things that others have missed. Nobody has a monopoly on knowledge, nor indeed should anyone be overly reliant on one or two sources. We all have a bit of grey matter between the ears we could use to good effect should we so wish.

If I produce yet another reference it simply muddies the water further. Very often less is more. I don't object to producing references for which there is nothing existing, but it is better in my opinion to accept one reference as the definitive classification with everything added as a sub-set, unless the bust is so obvously unrelated that it can clearly stand on its own. Ego is a factor here, as many writers want to be remembered for posterity having managed to extract a few more varieties that are only listed in their book. It only serves to confuse, as the OP pointed out. Most series have a couple of competing references. They don't need half a dozen ways of saying the same thing.

A lot of detectorists have little interest in coins that are dirty/corroded. The range of items that are dug is enormous and a wire brush can easily be viewed as the ideal tool. What would you do with a 100 year old corroded tin with traces of the original enamel? It is very easy to say the thing is worthless and do a hurried cleaning job.

Taking the Shuttlewood coin described as bust 1 variety and Laker B, the bust on this coin is Laker B looking at the shape of the moustache and the shape of the tuft to the right of the crown facing, but the cloak and tie is more reminiscent of Laker A1. If these were two separate punches, it would suggest another intermediate type. Laker states that 6 busts are insufficient, but it is possible that his 9 are still not enough. I notice that Spink list both Canterbury and York with bust 1 (or var), though there was nothing in Brady, nor Buck. This appears to have been in the listing since at least 1966 which is the earliest SCBC I have. There it refers to North as the main reference for hammered coins and does indeed reflect his breakdown for this issue. I think the safest way is to use the reference that most resembles the coin in hand. Given the varying number of types listed in the different reference tomes and how the variations on that type are described, it must inevitably lead to some conflicts. e.g. Laker B, B1 & B2 are allegedly all variations on a theme, but B1 is a much narrower face than the other two. Using the cloak, A1, B1 and B2 are different to B. If I had to decide on a way of splitting them up, the easiest is probably using the stops, i.e. saltire, broken saltire and trefoils. The numerous portraits lend themselves to individual classification, though cloak or tunic type offers scope for grouping. Bust 3 is the only unambiguous type!

A common theme associated with dug coins is the harsh treatment they get. So many are horribly scratched to expose the detail. A little more patience would do less damage (and provide the finder with greater residual value). Soapy water and no brillo pad is ideal.

Test? For what? Spam?

I'm surprised you have got to the end of the copper and silver without encountering the gold references along the way! The most comprehensive tome for George III gold patterns is Wilson & Rasmussen which has 140 entries. The Plymouth sale in 2008 had another 20 G3 gold pieces that were previously unidentifiable. Sovereigns and halves are covered by Marsh. Peck has a number of gold patterns and proofs, but you will know about these having completed the other metals. In terms of auctions, then many major early 20th century sales had a decent number. Murdoch had the most 5 guineas at 43 of 47, though even second line sales such as O'Hagen tended to have a few (35 in this case). Obviously not all were G3. From the1970s onwards you had Douglas Morris and Barnes, Sharps Pixley, Norweb pt.1, Selig, King, plus many more, Wertheimer (1945), Nobleman (1922), the list is practically endless.

We're fine, thanks. The river is a good 100 feet lower. Just never seen it in this state.

The wife suspects the allotment might have relocated to the Mersey estuary by the early hours of tomorrow morning. River level at 6pm was 5.66m above normal. Previous high recorded was 4.59m above. The river has already been deepened and widened.

Somewhat unseasonal rainfall in the local area. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/live-updates-rain-flooding-manchester-10652325 The gas explosion is where there used to be a bridge with a gas pipe crossing the river. There is footage of it going on Facebook, but I don't have an account to link. Pub washed away; Sinkholes in M62; and it has been bone dry all day here. The water fell 10 or 12 miles away. And for good measure, this appealed. https://twitter.com/Mr_Dave_Haslam/status/680773348679356416?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet