Rob

If you read the appendix in Peck concerning Shorthouse's 1885 visit to Moore's workshop post-mortem when the 3 sets of restrikes were made, it is mentioned that there was no sign of the second obverse. This die developed a large flaw and it is likely that he was in the process of re-engraving the P2135 obverse as there is a trial obverse only striking in pewter using the same bust punch as the P2135 but with re-arranged legends. Playing around with the contrast of the image gives a few hints of a prior design with traces of underlying characters. However, no strikings are known as far as I am aware with the obverse die below paired with a reverse.

This is obverse C, a P2115. Unfortunately it is a bit bright and the spots in the middle of the cheek do not show up in relief. I suggest you save the image and blow it up a bit to see what I mean. There are strikings that have the cheek spots fully polished down, but the 3 at the back of the neck remain, which I have always taken this to be obv.C and the flattened cheek spots as obv. D That is why I think both your obv 3 & 4 are actually obv. 4.

It's not that bad. The original strikings must have no signs of rust marks on the neck, so your 1D looks like it isn't given the cluster by the back of the neck at the truncation, but I think your 1B gilt is obv. 1 as I can't see any polished rust spots. My obverse 2 is attached. Your 3D and 4D are possibly the same pairing. It is difficult as the one labelled obv 3 is a bit fuzzy. I will have to dig out the other obverses as I'm afraid I got rid of my examples due to quality issues.

The pictures really don't help. It looks as if the I in HONI is virtually flat, in which case it would be difficult to assign a grade higher than fine, but then the rest looks better. Assuming the I is a red herring, then VF or so is probably right.

The water runs off the grit which is covered in peat on the hills above the limestone. The peat is acidic, which is the reason the caves are formed when the limestone dissolves. The water throughput is such that it remains slightly acidic. If it was percolating through the limestone for years before it resurfaced it would be fully neutralised, but in this case dye tests give a transit time measured in hours from the bottom of Gaping Gill through to Ingleborough Cave. Edited to add that the pool shown looks to be stagnant, so would only be refreshed with acidic water if that section flooded.

You will be pleased to know that I also had to enter my projected spend when registering for the Baldwin sale this afternoon. I entered a quid, and was immediately authorised to bid. Baldwins aren't going to turn potential bidders away unless they have been a problem in the past. It also crossed my mind that this could be the Saleroom fishing for details. The more you enter as a projected spend, the more valuable you are to auction houses as a potential bidder, so I wouldn't be surprised if lists of named large spenders are sold to Saleroom customers to target marketing.

Except that the water will be slightly acidic. Maybe not such a good chance of picking out a gem.

Images won't open for me so I can only see the thumbnails. By definition, I would not get your hopes up

I'm blissfully ignorant of all that you are prattling on about. Don't know who it is and more particularly, don't care. I just see yet another eBay listing not as described and so to be avoided.

Nickel is also magnetic

I don't lose any sleep over the valuations imposed by CGS or any other grading service. I find that a coin either appeals or it doesn't. If it appeals, the next question is whether the price is reasonable and can I afford it? At no point have I referred to the 'suggested price'. If you look at prices often enough, a list price will be superfluous after a while. Even the rarities will generate a subconscious ballpark figure, despite none having gone through auction in recent times.

Just buy what you like. It isn't a job from which you earn a living, you are supposedly doing it for pleasure.

I think the concept of groups being undervalued as a whole is a bit of a misconception and more the product of marketing or salespeople trying to talk a market up. Every coin is sold on an individual basis with due regard to its grade, eye appeal etc, so these factors cannot be applied across the board to a whole series. Some sections are always going to be more popular than others, but I defy anyone to say with certainty which ones they will be looking into the future. Whilst it is possible to identify areas of the market that are overheated on the back of past sale results, it takes quite a stretch of the imagination to assume that those areas which are currently out of favour must be undervalued. These areas are selling at lower prices because they aren't as popular with collectors, but there is nothing to say that they must make up the lost ground in the future. Alternatively you can turn the argument on its head and consider which areas are currently overvalued due to the herd mentality of people. If they are overheated, by extension we can expect the market to correct itself with price falls, the implication being that the 'currently undervalued' pieces are in fact correctly valued, and so there is no reason to expect any change in the immediate future. Works both ways. There is nothing to say that prices have to keep rising, nor that the weak areas are cheap.

Any numbering system is ok as long as it puts the reader in the right ballpark when opening the book to search for an entry. No system can ever hope to be perfect as different collectors' requirements vary, with the denomination collector and the reign/period collector probably chosing the status-quo and revamp respectively. Any delusion that references such as 1475PP are a thing of the past will be exposed. The first issue of ESC was in 1949, the 5th in 1992. Unless we stop finding new varieties and striking new issues, I'm afraid the whole thing will start all over again. The original system soldiered on for 66 years, but the non-standard numbering started the moment the book went to print for the first time.

Why the excitement about the necklace? It is supposed to be there, so is it deformed or doubled, or what is the error? A description of the legend error would be good too, not to mention images if you can manage it. I very much doubt that anyone would make an offer without seeing the items in question.

It has been cleaned. Maybe dipped into Coca-Cola or something similar.

Thank you.

I think the pictures could be better. There is nothing better than a hi res photograph for showing the important detail, but as the images are life sized it isn't that good for the small pieces IMO. Some features are blown up howwever, so all is not lost.

No idea, I bought mine at the Midland last weekend.

I've seen that before somewhere, just trying to think where?............

Now that the new version has made its appearance, what do people think of it? For those that haven't seen it yet the format has been changed. It is now sorted by reign rather than denomination and much better illustrated than the last edition. It has also been completely renumbered which means that most people will buy it if they want to be able to reference auction lots. A lot of patterns have been included that weren't in previous editions, but as is probably to be expected, it is a bit of a curate's egg. For all the patterns that have been listed, including off metal strikes, there are a large number that haven't. There is no breakdown to the levels seen in say Davies or Groom, yet it is still deemed worthwhile including a re-entered N for the 1653 halfcrown or an unbarred H in HONI for the 1817 shilling for example. Only the previously noted legend errors where the wrong letter was corrected are listed, and it appears that very few previously unlisted error corrections have been added. A useful addition is the inclusion of recorded die numbers by date for the Victorian silver. A weight of 1.35kg and a thickness of one and three quarter inches makes it a bit heavy/bulky to cart around a coin fair, so assuming it is going to stay at home it might have been preferable to include all the various varieties referenced in multiple volumes which are still missing. I think that although a revision of ESC was long overdue, for the variety collector the other detailed references are just as necessary as they were before.

That's why you have legislation. Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. You don't need many of the latter to screw things up for everyone.

Sorry to pirate the thread. I've done a bit more digging and the legend appears to tie in better with halfcrown reverse 15 rather than shilling reverse 5 (which I initially used to demonstrate the principle for Clive). The inner circles are only about 1.5mm different in size which would tie in with the pellets being slightly further away from it than on a conventional shilling reverse 3.

To make it easier to understand, here is a montage of Exeter shilling reverses 3 & 5. Reverse 3 has the pyramid/pellet and barrel scroll garniture, whereas reverse 5 has the tower mint halfcrown style. The rose initial mark is at 8pm when the shield is the right way up but if rotated to the normal position then you see the large S type scrolls appear in the correct relative position with the curved/straight sided garnishing normally at 6pm clearly visible.

This is the Exeter shilling I referred to earlier. Lot 3699 in DNW 79. As you can see, the reverse is made up of two different designs, one with the scroll garnishing and the other with the pyramid and pellet garnishing. The only way I can rationalise this is for the die to have been only partially rubbed down prior to re-engraving. There is no logical reason to explain why an Exeter shilling would be struck with one die and then restruck with a second reverse. Civil War currency wasn't called in for recoining, so that eliminates an obsolete coin being used as a blank.