Rob

I don't know what the mint records say for the years 1853 and 1854, but as a rule 1853 is a common date for just about every denomination whereas 1854 was less so, particularly for silver. A common feature with coinage is when you have a year with very large production figures, coins dated the following year tend to be quite scarce. This begs the question as to whether the mint was producing coins and storing them. Given the mint's remit to supply sufficient coin to keep the economy liquid, are the mintage figures the number struck or the amount of coin put into circulation? I don't know the answer to this. What is certain is that a very large output requires a large number of dies, so the likelihood of there being sufficient stocks of the previous year's dies is a distinct possibility. You are also coming off the back of a period at the end of the 1840s (1846-9) where die longevity was a serious problem. Did the mint solve its recent problems and make hay while the sun was shining? Was there a similar situation to the 1838 sovereigns where a large number were shipped off to another part of the world and subsequently melted? Although the sovereign was the standard as opposed to the half, this cannot be discounted. Crimean War? Lots of questions to which we do not have a definitive answer. Were any shipped to Australia?

Yes, but it wouldn't tell you what dates were on the dies. Mintage will just be a production figure. Same goes for 1947 brass threepences. In the latter case, there are none, so must have used 1946 (or earlier) dies.

Not sure about that Rob As he has 1853 with a mintage of 2.708,796 and N rated Maybe it's a misprunt then. An extra 1 by mistake? The thing is, the rarity reflects the numbers of each date noted, not the mintage. By the time you get to N rarity it encompasses a fairly wide range of possibilities. This is a perennial problem with currency pieces. Patterns are straightforward as the survivors are likely to closely reflect the original mintage, but currency could be struck using old dies.

The mint almost certainly doesn't have one as there is only an 1853 listed in Hocking. Searching the BM site is a bit more problematic, so maybe someone else can help here as I can't seem to search for items reproducibly.

Must mean they were dated 1853 even though struck a year later

Sorry, forgot. New phone number 0917878162100 email contact remains chintantank111@gmail.com

The last three days have seen the email heading change to Fwd: i give last offer to give best deal We live in hope.

I have a wife more than 50 years old who is a cultural gem that I nicked from Germany. She is worth more than 2500 euros. Where she was before we knew each other, I have no idea.

This is not good.

I of GEORGIVS to bead is 'shallow neck' (Davies 1730), I of GEORGIVS to space is 'full neck' (Davies 1731). So full neck unless the image is creating an illusion.

I don't have facebook. I also don't get my car repaired at Burger King.

no.2 - 4.77g, 22 dia no.4 - 0.55g, 15 dia no.5 - 2.66g, 21 dia The first is a bit like bronze, the other two brass. All three give the impression of being tokens or similar.

Thanks. I missed that amongst all the other commomoratives.

Is the German parliament obliged to respond to a 120,000 name petition that is signed by a large number of non-Germans, or does it require 120K natives?

Thanks. Top left is a stage prop from Carry on up the Khyber? Wishful thinking maybe. I'd guessed the bottom right wasn't genuine given it is the same on both sides.

Half a dozen unassigned from a 2kg bags isn't bad. If anyone can help complete it would be appreciated. Thanks.

I don't get why people would turn to facebook first if they wanted an answer to a specialised topic. Surely the best place is where people meet who are interested in the subject and by extension have a better idea than your mates from the pub. If they are only interested in the views of their friends they probably don't care if they get the real answer anyway, so I doubt if numismatics has lost any future collectors as a result.

Market pressure is working. He has reduced the asking price by more than 99% to only £8m. Fwd: Fw: to sale of coins by reduced prices chintan tank <chintantank111@gmail.com> res.sir, herewith i know you that i have lots of indian ancient items like coins, silver coins, gold coins, watches, clocks, locks, and lots of other things to sale if you are interested in it so please deposite 50% of amount (80,00,000/- pounds) for 1837 ancient coins i assure you that you profit is our business moto and our satisfaction. thanking you chintan tank 00918469466030

I has to be chemical. The legend shadowing is an expected result from acid based corrosion. The legend by definition involves a change in relief, i.e. you have metal flow to produce it, which will result in metal stress faults where the crystalline structure has been stretched. This will allow any acid to penetrate deeper and so result in a depression around each letter as the acid works more effectively in the stress faults.

corroded and cleaned

This is a topic which is causing grief in various ways around the world. Ancient coins are one such target of governments, which in the case of a CNG sale in New York, caused its cancellation because the coins were deemed to have been exported illegally (and were in some cases) and so the police dropped by to seize the goods. It focusses the minds of those with valuable artefacts and increases the value of an item with a good provenance. Some countries ban exports, others regulate them. The situation in this country is a lot better than elsewhere.

If you let the page load and then scroll down it is there Coin looks ok to me, Never thought of Rob's theory of the thin sheet. When you have a halfcrown struck on less than 6g of silver, it expands your thought processes.

The other possibility is that it is genuine and the blank cut from sheet intended for say a threepence. It can't be 4d sheet because they are smaller diameter and weigh 2g. Measure the thickness too while you are at it. It needs to be accurate though, so calipers are required.

Looks ok to me. First thing to do is step back and check the references. The website giving the orientation is wrong as they are struck en-coin. My examples are so aligned, and all the books agree with this (Spink, Davies etc). Treat anything written down with a degree of scepticism until a couple of cross checks with the info provided satisfy you the article is generally accurate. We all make mistakes, particularly with copy and paste. Next check the scales. The coin looks good from the images, so a weight that is genuinely 30% down would be a concern.

Google Trial of the Pyx. A change of mark usually followed the trial.The marks effectively tie down the coin to a particular period in time and so the Mint Master could be held responsible for the coinage. A slight variation occured in the Civil War where it appears that individual engravers had their own mark. In Saxon times the moneyer had to sign the reverse. Everything was to do with accountability.