Rob

The mint mark dates are straightforward as they are tied to the dates of the pyx trials. For Charles I there is a list on p.xxii of the Brooker sylloge which I have attached below. The question of the order in which order the 5 bust types were used may simply be a reflection of the workload at the mint. E2 was clearly the standard die used at the beginning of tun as it carried over from crown. E3 dies are not dissimilar to E2 and may almost be considered the same bust with the exception that there are 9 jewels on the crown band instead of 5. Yes, some are more upright, but you see a number of bust punches employed and this may be down to nothing more than a different engraver's handiwork. E1 is likely to have been reintroduced from old dies or existing punches to overcome a temporary shortage of working dies because the engravers were working on E4 and E5 together with dies for the introduction of the mint at Aberystwyth. The number of engravers employed does not appear to be very large, so any expansion of the workload would affect the mint's ability to produce dies. As the cost of employing engravers came out of the fixed sum granted by Parliament, employment would of necessity be kept to the minimum required for regular production. E5 (and E4) are likely to have been introduced in the final month or two of the tun period.

Probably, but it's a long way to London to spend 5 minutes checking an auction catalogue. As it is in the C&M dept, you would have to go through security and all the other hassle one would associate with viewing their possessions. It also assumes that the catalogue is priced and named. A Christie's provenance is no better or worse than any other. It's just that the ticket with the Ryal I bought the other day has M.C 49 written on it with the M.C scrubbed out and LF in its place. I'm working on the hunch that M.C is Manson & Christies, and the LF is Leornard Forrer, a dealer at the time who consigned the sale at Christies in October 48. But if this was an unsold lot, he may have offloaded it at Seaby in 1949 whence it appeared in the Bulletin that September. There is no sale consigned by M C in the period concerned according to Manville and Robertson

It's very difficult to take good images. I find mine invariably look as if the coin has been cleaned and hairlined which is a problem when using the flash. I overcome this to some extent by putting a piece of greaseproof paper in front of it to diffuse the light. The two sides never come out the same brightness though and the background colour seems to influence the colour shift, so it is rare to get a satisfactory picture. Taking enough good images to upload is a problem, so you have to make do with what you've got. There are just too many variables to provide images of a consistent quality.

All sorted thanks to Chingford

Help again please. I've buggered up my screen settings and can't find my way back to where I was before. The bottom bar now shows the open files as individual windows instead of the infinitely more practical vertical list of file names. Before it used to look similar to the windows XP screen. Now it's just a mess. And I've got a stupid windows logo in the middle of the screen instead of the nice blank page I had before.

I'm not holding my breath. Just trying to tie up the Ryal provenance. Looking at the Seaby ticket with the coin, the coding makes it a distinct possibility this was where it came from.

It's just an assumption, but the low mintage means they could never have been a serious issue intended to circulate. I don't know the 1847 YH crown mintage, but I guarantee it will be multiples of 8000. Maybe the design was put out to test public opinion bearing in mind the plans for the soon to be introduced florin. The use of Gothic script was also in keeping with the artistic sentiment of the time.

I think it is more a case of their original intention being specimens or proofs, but being a current denomination then a few circulated. A mintage of only 8000 means they were never intended for circulation, but perhaps not everybody could afford to retain them, or more likely, the original owners having passed them on, their descendants decided to spend them, not appreciating their collectable value relative to the current young heads.

Grade for wear looks quite good, but it looks polished and the digs on the obverse are quite obvious. You can't really say until it is in hand.

A very long shot, but I need details from Christies sale on 25/10/1948 in London. If anyone has one or has access to a copy it would be much appreciated. M&R only lists Christies and the BM as locations, and the former will not help.

How did you get past 1954, 1952, 1937 (Ed.8) and finally 1933? You've already done the hard work.

A contemporary forgery of a G3 halfcrown. Originally the copper core would have been covered with a silver wash to pass it off as the real thing.

http://www.rpcoins.co.uk/c7%20pics/03338.jpg The 3rd bust variety has the hair at the back of the head in sweeping roughly parallel curves. This is fairly obvious in Spink. The 3rd bust curls are not so near parallel as the variety, with 2 or 3 markedly more curved. The upper tie ribbon also points slightly up on the 3rd compared to the variety.

The detail I have pointed out is clear enough in Spink, just that people probably don't accept that it is reasonably accurate because it is a drawing as opposed to an image. Another useful tip is that the 3rd busts weren't used until 1696, so any 1695 shilling must be 1st bust

This is a 3rd bust. Although a mistrike, the difference in hair detail is clear. The curls forward at the top of the back of the head are markedly different, and the ties are different too.

First of all, the 1st bust is the easy one to identify. At the back of the head, the hair forms a circle as opposed to a lot of roughly parallel strands found on the 3rd bust and variety. 4 x 1st bust shillings in varying grades in the first image and a better detail worn 1st bust example in the second showing how easy it is to see the variety even when badly worn such as this one.

That's 3rd bust variety. Refer to the current Spink catalogue, p.374. I'll dig out some images too.

Probably been told 'old pennies' are rare and has plucked a figure out of the air. Hilarious. Very honest. Says it belongs to the right person. Correct. If the grandfather looks after it for a few more years, no collector will have to suffer ownership.

Ah, just saw this. OK, on the plus side, as I've mentioned before it's a difficult privy mark to find on nicer coins. Trouble is, despite the crispness of the strike, it's not a very nice coin ... I'd have guessed it would have sold in the £60 range myself. But then this is eBay we're talking about, so pretty much all sense and predictability goes out the window! Someone obviously rated it ... rather too much IMHO. But then I suspect I've shown off coins I've bought that you've all been polite enough not to go WTF at! Hammered coinage, .. well, it's perhaps an acquired taste. And what appeals to one may well not appeal to anyone else! Either that or there's more to this shilling than meets the eye... . Rather disturbingly, Saxbys has 1184 followers. Hopefully the majority of these are people looking to see what the next misattributed item will be, but I fear not.

Because if you go to Tony Clayton's site, the first copper halfpenny illustrated with a right facing single bust is William III. There are three imaged, the first is in the author's collection and the second courtesy of Spink, but neither has any reference to rarity. The third is the DEI GRATIA, listed as three known and ipso facto is guaranteed to be more appealing to the money grabbing/rip-off merchant mindset. It has us talking about it for a start.

I see in the blurb that they are going to add 3% for those bidding via The Saleroom. Using Spink Live doesn't incur this additonal charge. Do we have any assurances that Spink Live is going to work properly? 3 or 4 years ago it was a total disaster which meant that if you wanted something in Spink it was necessary to attend in person, or put in a commission bid. I've been using The Saleroom on account of it being a working system. Alternatively, I suppose that 3% on top of an already extortionate fee is neither here nor there if it means you are able to participate. Just adjust the bids down to compensate.

Gothic crown, 1860 coppers and 1831 crown

Nope....I'm working on the basis that I wont get more than one or two at those very low estimates...if I get more than two then I'm screwed ! I'd Hate to think what would happen if you got the 12 of them then lol That's why you need to keep your powder dry. Do as I say, not as I do.

Looks for all the world like a 54 over 54 and not anything else. Just a refurbished die I would think.

I couldn't possibly comment.