Rob

And for good measure, an EF or slightly better example to demonstrate where the wear hits first.

This is a reasonable example of a shilling with minimal wear. As you can see, the finer detail is better on the larger coin, so lions' faces etc are often less well struck on the smaller denominations.

Difficult to say what the grade is because the top one is out of focus and the bottom has too much glare. Not the most attrtactive toning, but this has virtually no wear. http://www.rpcoins.co.uk/c8%20pics/00330.jpg

Is it not the same font? Looks it.

The left one now looks like a blocked R, or more specifically a broken R as it must be raised on the collar.

Have to confess it doesn't look at first hand like a blocked R as the milling goes right up to the bottom of the P loop.

link Just trying to think who is a regular seller of such items. Expert advice to vendor was probably "list it without mentioning a copy because you should find some gullible person to buy it".

Castle Cary and Ilminster aren't mints, the other three are correct.

Can't make it out.

Dear me, the labour and material costs must have been greater than £20

You need to find multiple examples with the same profile to have any hope of convincing him. They might all be lozenge shaped, but that still provides a myriad of identifiably different pieces. Arguably, you get so many rusted/corroded/pitted things on ebay that it almost looks normal when you see a cast, even if if you know better.

You have 4 discrete die pairs with the oval reverse shield (3B-3E). The obverses are also different in each case, but still given a single number based on the design with the tail behind the rear legs. Obverse 2 has the tail between the legs and is known for 12 discrete die pairs. Again, the obverses and reverses are slightly different in each case. The flaws appear to be where a previous die was engraved as you can discern details which agree with other dies. It is this that leads me to believe that the cylinder press theory proposed by Besly in the 1984 BNJ doesn't hold, or at least only for the obverse 2 shillings and possibly the threepences. The above and the other halfcrowns are individual die pairs used on a rocker press, and are struck from diestock that is of a greater diameter than that of a halfcrown.

It is the laxity of the TPG that should be the concern. To make not too fine a point, it's bleedin' obvious.

Do you mean where the page loads and then a second later drops down a cm or so? If so, I get that too sometimes.

Warminster? Wrong thread old bean. Anyway, it is in Wiltshire.

Correct chaps. Given these are always struck from discrete die pairs which are never muled and I have never seen one without perfectly formed letters in the legend, plugging looks to be the right option. A lower grade piece but with the reverse flaw at a later stage says it all. I don't think the grader put much effort into his assessment.

This sold for $1400 hammer in the Heritage sale tonight. http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-charles-i-1-2-crown-nd-1643-44-au55-ngc-/a/3038-34717.s?x=21&y=12 Plugged or not? It looks fairly clear cut to me, but other opinions are invited.

I don't think the quality material is available full stop. We are all scrapping in the same bull pit.

The gold piece is the one I mentioned. The bust is of the same general shape, but not comical unlike yours. The reverse is completely different as you can see, with no MR divided by the shield. The legend is also different to the dated gold piece. The portrait on the 1st widowhood testoon is superb and superior to the efforts of the English engravers of the time. Copies or replica coins are often made by casting, with the raised line being the point where the two faces came together. You will probably find the remains of the casting sprue if you look carefully.

Oops. Should be gEF with a bare trace of cabinet friction to the highest points. I can't remember now but suspect a copy and paste generated inconsistency again, 3 coins before that on the list was a 1953 proof set, so I presume I copied the description and modified it, being in the same section. Thank you for pointing that out.

The latter definitely has to be true because however good a coin is there could always be a better one round the corner. No coin is likely to make 100, whether currency or proof.

Ilchester is indeed correct. It's a mile and a half away down the 303 on the left.

NFDC is equal to 12. On the basis that BU is as good as they come, then that must equal 100. The rest follows.

Better than BU?

Ok, how about Ilchester, Cricklade, Shaftesbury, Malmesbury and Winchcombe? 1 right.