Rob

Murdoch did. He had 43 out of 47(?)

I'm in the happy position of my wife saying that she likes Saxon and Norman coins. I might just try to please her a bit more.

I saw this 'suggested bid' thing for the first time too as I haven't bid on anything for months either. I clicked on the place bid button minutes before the end when it was at £79.77 to see what came up and decided the best plan was to put in my max at the last moment and cross fingers as I have always done. I don't understand why anyone would put in small increments other than to avoid being screwed by a large shill bid, but if you are going to bid way in excess of the existing bid and are prepared to go to a certain level, then shill bid or not you should be happy with any result up to your max. When putting in my bid it jumped to 188, but still put in what I was prepared to pay (which was well above the end price). In this case there was a third bidder at 501.

Sorry about that.

Ah, no, Rob, not you, you're barking! I was referring to your part in adding a balanced child to the pot! I've done worse than that, I've added 4 (relatively) balanced people. Mind you, one's an anarchist - still good for an argument though.

Wow. Balanced individual. Nobody has ever called me that before. Are you sure? I'm currently thrashing around at a overweight meat fly that has invaded my territory. What's it doing when it is below zero outside? It's November. Mind you, we went walking up Longdendale at the weekend and the clover was in bloom, daisy like weeds flowering aplenty, and even a cowslip. The wind was warm.

The wife got opted in by default initially. We sold something, but the buyer didn't want to complete. I don't know how much they wanted to charge him, but based on my experience is probably at least a third again as what it should be.

Yours is a Besly 1B die pair, mine is a 1A pairing.

It isn't perfectly flat, but then they were made on a rocker press, so rarely escape without a bow in the flan. It isn't creased if that is what you are thinking.

In the words my daughter at the age of 4, 'Hello friends, I am here!' Never the modest one and always melodramatic, she has turned out to be a balanced, well mannered and sensible member of society. Who would have thought that? Sorry Stuart, don't do take away pizzas. Coffee is another matter.

Yep. I bid the same in Goldbergs as I was prepared to pay in St. James's 3 and on the day was outbid by one increment. The seller must have decided to cut his losses as an invoice arrived at my maximum 10 days later. In St. James's 3 it hammered at £3400 to Mark Teller, so about £4K all in. It would have cost me about $8K to match what the coin sold for in St. James's given the deterioration in exchange rate at the time. but in the Goldberg sale I coincidentally paid its Spink number in pounds i.e.£2870. Can't wait for a mint state example of a S1 to appear.

For a better view, see below. For what it's worth, I don't think it was found in a drawer having been there for a few centuries. There is wax in it, which means it has to be illustrated somewhere. They weren't illustrating coins in catalogues in the mid 17th century.

So it tells you which dies were replaced at which time. Obviously the reverse dies were exchanged whilst the obverse wasn't. If you can find evidence of incremental wear to the obverse between the two combinations, it will give you the order in which they were used.

9 over inverted 9 (aka 6)?

Which one? I might be interested if mint state.

I know where you are coming from, but there are several ways of looking at it. Contemporary ones such as the Weyls with the Jubilee Head portrait come from a period in time when there were a large number of patterns issued, both official and unofficial. Some are more common than others. Taylor restrikes which were also concoctions in some instances, but usually made from Soho dies that were used on official coinage in other instances and so have gained acceptance with the passage of time, though in the latter part of the 19th century were frowned upon in the same was as the modern retro patterns. The Patina and INA things are not contemporary in any way shape or form, combining impossible obverses and reverses and generally looking like bling. Of these, the second and third stand out as commercial ventures. There were 10000(?) ish made of the various types and the market has absorbed them all. The Weyl patterns are too rare to be described as a commercial output along the lines of the other two above. Most appear to be unique with the exception of aluminium pieces, which raises the question as to whether they were made for a specific individual. The obvious name that has been touted around is Murdoch, but the presence of a single example in both the Clarkson and Moon sales in 1901, acquired by Murdoch, sets this argument to rest. It is possible that more than one example of all types exist, but I have not been able to find any evidence other than the duplicates in the Murdoch sale. Taylor's products were considered the 19th century equivalent of the Patina issues, but gradually these were accepted, not least because official dies were the basis for many pieces. These are obviously the most acceptable to the masses because if you have a few Soho currency pieces, it isn't a great leap into the unknown to have a few Taylor pieces as well. However, given the prospect of potentially designing the nation's coins, the late Victorian patterns of Spink, Moore, Weyl etc should be taken as a somewhat more serious exercise and in parallel with the 'official' patterns. Don't forget the popularity of Moore's model pennies in the 1840s when the RM had to publicly disown them. Today, the Royal Mint solicits designs from the public. If they made a trial striking of a runner-up, what would its status be? At the end of the day it is each to their own.

Rosettes, trefoils or saltire stops are used at various times in the reign. Potter & Winstanley don't note rosettes as being particularly rare. Presumably some form of identification?

Raised dots are incuse on the die and usually the result of rusting or a small piece of metal coming away. In this case however, it might be the same stuff as the corroded area in front of Britannia, which you should be able to determine best in hand.

Either S2198A or S2199 depending on whether the inner arch is jewelled or not. It is difficult so say. The mintmark looks to be a pansy on the reverse, but the obverse doesn't look like it. The letters look to be of the ornate type, so that would eliminate S2199A.

This is a rather common statement. I don't know why because the basic designs are often just a carry over from the previous reign or a portent of things to come in the following one. I can see that Charles is one of the most interesting reigns given the diversity that arose from the Civil War, but James is no more or less boring than E1. Finding buyers for J1 coinage is much more difficult than E1.

It doesn't have to be big to be beautiful.

So backward? The Romans had toilets 2000 years ago.

There might be an image on Hus' forum as the last time it came up for sale it made quite a stir and a thread was started about it. The sale was in Tokyo in 2008 or 09 and it made £336K if I recall.

This doesn't apply to Soho Mint issues, and even less to Taylor restrikes (Taylor having "inherited" a whole load of rusting dies from the Soho Mint). Rob is talking mainly about those not Royal Mint output. The Royal Mint will use rusty dies as long as they are vaguely presentable. They certainly run the modern ones into the ground with all the flaws seen. The angel above is heavily rusted, which is interesting from the point that the couple of other examples I have seen from this obverse are not, suggesting the die was resurrected. It was in use only at the changeover from cross pommee to crosslet head and is known on this die only (?). The Bristol halfcrown below shows that even in the milled age they were not averse to using rusty dies.

Wow, the French had a working Saturn V moon rocket in 1792? Awesome. Yes, but what you probably didn't realise is that it lift off was vertically down - to emerge in Australia. The astronaut was Jules Verne......... maybe not.