Rob

There were no 1674 dated halfpennies,so the transition from 1673 to 1675 makes sense. This is not the case for the farthings as 1674s are quite common, so you would assume that any 1673 dies would be converted to 74s rather than having them left over into 75.

On the 5 over 3s the overcut is an s shaped punch which protrudes to the right of the 3 from the mid point or higher. When seen in relief, this is cut deeper than the original digit.

Peter Wallwork stopped a few years ago (I acquired his library 2 or 3 years ago). I think he is doing property development(?) now.

Look at the shape of the last digit, then compare with the Nicholson halfpennies or my 1675/3/2 in the unlisted varieties. They added to the existing digit usually rather than fill the old one in. For the halfpennies at least, 1675/3 is at least as common as the straight 1675. Somewhere there is a hand written drawing I appended to a thread regarding shapes of the 5/3. I haven't done the separation into 5/3 for the farthings, but surmise it is likely they reused dies for the farthing, just as they did the halfpennies. The reverse die can be paired with any obverse as they will have replaced each die as it broke. There is no reason why this should not apply to all denominations.

That's shi*e. However, I see a business opportunity, if it generates more than melt.

5 over 3 too.

The argument against this is that there is very little in the way of extra work to be done by the vendor. It doesn't matter whether you are sending a signed for parcel to an internal or overseas address, you still have to fill in all the recipient's details. The only additional work is to fill in the white customs label saying description (1 or 2 words), value and ticking a box to say if it is a gift, sample etc. so what? I'll fill in customs labels all day at £50 a time. For them to re-package is doing the same job twice, which is unnecessary. It's like many things in business. Most aren't rocket science, just that people can't be bothered to get off their a**e and cut out the middle man.

With global shipping rates, so is ebay.

USPS flat rate envelope insured to $1K is $46 ish if the website is to be believed. Add in UK 5% import vat at £25-30 plus the RM £8 fee and you get to about £60 all in. i.e. Only about half the sum quoted. I said you get stung. Nice little earner for eBay though. Sure nothing comes for free, but taking the piss can be expensive. So much for their hypocritical bollocks about keeping postage costs to a minimum. Things like this need to be shouted from the rooftops, because the rates are usurious. Thinking out loud, I wonder if the OFT would have a case. All in all a case of caveat emptor. Avoid ebay and buy from the US from the likes of Heritage, who only charge $30 for shipping lots.

Needs a question mark at the end to complete the description.

That probably needs to be qualified. Those polished dies for the New York Exhibition were always going to be returned to the Mint afterwards, so if they needed another die at a later stage it is reasonable to assume they would use an existing one rather than start from scratch. There is no design difference, so no unintentional pairing from that perpective. I would even question whether the use of a currency/proof die pairing in say the Jubilee Head coinage was unintentional. Again, the design is current in both instances. In the case of the two most recent examples, both the 20p and 2p mules used an obsolete design.

Think along the lines of the undated 20p. Old obverse paired with the new reverse - never should have happened, i.e. it's a mule. By comparison, the multitude of die pairings in the early Victorian bronze pennies et infra were in a period of experimentation with no settled die pairings in the early stages, i.e. not mules. Similarly with the many pointings to either a tooth or a gap.

Mule has a defined definition i.e the pairing of dies that were not intended to be paired. Usually an obsolete design that has been surperseded such as the 1983 2p with the old NEW PENCE legend whereas it should have had the new TWO PENCE reverse design. CGS might have used mule as a description, but definitely not in the context of a polished die for a 1960 crown. They aren't as common as the regular pieces, but certainly not rare.

I'm missing one issue from WW2 onwards................June 1956

Good question and not a clue. That's one that has to be worthy of pursuing with the RM

There might be a genuine coin hidden in there somewhere. The first sale is obviously a con as maggietammy relisted the same item twice. However, as it shows something other than the coin on offer, it is remotely possible that two different, but un-photographable examples are involved. Having said that, it is fair to say that only people with low feedback and dodgy written English are ever fortunate enough to have a couple of spare 5 guinea pieces. That must tell you something.

No, it isn't damaged, but rather is infilled. The design is incuse, so the missing part of the R is due to rubbish in the depression. If the die was damaged, this would result in raised lumps, or flaws leading off the letters. This would reflect the removal of metal on the die

Arsenic in the coins we collect? http://books.google.com/books?id=o-5AAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=copper+coins+arsenic&source=bl&ots=Q3qbFU4TmX&sig=DcVJX6j3jArFiNiCobCuXdWTBso&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AIjcU_DGIoGVyASu7oGoAQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=copper%20coins%20arsenic&f=false Not a major problem as the elemental metal isn't poisonous - its the oxide which is deadly. Plus, of course, the concentrations are very low, so nothing to worry about. Arsenic has been used for centuries to impart a 'mint freshness' look to debased coins. If you compare say the modern Cu-Ni proofs and a silver proof of the same type, it is striking that the silver proof is 'whiter'. This is the look that the addition of arsenic tries to emulate.

Weak lettering on both sides of the Soho conventional currency coins at this time is commonly encountered. The cartwheel pieces having an incuse legend are usually well struck up, but those with the raised legend are often found with weak, verging on non-existent letters. I have ascribed this to a build up of rubbish on the dies generated by small particles left when the die was retracted from the surface of the coin coupled with a small amount of rotational play in the mechanism. It is always restricted to the legend and is often coupled with rough circles at the same diameter as the legend. In the case of the coin above, what appears to have happened is that the incuse detail on the die has become blocked with rubbish leading to a partially formed character. This happens on any coins from any period. There is still a trace of the top of the R visible in the image.

Given the traditional use of coins for propaganda, somewhat surprisingly, none of the above feature the super-heroic Putin - defender of russian principles, saviour of the Russian face and featuring on a pair of underpants near you soon.

Looks like a jetton of some description. Not a clue what though.

One other point for consideration - Ebay go to great lengths to point out that you should keep P&P charges to a minimum, buyers like free P&P, their default charges are RM prices etc., so WTF are they doing automatically enrolling sellers into a global shipping program that promptly charges the buyer postage and packing fees that are considerably greater than the individual would pay if packed by themselves. Of course, you are still liable for ratings of the cost of P&P. When eBay don't charge FVF fees, Paypoo fees and the RM delivers my parcel for free, I am prepared to ship at the cost of a jiffy bag and the cost of getting to a post office - aint gonna happen, is it?

It depends on whether you appreciate the handiwork of the engraver or not. If you want to see the full qualities of the craftsman, then you need to see coins in high grade. If you just want an example of a type, then it obviously doesn't matter what the condition is. If you are an avid afficionado of washers, RS do boxes of 250 starting at £1.10 + VAT.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F97%2FDiscus_Thrower_Copenhagen.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDiscus_throw&h=1944&w=1944&tbnid=2eg6y8xiypLk0M%3A&zoom=1&docid=S8sXG4HCLT7xLM&ei=c4AuVM6QHc_TaK7YgJgG&tbm=isch&client=firefox-a&ved=0CEUQMygLMAs&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=990&page=1&start=0&ndsp=35

That is what I was talking about when I said I got stung for charges. If you look at the ? it tells you that this is not a final charge and can be adjusted. Silly me assumed that no import duty or VAT on books meant they weren't going to charge it. If you apply import charges as they are due then it appears to be a bit cheaper than regular post, but automatically being charged for things you don't owe rubs a lot. Yep, it's a rip off for the buyer from all angles. I have instructed the wife to revoke the automatic sign up (coz we are caring people and don't like to see people being ripped off). I assume they will be making something from it because the postage element of the things I bought was slightly cheaper than for the individual. i.e. it wasn't done at normal cost, so you must assume they are making a bit from facilitating the transaction.