Rob

Only a bottle of Old Speckled Hen for me. Oh, and I picked up a few tons of new solid oak flooring. Slight overkill for the house, but selling on the 80 sq.m we don't need should pay for the quantity we require.

They are consistently inconsistent. They also list the 1807 proof halfpennies, which were not Soho products, but made by Taylor much later. See my article in the 2007 BNJ showing how Taylor made the 1807 obverse die. The coin which provided the evidence is in the unlisted varieties section of the forum. They also list the 1848 godless florin, again a pattern, though one obverse and reverse design were eventually adopted. Golden rule - don't make rules because you will inevitably break them.

Did you make a note of any prices? I had bids on a few things, mostly farthings. There were some nice ones in the sale. Ahh so you were one of my competitors!! Quite possibly. Were you there, and which pennies caught your eye? I was there...but it was Rob's post I was responding to, I had my focus planted firmly on the farthings I came second on two, a bit short on a third and blown away on another. (farthings)

Trial in 4 languages. Spanish, English, German, French in the order on the coin.

I concur. Question for anyone. It says 999 silver. Is the 0.001% paint?

These marks go back to the hammered era. You can't rely on the presence of a mark in the centre of the face as a unique identifier as it is the one point that ought to remain consistent. Every die has a central point. It is just that some have a larger mark than others. If the engraver was any good, then you would expect the central point to be at the centre of the design. i.e. it isn't very helpful in identifying a die.

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between. The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here

I think the buyer is genuine as all the purchases are either coins (mostly French) or music cds. It can be done in 4 days, because everything would go special delivery at that price, so despatched 26th, returned 27th, new coin sent 28th and feedback would be possible by the 29th.

Yes, the lettering seems deeper & sharper than the kings head does...... Thanks Rob - I never considered it could just be an odd bit of scrap used. Maybe a trial gone wrong before they start production? Or some idiot arsing around...... Try the second.

Maybe even yestodtom is having difficulty reconciling the coin in hand with the description.

It might be a filed down halfpenny blank, or even an impression made in a scrap piece of bar end. Weight is obviously wrong for both 1/2d and 1/4d. I would go for a farthing obverse impression on the latter unless you can match up the vague relief detail on the flat side to a farthing obverse.

The 1839 sixpence with the c.1880 obverse that sold at Heritage earlier this year has medal alignment. Ah, thanks. Faulty memory. Which may imply that these late sets were made with the die axis opposite to the normal currency coinage. Peck gives the inverted farthing die axis as very rare, same as the inverted halfpenny. Groats also occur in both axes with Spink pricing the inverted one higher. Davies doesn't mention the inverted die axis at all, which is presumably an oversight, but maybe an indication of actual rarity given that ESC quotes rarities of S (upright) and R2 (inverted).

The halfpennies are normally upright, but my 39/41 is inverted. It's the only example I've seen with this die axis. This could possibly be contemporary with the late strike sixpence which also has an inverted die axis and which seems to be equally rare. It is also worth pointing out the mint refurbished in 1882 with new equipment, so any dies from the old Boulton presses may well not have fitted the new equipment which in turn would give us a terminal date for the issues.

"Care in the community" has a lot to answer for. Im new here so thanks for introducing me to this bloke got to love this one, ebay No 370831082109. Mint lustre specially created with a piece of Scotchbrite!!! whilst being held with a pair of pliers! But folk are buying this rubbish for silly prices! see this 1870BB 5Fr piece £205 is a reasonable price for EF+ but this coin struggles to make Fine (€22 in TB25) the ribbon is just visible on the neck The minimum criteria to make VF (TTB45) a €30 coin, requires the point of the moustache to be clearly visible But then I'm just using the grading standards from Le Franc Was this a BIN as I can't see any bids on it. I wonder if the 8 page views is accurate. BIN with positive feedback I wonder if 'very considerate seller' means the coin was returned? Certainly should have been, but there again shouldn't have been bought in the first place.

Sounds typically nonsensical given they keep far more than that in post offices to pay out in benefits. As this removes the uncertainty as to whether there is sufficient money to make a robbery worthwhile, why don't they close those down as well?........ Oh, they are. Also sounds like a stereotypical public sector response. I received a reprimand for filling a van up too quickly while I was a student - this van takes 10 minutes, this one 25 etc. Very depressing if you aren't of the right mindset.

How did you calculate ESC1738's ob to enter the scene in 1880? Any idea who the late re-runs would be for? I'm just thinking, if the RM were to re-run a G6 set, would I really want one as a collector? The obverse die uses the bust punch employed on sixpences from 1880 onwards, but is dated 1839. One went through Heritage(?) earlier this year. This is the basis for the assumption that 1839 sets were made possibly up to 1887. We know that there were at least 3 halfpenny obverse dies used (the latest being an 1843 recut and also a number of dies for the £5 Una & t'Lion. The 1839/41 obverse die is heavily polished and the hair not in very good shape (see unlisted varieties section) implying a heavily rusted die was bought back into use. The condition of the die is such that you would think there was none better available as any die for sets made pre 1860 would surely be taken from the normal die production activities and dated accordingly. It isn't cast in concrete, but I assume the recut date coins are later than 1860. Sets were made for collectors. Post date production applies to the early 1970s RM sets too.

I examined all the 1839 pennies previously sold by London Coins (where a photo was available) and a good number of those shown on the mcsearch website. All of them exhibited the broken 'C' in VICTORIA, so I would assume only one obverse die exists for pennies. But I wouldn't imagine that the original 1839 dies would have been cut with a broken C because this implies a lot of polishing of an existing die. I would expect to find a few pennies with an intact C, even if a search didn't show immediate results. The gap in the C would mean a very weakly cut letter in the first place if all were like this. The first currency date is 1841. For an 1839 to be made from a current die would imply that the first 1839 sets were not made any earlier than 1841. Unfortunately I don't have any catalogues dated 1839 or 1840, but Baron Bolland 426 (Soth 21/4/1841) is a lot of 9 Victorian proofs - Penny, Halfpenny, Farthing, etc and 426 is described as others, similar. He died on 14th May 1840, so on balance we can reasonably assume that the first sets were produced in 1839 as dated.

Just musing about the number of dies that were used for the sets given there is evidence that they were produced over a period of nearly 50 years (1839-1887). The die combination of ESC 1738 indicates that they were produced much later than 1839 because the obverse was introduced in 1880. Can anyone else fill in some gaps in the info? How many farthing dies? Halfpennies are known as 1839, 39/41 & 39/43. How many penny dies were used. Accumulator's example looks to be from a very polished die which has removed the top of the C in VIC and the bottom bar of the E is weak. Continue this theme through to the £5 and it might be possible to put some sort of chronology together if we can identify specific die pairs.

Yep. If you want it, be there. I've gone to a sale for one coin on numerous occasions. You can also see who you are bidding against and assess the potential outlay in advance which would be impossible on line. It is also a bit nerve-wracking to spend a few thousand or more bidding blind (which we have to do in the case of US sales), though I guess the same thing happens to US collectors bidding in this country.

I don't think they operate a preference system on the day of the auction as they will accept the internet bids with minimal hesitation in the room. I got caught out bidding in Sept 2011 when a lot which I had pencilled in at £1800 but at a push £2K got to 1900 with me as underbidder. A slight hmm of literally no more than a second or two and the internet bid was in and accepted. Shame really as it was a really sharp Aethelweard penny, but it was my own fault for prevaricating. As with any auction it is a case of getting the auctioneer's eye and sticking with something irrespective of the desire to get things on the cheap. Bids submitted to the book in advance of the sale will always take priority.

I think I have identified an area where government savings could be made - senility benefits. Cut these and it might reduce the affordability of ebay listings such as this. He might be a she. The name given on the contact details is Alfreda, whereas the email address is Alfredo. Whatever, idiocy is not gender specific.

I do think you should make a contribution to 'Readers' Wives'

Jesus. I don't know where he gets it from. My correspondence with him on the question of the 1806 proof halfpenny (not) has terminated. He has beaten me into submission. I didn't think it was possible for someone to take such a pig-headed view about a topic when they know so little about it. Apparently you can't rely on crap 50 year old research by the likes of Peck when the more up to date Spink has managed to reduce the number of 1806 bronzed proofs from double figures to 1 single type. I append the latest drivel: - On my 54 years of dealing with coins, i ever found a Dealer and/or Member of any Club like you! Summarise; Your uncertainty to accept a real explanation, you create a diversion, and opted for any other subjects, like the Chinese "not to loose their face".No luck!. I end very quick! Read/Buy the "Coins of England & The United Kingdom" from Spink '2012" an open on page 418. Capiche!!! Regards. If you go to Appendix 1 in your 2012 copy of Spink, the book I referred to by C W Peck is listed half way down page 616. All those references are specialist publications which go into their respective topics in depth. Spink's Coins of England is and always has been a general catalogue simply because there is not enough space for many varieties, so all they do is list the cheapest variety. That is why there is only a price given for each of the various metals. Following 10 years of research in the 1950s, Peck wrote at great lengths about George III's coinage (175 pages), listing just under 500 varieties (P934 - P1406) from the Soho Mint including all the pennies, halfpennies and farthings that he knew of. That is why you should get the book as you would be better informed. Any collector of George III copper cannot be without a copy as it remains the most authoritative reference for the series despite being last published in 1970 and forms the basis of all the copper, tin and bronze types listed in Coins of England. As for your comment about losing face, I don't have any concerns on this front and there is no 'uncertainty' about accepting a real explanation from me. All I'm trying to do is stop somebody wasting their hard earned money on a wrongly described item by trying to get you to see that what you have said is wrong. If you were to take the time to read more widely than your current knowledge, maybe you would realise that I have a point. Not sure what the diversion is that you refer to. Tks for the info of Peck quoted on Appendix I (Spink 2012). Regarding all prior correspondence, suggest to dot the i's and cross the t's. Regards. Hi. I see you still have it listed as a proof, which it isn't. I also suggested you get a copy of Peck to save you digging a hole for yourself. I stand by this. Please do something about the listing. Thanks. I fear to disagree with your comments, to bring a publication/study of 1950's as the basis for current values and grades. Also, my un-acceptance regarding your comments about Spink's Catalogue. Regarding their page 418, surface as 4th Issue and the registration of the coin in question through 6 entries, which are clear enough to bring to-day (2012), comparisons if suitable, but leave anything which had been exposed on Museums displays which were overturned by the major I quote " Last or new coinage, 1816-20"… The year 1816 is a landmark in the history of our coinage" unquote. In fact, during the last 4 years of George III reign, the mintage was resumed to Silver/Gold. Also, the mint resume of copper (farthings 1821) and pennies/halfpennies (1825) on the reign of George IV (1820-30). Regards Unfortunately, as the quality of language and logic used went downhill again, rather than buy a Dundonian-English dictionary or employ the services of 'Deep Thought' I've decided to leave him to it. I really believed I was getting somewhere when I explained the reference to Peck. Sadly I'm just a deluded and stupid twat.

Their provenance atttribution is a bit hit and miss when referenced to someone other than the person submitting the coin, just as the coin description is equally randomly selected from a list of possibles.

You can always boulder horizontally. We used to have a route around the caving club hut living room where you had to make a complete circuit without touching the floor. Easier said than done when you've had a skinful. More willingly attempted when you've had a skinful too.