Rob

Long tail Q, Davies rev. A Thanks Rob! I was actually just looking at the ones you have for sale, I might go for both types you have on offer. Then I will only have to find the long tail to complete the set! You can have one of those too if you want.

Long tail Q, Davies rev. A

No reason to believe it isn't real. The date could have reinforced on the die at some point which would give the same effect. It's pretty dire and difficult to imagine too many people wanting it, despite the rarity of the date. Having said that, it's eBay, so anything could happen.

Not an area that I can help with I'm afraid.

Ok, let's for the moment consider it is a die flaw... So can anyone quote which variety? I have found some fairly close matches but not this exact die. Thanks There are a few options listed in Peck as follows. P687 GVLIELMVS. TERTIVS. BRITANNIA. P693 No obverse stops P693* No stop after GVLIELMVS There are also a number of varieties unrecorded in Peck but which are impossible to ascertain due to the weakness in the legends on both sides. It isn't the reverse die with the abnormally tall unbarred A for the last letter on the reverse. You will have to check very carefully to establish whether the stops are present or not because they can be very weak or filled. I don't have an example from either die to clarify the readings and there is no die duplicate in Nicholson.

moon.c et al have cornered the market in hammered copies.

I'd say it's a die flaw rather than an inverted A. An A was produced almost invariably by using a V and inserting the crossbar manually which usually results in a thin line. The line is also usually lower down the uprights. Your crossbar is somewhat bulbous which leads me to think it isn't a die sinker's error.

That's why patterns hold such an interest for me. So many things that might have been. Patterns are the hidden gems, and frequently cheaper than currency rarities as a bonus.

Bizarre. Text-speak in the 1600s or is it modern?

£2,400, right on the estimate. That's what I was willing to go to, i.e. £3K all in with the premium. I didn't buy it though as the price was reached in the room. If it hadn't been a bit pitted it would have gone for more because the grade was there, just not the physical condition.

William III is a full time job with the recoinage. With 5 or 6 coinages in as many years, the period was clearly a transitional one as redesigns don't happen for no reason when the cost of tooling is so high. Although the punches must have taken a hammering (excuse the pun), the variations in bust types across the series are clearly a sign of experimentation to some degree. The dismissal of the Roettiers in favour of Croker also had a large part to play in the designs as I suspect the former may have removed some punches when leaving the Mint.

There was an 1878, but only an 1881H. The halfpennies were essentially a date run with none of the hoped for scarcer dies I was looking for, some of which may not exist in UNC which could have had a bearing on the collection as it was common die pairings in this lot - hence easier to get in UNC.

Leaving aside the shortage of quality material across the board which is affecting everybody, I think a significant part of the problem arises from Paul Dawson's accident. As the main contact point and a name known within the numismatic world, his not being available to either speak to prospective vendors nor to seek out new stock means they are effectively short staffed. They need a GB coins specialist to replace him if the business is to move forward.

I did all right last week. I picked up the either/or coin I wanted in the Eginton trial pattern sixpence (lot 721), so left the second one alone. Plus I acquired a couple of others at reasonable prices. My bids were all in the milled section Rob, oh and a few lots in the literature. I only wanted one lot of books and came second.

I did all right last week. I picked up the either/or coin I wanted in the Eginton trial pattern sixpence (lot 721), so left the second one alone. Plus I acquired a couple of others at reasonable prices.

I'm afraid I suffered from premature salivation. When I saw the fairly lengthy run of bronze halfpennies, I thought I might have filled a gap or two, but the gaps remain. There were a couple of nice W3 farthings in Warwick & Warwick last week around the EF mark. Ex Brooks too. PS. Based on some of your posts, your money should be safe under the mattress. Don't want to go there - God knows what one might find.

I was following, but what I was thinking of buying either reached what I was willing to pay or exceeded it. There was no must have piece in the sale worth writing a blank cheque out for.

So which one didn't you buy?

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory. My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together! I suppose that if done for accounting purposes you would expect to see multiple crosses too. The earliest I have seen a cross is on Edward VI fine coinage, which immediately post-dates the debased period and could be a hangover from this period. Could it be that crossed coins were those that failed the recoinage test in 1696? I've just made a quick check on those coins with a cross that I have weights for and the closest any came to full weight was a James I 3rd bust shilling at 5.87g with the next at 5.75g. The lightest was 5.39g. I also have an Elizabeth I shilling with a star mark at 5.92g. We also have to bear in mind that some marks could be graffiti and completely unrelated to the underlying reason for the majority of marks. At the recoinage, those coins of full weight were punched through the centre to signify they were of full weight (and therefore value) and could be used for transactions for a limited time. In the event of discovering a pierced coin was underweight, the person who tendered the coin was liable to make up the difference in value. Do we have any other weights for crossed coins which would back up this theory? i.e. does anyone have crossed coins that are full weight and if so how many? Marking the field makes the cross obvious, so one would assume that it was done as a means of identification. Yes, I speculated (above) that it may have been something to do with the Recoinage. I think it is the most convincing explanation. The trouble is that Lloyd Bennett has a pierced Aberystwyth shilling with the hole through the centre as stipulated in the decree which only weighs 5.75g. This was the first coin I looked at. The next four halfcrowns had a maximum weight of 14.71g, so the underwight theory probably doesn't hold much water. I didn't find any full weight centre-holed coins. It is just too easy to find coins that break any postulated theories. We are all p***ing in the wind. One thing that would help a theory re-the recoinage would be the total absence of any crossed coins from contemporary hoards that could be positively dated to before the recoinage. I don't think this is the sort of thing that gets reported though because it would need to encompass all hoards.

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory. My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together! I suppose that if done for accounting purposes you would expect to see multiple crosses too. The earliest I have seen a cross is on Edward VI fine coinage, which immediately post-dates the debased period and could be a hangover from this period. Could it be that crossed coins were those that failed the recoinage test in 1696? I've just made a quick check on those coins with a cross that I have weights for and the closest any came to full weight was a James I 3rd bust shilling at 5.87g with the next at 5.75g. The lightest was 5.39g. I also have an Elizabeth I shilling with a star mark at 5.92g. We also have to bear in mind that some marks could be graffiti and completely unrelated to the underlying reason for the majority of marks. At the recoinage, those coins of full weight were punched through the centre to signify they were of full weight (and therefore value) and could be used for transactions for a limited time. In the event of discovering a pierced coin was underweight, the person who tendered the coin was liable to make up the difference in value. Do we have any other weights for crossed coins which would back up this theory? i.e. does anyone have crossed coins that are full weight and if so how many? Marking the field makes the cross obvious, so one would assume that it was done as a means of identification.

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory.

In common with just about all of the people old enough to be in a similar position I started collecting predecimal pennies from circulation, initiated by a pot of them in the house which I was given to keep me quiet on a rainy day. As for a favourite coin, this changes with mood swings.

Yes. He hit an upper case 4 by mistake. The price should be A(stronomical) U(nits) 4179500. Sorry for any confusion.

Probably wrong because you see them on quite a lot of high grade pieces. After over 100 years of use, it is unlikely they would be much more than washers given the lower relief seen on hammered as opposed to milled currency.

Yes, but given that this would have been done to create a 5 from a 3, not the other way around, wouldn't you expect to see a downstroke to connect the top of the 5 to its loop? There doesn't seem any trace of it at all. No downstroke on many Charles II fives. Look at Nicholson 020-024 on Colin Cooke's site.