Rob

Although rarer than 1700 or 1701, 1699 isn't that hard to find an example of, certain varieties excepted. It is a much commoner date than 1698 date in exergue for example which were only struck for a three month period and then not extensively. I agree it isn't a bad example, just a shame about the weakness as you can't be certain what you have without die duplicates to compare.

Nonsense. Yesterday I was congratulated on converting the previous day's anaemic offerings into something really tasty second time round. It was only braised beef though with veggies, and browned mash sealing in all the flavour.

Lot 298 in Norweb pt.1 hammered at £7500. Previously it was obtained from the Seaby's Bulletin for Nov.1957 (7317) where the price was £160. So Mrs. N did ok there (or at least her family did). It is thought there is one other known.

Probably someone experimenting with producing moulds and casting using electrical solder (tin/lead) or some similarly low melting point alloy. You can do it in the oven at home and easily engrave the edge milling too given how soft solder is.

Copper, silver and gold being in the same group of the periodic table share the same basic atomic structure. If you have one metal plated on a different metal of the same group, over time there will be some migration of the two materials into each other under the right conditions. You would not expect this to happen on a large scale and quickly however. If the area of contact was great enough, then it might happen, but coins are hardly a flat surface and so the actual contact points are minimal in relation to the surface areas of the two objects. A solution based explanation seems far more likely. At a bimetallic junction, a voltage is generated - that's how thermocouples work. Voltage generated, circuit made and current will flow, allowing for the migration of atoms within the crystalline structure.

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. Thanks Rob. My coin pocket money is spoken for this week, so I will have to stick with those two for now (along with one of those stock box's I asked about). Will put my order in on Thursday for those 3 items Thanks

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.

Not afaik, Rob. The Prestbury (creased) and tun over crown coin I got from Bob Lyall. The latter has a couple of tiny spots of red wax on it, but whether that's of any significance I don't know. He didn't tell me where he got it and there was no ticket. But apart from yours I've only ever seen two others, so I think it's quite rare with this overmark (though obviously, it's not the easiest to spot). Perhaps I should ask more for it? The photographs are frustrating. Our old camera which just eats up battery life is fine. This new one, despite having a supposed macro facility (and the pic looking nice and crisp on the screen) just doesn't produce such sharp images. Grrr. The obverse die is the same as my E2/3 tun with the apostrophe only obverse stops and I had an E2/2 from Mike Vosper a while back from the same obverse but different reverse die to yours. It is the only die I have seen with the point stops missing below the wedge and not recorded as a legend variety by Francis. Mind you, at that time there was only one E2/3 tun known. Now we are approaching double figures for tun with a couple of these tun over crown on the obverse. I just checked the Francis papers and the one with the wax wasn't illustrated, but is probably worth keeping and doing further research in this department. I also sold a tun over crown both sides last month from different dies. Obv.

Any of these wih a provenance worth having? I sympathise with the problems of getting decent images - I've just spent a full evening trying to get images to upload to the site and managed a total of 6 sort of acceptable ones, though not all fully focussed. I don't understand how it can focus on one side of the coin and then when you turn it over, defocus the other side. The flash converts an FDC proof into a severely defaced dog of a coin too. Tempted to revert to scans, or better still not bother with the site. Particle physics and chemistry is a darned sight easier than photography. Humph.

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.