Rob

I just drag the required file into the reply box. I've no idea about choosing files from a menu.

Which is how I treat it. The rarities were never very accurate and always seemed to be one person's opinion written on the back of a fag packet. TBH they are redundant for most applications because as long as there is enough to go around - nobody cares. Somewhat depressingly, the one area where they could be of use is the least attractive to collectors (proofs and patterns), but even then things seem to be based on a number plucked out of the air.

For many less widely collected varieties they were a guesstimate 70 years ago and mostly remain so. Nobody has the time or inclination to revise the complete book and so it is down to individuals to do their homework in their chosen field. Nobody has all the coins in the world at their fingertips, so any estimation of rarity will be just that. I'm sure we all have R's that we have seen but one, and R7s where you can pick and choose. Know your subject or be prepared to be pleasantly surprised or disappointed.

Counterfeit eighteen-penny pieces, not pennies. i.e. BoE 1s6d tokens, of which there are many varieties.

Best deal of all time for me on ebay was this in 2005. An 1889/8 halfpenny for £3.56 delivered - from Australia. It ended up being culled in 2009 due to a surfeit of much better 17+S examples.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-ABRAHAM-LINCOLN-2006-2-Pound-coin-2/363024349356?hash=item5485eff8ac:g:FQQAAOSwFpBe3Sn1 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rare-Abraham-Lincoln-2-Pound-Coin-Mega-Rare-Printing-Error-By-Abraham/224051810434?hash=item342a875082:g:eTkAAOSwClZetqJx https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rare-Abraham-Lincoln-2-Pound-Coin-Minting-errors-and-Misprint-2006/283483266327?hash=item4200eb5d17:g:mv4AAOSwWM1c2Uha etc. etc.. People have gone mad! There's at least a dozen and a half of these on the first page of a British Coins Lincoln search.

I concur. I can't see anything wrong. Quick checks are 4 berries - is a twopence and on a penny the Trident points to the right of the second N compared to at the N for the 2d, 1/2d & 1/4d, with the last two unlikely to appear on an ebay listing where the vendor doesn't have a clue.

This appeared at the back end of 2003. The vendor had a reserve on it, which usually means unrealistic expectations. I put in a bid of 600 which I considered reasonable given the only other known example (VF) had sold for £2K a few years before, making this the second known. I picked it up for 500. The underbidder went to 151 hoping for a bargain.

Except on eBay where the opposite applies. All things bright and not beautiful are described as lustrous.

Assuming the holder is genuine, that might just be dipped. For some reason, dipping (and 'conservation') isn't considered cleaning by the TPGs.

Hopefully designer sunglasses are included for this price. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1787-George-III-Shilling-VERY-RARE-1-OVER-MIRRORED-1-Superb-coin-see-photos/233588897551?hash=item3662fbb70f:g:k3EAAOSwh5pevrRM

I tried to click on the link and was unexpectedly saved from viewing by the Daily Mail pointing out I had an ad blocker The ability to surf randomly in the knowledge the DM will block me from unnecessarily viewing their articles is as good as winning the lottery. Mine's a pint.

There is an alternative explanation for gold not suffering from striking splits in that it is softer and so can deform (spread) more easily. Silver has a problem in that it is extracted from ore whereas gold is found as nodules and not extracted from a salt. Being the path of least resistance, I don't think it a coincidence that gold was fine until debased by Henry VIII. Then you have the question of alloying in the case of silver, with the divergent melting points of the alloy constituents coming into play. I'm pretty certain the more extensive haymarking seen on silver is down to poor metal mix because copper's m.p. is 100 degrees higher than silver compared to 20 degrees between copper and gold, so in the case of the former, the silver will be melted long before the copper.

Someone inadvertently left detail on the coin?

The only thing I've heard of was the Henry I coins requiring to be snicked to be current. Coins were current as long as the inner circle was intact. Where are we talking about. England, Scotland, Denmark?

Oops, red face time. Not sure what I was thinking about there other than not the response. Silly sod. I'm as mad as the bloke on the obverse.

No idea, but a guess would be the need for pennies far outweighed that for halfpennies [and farthings], the requirement for which could be considered already served by the numbers circulating, whether genuine or not. Another angle could be that the security edge wasn't sufficiently developed for a currency issue, bearing in mind there was no security edge on the pennies or twopences. Or maybe it was down to a shortage of copper given the quantities needed for ships' hulls. The IOM being self determining could presumably issue what it liked. The head of state might have been Victoria, but the Tynwald passed the laws.

And something more mundane - as it says on the label.

Things are a bit dead at the moment, so let's try to breathe a bit of life into this place. P1163 Taylor restrike pattern halfpenny.

A bit of everything for everyone. 9 or 10 could be got from Coins of England, 1 coins of Ireland, Scotland etc, 5 from ESC, 5 general knowledge, 1 google street view, 3 from Peck. So even with a copy of Spink (which I assumed most would have), plus either ESC or Peck, you are at least half way there. It's not a question of knowing all or not bothering - it's supposed to be fun. At our club quiz, I can't remember anyone getting more than 75-80%. Same goes for the intercounties quiz we go to at Crewe every year. When it's my turn to set the questions for the club I usually aim for a mix of ancient, early & late hammered, milled, tokens, designs/designers and general knowledge in equal measures. Do I know the answers? Yes if I set them, otherwise no. I still have to look things up to get suitable questions for ancients and tokens about which I know very little. It's actually quite hard to find a balance between the condescendingly simple and the challenging for the simple reason that most collectors sit in a niche, with very few who collect everything. Consequently, 20-50% is quite normal.

A tad late, but 9 right. Q.12 has reduced by one mint since I first posed the question 5 years ago, because Bruton no longer appears following replacement of the signs. Q.20 was pointed out to me that the wording was imprecise, as I had included Offa, Edward the Elder & Aethelstan I, but these were not strictly kings of all England. Sleepy won, but by default, as he was the only person who bothered to reply. I didn't think it worth posting the results given the lack of interest.

1858/6 halfpenny

1859 halfpenny

I'd say better given the small lump below the centre line of the 8. The 5 in this image looks to be the same punch as the halfpenny 5

Here's a halfpenny 9