Rob

If I were you, I would make sure I had read all I could about guineas before buying anything. Some of the gaming counters have only one or two letters different to a genuine guinea legend, but then may have an incorrect date. Better still, take someone with you who knows something about both items if possible. Caveat emptor.

That doesn't make sense. If he is selling things worth pence for a quid and he knows what they are and their value, why would he sell something worth £60 for £12? I'd be suspicious, because gold is frequently traded by the general populace, gaming counters are not.

If they are genuine guineas then that is a no brainer. The scrap gold content is worth a lot more than £12, even with a reduction in weight for the hole. It's always good policy to buy £10 notes for £5.

More likely eBay taking a leaf out of the book of its customers and putting the decimal point in the wrong place. £8.30 would have been more appropriate.

And there is also a 1675/3 no obverse stops about, similarly unrecorded. Another person on this forum can advise on that if they like as they beat me to it.

1675/3 CRAOLVS halfpenny, unrecorded in any literature and rare for any date

I'm struggling to locate any BU examples of the three rare varieties and specifically the 4+C where I am having difficulty finding any at all. Value....?

I always assume they are not unless I know the seller. It's like most of the proofs you get. I was once informed that a coin was definitely a proof "coz it's really shinny" (their spelling not mine). Most coin descriptions on ebay tend towards the most expensive variety and grade. Clearly a case of if you don't have a clue, play it up.

In which case it probably isn't a proof. ESC393M has a rarity of R4 (est. 11-20 examples) and specifically says frosted design and highly polished fields. The frosted design will be the key as without proof-like and proof of the same design side by side it is likely to be difficult to tell unless you know what to look for and there was a similar thread a few months ago on this general topic involving a George VI proof (?).

Yes. We split the difference between what I wanted and what she wanted to let me spend (ie I got half what Iasked for!!) I too have been informed that I will not be spending so much this year

Very sound advice, particularly if you are on a tight budget. As a complete date nut, i can't argue with any of that. If date collecting is your thing (like me), then you're in trouble. It gets worse if you collect by Peck, Freeman, ESC, Davies et al numbers

Very sound advice, particularly if you are on a tight budget.

I think we all have the same problem. The solution of course is to inform her that you intend spending 5 times more than you actually do/can. She informs you that you can spend to a certain limit, then you have a row and you back down so that when you only spend twice the amount you can actually afford or think wise you earn lots of brownie points for your restraint. Then she who must be obeyed may even raise her limit as a bonus.

There are a few pictured on this website. link Most put there by David Magnay, I presume the same one who had the pattern sale at DNW 3/2/1999.

That's because both the predecimal and rotographic links are not obvious at the top of the forum page. The colours are too similar to stand out clearly and this is compounded by small lettering. I always forget they are there, in fact I found Rotographic via Google months before I noticed the link.

Only listed as a variety for 1697 and 3rd bust. Spink 3499 1st bust.

Spink 3611.

Probably just a lower 5. The whole issue is plagued with misaligned dates. I have 1821, 2x1822 & 1825 and all are rising left to right except for the P1411 which has the last two digits level.

Mr Consistency

Davies reverse D with cross touching bead and date covering 10 beads on an 1883 6d. Normally this is reverse F with SIX PENCE wider spaced, cross to space and date covering 11 beads.

For currency pieces it's not really a problem. British base metal coins (fractional farthings to twopennies) were mainly copper prior to 1860 (with a few tin examples in the late 1600s). After that they changed to bronze. 0.925 silver was used for 3ds upwards until 1920 when it changed to 0.500 silver. From 1947 onwards silver coins changed to cupro-nickel. Gold is obvious. Maundy money has always been silver. Some modern stuff is copper plated steel. Foreign coinage generally uses the same materials, though you may find things like aluminium bronze as well. Hammered currency before the onset of milled used gold and silver where the face value of the coin was equal to the precious metal content. There were also a few James 1st farthings in copper.

Just for you master JMD, here's a picture of the obverse. Unfortunately the blue and green iridescence is lost with the scanner, but it's one of the most attractive bronzed copper pieces I've ever seen

It's definitely 15A. Here's a scan with the light coming from the other direction.

This is a touch esoteric. Does anyone have a book containing an example of either Weyl's or Lauer's handwriting. The image below is inscribed on the reverse of a Freeman 881 uniface and I am trying to find a link to either of the above. The reading I have interpreted as GB - ?J 15A although any opinions would be welcome. The ? could be an L as these pieces are thought to have been produced just prior to the golden jubilee in 1887 although dated 1860 and 1887 for the two series. The 15A I suspect to be the set number and denomination type, as these were produced in sets of 3 i.e. penny, halfpenny and farthing. Freeman lists 17 types of penny for the 1860 issue including BRITANNIAL which is likely to be a trial error. Additionally it is likely that a uniface gold piece with grained edge exists and tin pieces with both plain and milled edges also definitely exist, so more than 15 sets would have been made in both edges, different metals and some uniface obverses. Anyone with anything to say other than go away would be appreciated. Thanks.

I would say no because it is clearly of inferior standard to Taylor's work. He may not have had the ability of Droz or Kuchler, but his proofs are better than this. I don't think he had the ability to put on the security edge either as all the proofs and patterns listed by Peck have a plain edge except for those where he used the RENDER edge. Also, I am only missing the KH32 variety for the 1806 1/2ds and it doesn't match anything I have.