Rob

I can't get the 1751 obverse past gVF because the shoulder looks to have some wear apart from the laurel, although the reverse makes EF. The trouble is you can never tell how well it is struck without seeing it in the hand. The dump I'd give good fine/fine. There is still some laurel detail there and the reverses can be very poorly struck. Die infilling is a curse until you get to the Soho period.

Difficult to identify, it appears to have lost all detail.

A trial halfpenny for Peck 1309 with much filled in detail and recutting to both the legend and other features such as the trident and olive branch, both of which are double cut. SOHO is very weak and had not been reinforced at this point. The obverse is as found on a normal P1309. It shows the same type of filled die characteristics described in the 1807/6 halfpenny elsewhere in this section. Additionally it is in copper as opposed to bronzed copper and is struck on a thicker than normal flan of 2.8mm instead of 2.5mm. Weight 12.88 grams. Purchased at London Coins auction 4/6/06 lot 1591.

I suppose the next question is -"Does anyone have one of these with the E the correct way round?"

Auction catalogues

I've just found two other pictured examples and they also have a reversed E, so I guess this must be common or even normal.

If you think this is bad, the Americans have a TV channel called "Shop at Home TV" which is a home shopping channel that devotes a portion of its schedule to selling coins. If you click coins at the bottom of this page you'll see what I'm talking about if you have even the slightest knowledge of US coins. If they are going to start slabbing MS70s I suspect it will all end in tears. What are the chances of it toning at some time in the not too distant future. I also wonder what happens when the first strike is a cockup? Are all first strikes to be given MS70 because everything following that is from used dies and therefore less than perfect, however minor the imperfections?

Howl. I hate the term VF or whatever for issue. The concept that a particular issue's grade is increased (and it invariably is increased) primarily as a result of it's scarcity or age eludes me. It's just an excuse for dealers to charge more and collectors to view their coins through rose tinted spectacles. I have a circulated 1967 penny which I would like to ascribe as being dire for issue, most being hoarded straight from the bag .

Surely North appeared in 1975, Rob? Anthony Wilson at York Coins normally shows tickets if a coin has an interesting provenance. If there is nothing matching on the website (I haven't checked in detail) he may respond to an email. They are certainly quite unusual being rectangular. Otherwise I think I remember seeing a book with coin tickets in it but 'fraid I can't remember the details. Doh! After a search I realise it was that very article I was thinking of - sorry! Sorry Richard, 1975 not 1991. I was on autopilot and just copied the date out (3rd ed.) without thinking. I picked up a couple of lots at St. James' no.4, lots 220 H6 1/2ds & 271 H7 pennies and a H8 1/2d. Both lots had the same style of ticket and each coin had two as per the picture. There were a few other lots with these tickets too which I didn't bid on. Usually, general sales are an excuse for dealers to offload the stuff they can't sell so I wondered if anyone had picked up anything from a dealer with the same style.

Here's a fairly good resemblance. The ties are positioned correctly for your coin, the two curls are higher than the forelock, there appears to be a trace of an E under the bust on yours and the spacing of the legend relative to the bust is quite a good fit. This is a second bust S3609. Apologies for the dire grade of the coin shown but I don't have a good example of this bust

Struggling here. The hair curls suggest an Edinburgh bust but you can't see whether there is an E or E* below the bust. The position of the bun relative to the legend suggests a sixpence. What diameter is it?

Can anyone on the forum put a name to the previous owner of the coin tickets pictured below. Dimensions are about 39 x 15mm and they are approximately the thickness of 2 present day coin tickets. Two tickets were written per coin giving the details as shown. They must have been written post 1991 as North wasn't published until then. They don't appear to match anything in Eaglen, Mitchell and Pagan written in 2001. Thanks.

They were a suggested design by Joseph Moore and made in either 1844 or 1848 to replace the heavy coinage then in circulation. According to Peck, the inner part was supposed to be in silver to compensate for the small intrinsic copper value but those produced in the greatest numbers had a copper outer ring and an inner part made of approximately 60% zinc / 40% nickel according to Freeman who analysed the metal composition of many coins. They were never adopted and are quite common. You can pick up a good one on eBay for a few pounds. There are two varieties with this metal with the die axis upright and inverted. i.e If you turn the coin over, the other side may be of the same orientation or opposite and the inverted type is considered by Freeman to be slightly rarer. There is a variety with PENNY reading PENNEY and this is rare. The references are Peck 2092, Freeman 802 and 802A for the inverted die axis. It should look as the attached picture.

Does anyone have an Archbishop Lee halfpenny S2361/N1820. If they do and it is the E left, L right variety is the E reversed? Mine is but North doesn't mention any letter reversal. Thanks.

Sorry, that was me.

If possible, please supply a higher resolution picture as it is not possible to see the fine detail which will be necessary to identify what is present. This is important because the toothed border looks worn suggesting a low grade coin which make positive identification problematical.

Firstly, as it notes on the bottom of page 51 in ESC, the "inverted 1" is actually from a broken I punch. The picture below shows this. All the inv. 1s I have seen have the small notch in the top right hand side of the upright. Compare this with the 1 in the date and this notch is not present. Alternatively it could be a case of an infilled die so it would help if you posted a picture. An additional related query I would like to raise is whether anyone has a number of high grade inverted 1 pieces from both years to make a comparison. The lower inverted 1 in the picture is from an 1889 whilst the upper one is from an 1888. The later year is obviously struck from the same defective punch, but has an underlying feature corresponding to a normal I. As this is not found on the 1888 piece it must clearly be from either the earlier die subsequently modified or more plausibly a different die. Can anyone shed any light on this or does anyone have any ideas on the number of "inverted 1" dies used?

A good example of silly prices asked in the US for slabbed pieces is lot 2434 in next week's Goldberg auction. It is a proof 1893 shilling slabbed NGC Proof 67 with an estimate of $800-900. This for a coin which Spink prices at £95. Pay a premium for a really good example by all means, but bear in mind that this was on the Northeast Numismatics website for quite a while at $1750 and unsurprisingly didn't sell. A lot of the other British pieces in this auction are from the same source and were equally overpriced on the NEN list.

The first thing you do with a slabbed coin is disregard the grade and description and check for yourself the condition and identity. Unfortunately, the US grading companies are not that familiar with British coins and frequently overgrade. MS64 for an EF - gEF is quite common as are incorrect attributions. The best use I have found for slabbed coins from say NGC or PCGS is that they mention if it has been cleaned which is not always clear in a slab. The best thing is to learn to grade correctly and stick with it. Punters on eBay will rarely believe you if you give a grade, but nobody is forced to sell a £1000 coin for 99p so stick to your guns and don't underprice yourself.

You're a lucky person, it's obviously rare. Spink 2003 edition gives a value of Fine £150, VF £400 and EF £1250 or approximately twice that for a normal version. The value though will depend on the degree of corrosion. The obverse looks as though it is badly pitted and although in quite good grade probably doesn't make fine as a result. This will depress its value although the reverse looks better.

If you are using a scanner, take an image of more than twice the area required with the coin positioned to one side of the rectangle. If you repeat this for the other side you can copy and paste the image and move it around within the first box so that they are adjacent.

I'll back that one up.

Clearly aiming at the uninformed market. Hats off to anyone who can sell 1965, 1977 and 1980 crowns at £3 each. Describing s**t as nice condition also helps selling to the same group.

At first glance that is exactly what I thought, double date, but if you look at the 1 and the last 8, the underlying numerals are definitely larger, in height. If you look at the height of the 1, the difference in height between the two 1s is only about 3%. The picture below has both large and small date and here the difference in size is close to 10%. Also the last 8 on your coin looks as if it could be triple as opposed to double cut. The bottom digit is lower which could explain the apparently larger size, but the top left of the bottom loop looks to me to have two separate cuts, the upper being displaced slightly to the right unless this is an optical illusion. If you measure the height of the characters, they are all the same nominally.