Rob

Thanks. So 'This PC' has replaced 'My Computer'? Why bother unless to deliberately obfuscate?

Does anybody know of a replacement program for 'My Computer' in Windows 10 that I can get to download now that facility no longer exists? I'm trying to access a CD, but didn't realise that you can no longer see your drives. Serves me right for up downgrading.

But what is its value? Can't be 0 as its very existence precludes the square root of nothing.

I reckon the A is a commemorative issue in recognition of the naval landing on Rockall in the summer of 1862, i.e. it's a tent, with the lighthouse an artistic impression of planned development.

So that means there will be two economies, the legal documented one and the black one. Who would have thought that the Italian way of life would come out tops courtesy of Brussels?

Same dies, but mine is the later one of the two. On my reverse the flaws across Britannia's stomach are branched, whereas the slabbed one is a single line.

Of course he knows it's a fake. The 22g weight is mentioned so he can claim he wasn't trying to deceive - but just couldn't resist leaving the temptation to the ignorant that it might just be real.

None? Any more is a slippery slope.

Not sure it's deliberate. The catalogue illustrated shows the Scottish first issue of Charles I on which the King is unconventionally facing right. The one time where the left-right alternation doesn't apply because it's facing the same direction as the James I Scottish coinage. The real faux pas is the failure to correctly identify the reverse. Scottish reverses have two Scottish arms against the English one.

Stewartby notes on p.332 that varieties exist missing either I, n or V from Henricvs, but doesn't mention rarity - however, it is likely there would not be more than 1 or 2 dies of each of these.

I deleted the images to stop clogging up the thread. I originally added them to prove the upload facility was functioning properly.

This is bad enough to elicit a moan as it is precisely things like this that lead to ever higher numbers on slabs. Overgraded items languish in their slabs to the end of time, whereas those with a chance of receiving a higher grade are broken out and resubmitted. How this got anywhere near a 60+ number escapes me, but it only encourages the resubmission of a less bad example to try for a 64 or 65 label. From the next DNW sale, a 63 slabbed P1051. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=507&lot_id=50957 And my EF example of the same type, which I would contest, wins every time.

Presumably it would have been similar to the 1910 patterns engraved by A G Wyon, unless it was decided they were inappropriate for whatever reason and together with minimal demand for the denomination in everyday life, the crown was dropped.

When I drag images into the attachment area, as long as the total size doesn't exceed 500kB, then it will accept as many as you want to add. e.g. see attached. Is it a compatibility problem?

You won't find any expansion on the generic full reading in North. There are many legend combinations in this period, so the best you can do is a lot of reading looking at as many past sales as possible, with Lockett, Montagu, Ryan, Dangar, Fletcher and other important named sales a good stating point. Small sales are likely to have a description of reign, denomination and type only. North 1383 states trefoil left, mullet right of shield. You are wrong about quatrefoil in your OP - it is a trefoil. There is a shortage of readily accessible references for gold of this period. Brooke, (NC 1930) discusses the quarterly marking in connection with the pyx trials, but only gives the generic legend. I don't think you need pay too much attention to the mis-spellings seen in this series, as they appear to be common. According to Stewartby, FRANC is the normal spelling, FRAC & FRAN are unusual. Anecdotally, EXALT/EXCVLT etc together with their various readings are very much 'think of a combination'. Mistakes are frequently seen. Sorry, I haven't compiled a corpus of Henry V gold, so can't be specific on varieties.

Thanks Paul. I was expecting to see a link, not something I am suppose to intuitively understand. It's better, but on my computer only gives a full screen image, not further magnifiable, unlike previously.

Does anyone else think the recent changes to the DNW online catalogue viewing has been a retrograde step? You used to be able to click on a full screen link and magnify images such that they literally filled the screen. However, digital 'progress' now means it is blown up within a hopelessly small area covering a fraction of the screen, which makes viewing considerably more difficult.

Which would be an excellent way of presentation if such a site were to be made. It will double the number of images, but aid identification. However, you must get them the right way round.

That's a tongue in cheek nothing wrong. Having listed what is wrong with them, it is somewhat contradictory to then say they are good.

The important point to remember in my opinion is that it is always assumed that the well punched digit is the intended one, however, it is not guaranteed that the intended correction is punched in greater relief than the original. A clear case of this is the GEOE shilling. Nobody is going to change the final R to an E. I believe that the GEOE was punched in, but the intended correction wasn't deep enough giving the appearance of E/R. This is quite easy to justify if the die has been hardened. I can certainly show an example of a hammered coin where the overmark struggled to reach the same depth using numerous blows and there is no reason to expect a die for the milled coinage to be any different. If the above is added to the list of permutations of die sinkers' errors and corrections, you are led to conclude that virtually everything is possible. e.g. Sometimes the date starts too far to the left or right, the correction leading to apparent overdates.

Any effort is better than none. Here's a couple to get you started. 1887 £2 & £5 known as 'Beirut' copies, as they came out of the middle-east in the 1960s. The degree of misalignment is as indicated. The weight is marginally down on the genuine article and the edge milling count is appropriately wrong. The mint analysed them in the late 60s and established them to be approx. 0.890 fine. Apart from that, there is nothing wrong with them.

Given that import fees are levied where appropriate, I find it incredulous that someone would refuse to pay on the grounds that they haven't managed to avoid paying tax owed. Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of import taxes, it is incumbent on people to accept the legal position on the day, and probably more pertinently, account for it when making a purchase.

Rather than a punt (not available in Ennis), you will need something to beat away the little green men guarding the poly bag at the end of the rainbow.

Given my last purchase was 590, 616 times face value, I suppose there is an argument for buying something only marginally over melt.

Blandford has a very attractive bypass.