Rob

As per the title. I picked up this manky looking 1566 3d with mm. Lion a few years ago. The reverse mark is over portcullis, which was the previous mark, but the obverse mark has a decidedly round underlying feature which is incompatible with anything to do with a portcullis, but would be possible for a rose. At this time, there was a frequent change of mark according to BCW, with Rose running for 6 months ending 31st March 1566, Portcullis from 1st May 1566 to 31st Jan 1566/7 (not sure where April went) and Lion from 1st Feb 1566/7 to 30th June 1567. It is not inconceivable that a rose marked obverse die survived the duration of the portcullis period and that die was then used during lion. Clearly this coin was struck in the first two months of lion before the calendar year end being less than a full year since the closing of Rose, but potentially a couple months less than this. The amount of silver struck in rose for all denominations was running at less than £6000 per month, but this increased to about £8000 per month during the next two marks. So the question is, does anybody have a 1565 or 1566 threepence with a rose initial mark to compare the dies with this one? The rose in the field behind the head is BCW type 13 as per the book, but 2 of the three die arrangements with mm. Rose used a type 9 or 12 rose behind the head, both of which are smaller than 13 and so could possibly be obliterated by the larger rose type 13. The legend reading ANG FR HI was used on the die with rose type 9 and is also noted in BCW as being rose over pheon. The same legend arrangement was also used on the die with the larger rose 10 behind the head, but this reads ANG FRA HI. Anyone help? Stuart? We've been here before, but the question hasn't been resolved.

The whole situation would considerably more palatable if political affiliation was a bar to any position of judge in the Supreme Court. It's a one way ticket to legitimising or suppressing political dirty laundry.

The only thing that's gEF about that is the verdigris, which appears to be virtually as grown

If it was in the sale it wasn't mentioned as the variety. For sixpences rose over plume/rose, the only potential lot was 634, 12 coins; mm. plume, rev plume over shield; another similar mm. rose; other mms. portcullis, rose, plume, harp. The first EF, the others fine or worse. Sold to Baldwin for 5 guineas.

Because nobody corrects grammar or spelling in school unless it is specifically part of the lesson, i.e English or some other language

At £30 BIN with best offer, it is at least reasonably priced. They may not know what it is, but appear to be realistic in their aspirations.

Glens 19th Oct 1943, lot 48. Cromwell, The Dutch Crown, 1658. A choice example of this rare coin. No prices, sorry.

Most don't like slabs

You are in control. All you have to do is pass over a note that requires change. The shopkeeper can't give you contactless change.

Not a clue. I suspect you might be met with a wall of indifference on here.

It's the path of least resistance. A bit like doing the lottery where all you need is the ability to point and hand over the money. People are given change, so may as well let the shopkeeper bring the goods to you.

Have a word with 1887 jubilee

May as well. Nothing to lose.

Yes, same principle.

What? Tobacco?

That's commendably horrible

see below

I don't know is the answer. I haven't read anything about the flan preparation used at Soho. You also get Barton's metal in the 1820s which is a sheet of gold applied to both sides of the copper plate before the blanks are cut out. In this case you have exposed copper on the edge, which is clearly not the case with the Soho blanks (or at least it would be extremely difficult to apply a lasting finish), which have good quality gilding over all surfaces.

I think they are both ok, but the ebay one is a bit worn, scratched and has seen better days. Ingram's pictures are crap to look at - a tiny full image and a small window when blown up isn't the best. They both show a slight greening on the outside of the obverse legend which I assume is metal flow leading to thinning of the gold layer, thus exposing the underlying copper.

The flans were gilt before striking. Post-mint gilding never has the same surfaces as a proof, and the gilding tends to come off.

All metals are common only in that they are metals. Apart from that they have different melting points which means that a particular element may or may not be molten in what appears to be all liquid. Of Copper, Gold and Silver, the latter has the lowest melting point of the three at 960C, with the other two over a hundred degrees higher. Bronze melts around the same temperature as silver or a bit lower, depending on the ratio of the constituent metals. Tin by contrast melts at only 231 degrees. They don't just dissolve, as they are not the same as organic compounds, the metal being a crystal lattice and hence much more tightly bound to adjacent atom. Think covalent and ionic bonding.

My coin was illustrated by P W P Carlyon-Britton in the BNJ vol.2 where he noted it was in the collection of Mary Willett, but the coin wasn't in her sale in 1920. It was also noted with Spink in 1952. It has obviously been around for a while, but without more info it would be impossible to say where it was found originally.

No, it's a mule of a Henry VII type III halfpenny obverse (single arched crown) with a type II penny reverse. I conveyed the information last night.

I think that's a lighting effect. Illumination is from the left in both cases.

You can't blame them for doing it. The market will buy what's on offer, so they are just taking advantage of a short term niche in the market. If they got them over the counter after work had finished, the outcome would be the same, and no different to those who would buy if they could get to the counter before the postie. It's no different to buying an older coin and selling on for a profit. If you hadn't bought it there and then, in most cases someone else would have done and made the profit instead of you. Either party gets a feeling of what if when they realise.