Rob

Ouija board required I'm afraid. A great deal of knowledge has been lost and needs to be reassembled. On the plus side, his wants list is a good proxy for what is difficult to find.

You might have the answer once DNW have finished selling off John Hulett's collection. An undated example wasn't on his wants list for James I sixpences implying it is probably not documented anywhere, or he had one. However, I do know that he had a large number of oddballs accumulated over the years and wouldn't bet against him having found one. There wasn't one in Shuttlewood.

I can't see anything there. Just a thought, but do you know it is a 6d for certain? The shield is proportionally the same on both 6ds and shillings.

Was there one in the Bole collection? That would be the first place to look. I'll get the 6 catalogues out when I have cleaned up and have a gander.

I stopped watching just before half time because we seemed to have stopped trying.

Good goal by Trippier, but why when they have taken the lead do England act as if it is job done? Maybe they don't want it badly enough? Maybe they think it is their divine right to be in the final?

Difficult to say what it will go for. Looking at the link above, I'm surprised Heritage don't give an estimate, as any large number would surely increase the number of eyeballs, human avarice and envy being what it is.

Year on year problem. I always end up with a massive lump to show for it. One of the rare insects that are more than just a nuisance.

Just keeping tabs on it now. Random outbreaks will be the order of things until it rains. Although the ground cover is burnt off, the underlying peat smoulders for ages and every so often bursts into flames. A few crews will be on the moors for a while yet.

If you look at the last definition, you will see that it refers to what I said. The phrase was probably introduced soon after the introduction of the high five and was used long before the online urban dictionary existed - which is where most people seem to get their info from these days.

A high five for the inbred

No, the kid's mum.

Neither this nor the other one are English, but I've no time to dig deeper. Someone else have a go.

This is interesting. The cross in quatrefoil appears to read AELFGAET ON BRI. Aelfgaet is recorded as a moneyer at Dorchester for W2 types 2 (this one) and 4 (cross pattee & fleury). The reading of BRI is ambiguous as it could be either Bridport or Bristol. Bridport isn't currently known for William 2, so this would extend the life of the mint by a few years. A coin of Aelfgaet reading BRIC would positively place the moneyer at Bristol, but for the time being the jury is out. Either way it is possibly unique unless someone can state otherwise. Given the presence of Aelfgaet at Dorchester, Bridport seems the more likely, and it is quite a rare mint to boot. It isn't a piece of beauty, but well worth having.

That was the second one. The world is full of nutters. A couple years ago on Winter Hill a kid tried to give me a high six. Mum wasn't amused.

Makes sense. You should be paying more if you buy the same coin via eBay.

A good cheap compact reference in 5 volumes covering Ed.I to the Commonwealth.

The images are too small for me to make out. The second might be Lincoln? Dinner plates make life a lot easier.

These are too early to have the mintages documented. The pipe rolls from the early 1200s give considerable information regarding moneyers, their fees and the amount of silver struck, but these are over 100 years before any available records.

Top left is Stamford, top right is Thetford, bottom left I could do with a better image (Bath?) and bottom right is London

True, but I'm not sure the t**ts who start things like this are prepared to wait the few years required for populations to recover before they get bored and do it all again.

I would suggest a softened piece of the same metal used for the die. The presence of the bottom line on the 2 base above tells us that it isn't a perfectly flat fill. Maybe they used a 2 punch to hammer in the filler. The fact that die blockage is fairly persistent and progressive tells us that filling a character has a good chance of lasting long term.

It's a lot cheaper to fill a die and recut one character than it is to start from scratch. This applies whether it was a change of privy mark following the pyx, or a change in the calendar year. The mint was not a publicly funded institution with everyone salaried, rather the running costs came out of the sum given to the master of the mint who employed all those under him. Consequently, the cheapest remedy gave him the best return on his activities.

They must have been able to fill the die somehow. It clearly isn't a case of just dropping in a piece of metal the right size and hoping it stays. It would have to be a piece of soft metal that is physically hammered into the recesses and then the die put through the hardening process again. The attached is my 1675 over 3 over 2 halfpenny, which has a continuous flat surface in the exergue and so the 2 was clearly not ground out before the 3 was entered. The 3 only marginally impacts on the 2 (the top curve of the 3), with the remainder cut into good metal. The 5 is made by adding a reversed z-type 1 to the curve. A raised trace of the bottom of the 2 base is still visible on the coin as is the general 2 profile, which gives 2 options. First is the 2 was removed on the coin with the die still retaining the original 2 detail - which is a non-starter. The second is that it was filled and recut, which I believe is the solution. This was also the method used by Taylor to make the 1807 proof halfpenny die, also shown somewhere on this forum. In that case though, the total number struck was small unlike the currency Charles II shown here.

There is circumstantial evidence for the 1839 proofs being issued up to the early 1880s because ESC 3249 (1738) is a 3rd young head sixpence with an 1839 reverse. The third young head was introduced in 1880. However, the mint equipment was upgraded in 1882 when the old Boulton & Watt presses were replaced. It's only conjecture, but there may have been a few sets of 1839 proofs issued prior to the refurbishment when the old dies may have become redundant - not being compatible with the new equipment? If so, the number made could possibly equal the number of these anomalous sixpences extant. ESC rates them as R5 (5-10 known), which is feasible. In terms of the penny, it is therefore likely that 1839 dies were always available. The halfpenny proof die was replaced on at least 2 occasions, with both 39 over 41 & 39 over 43 known.