Rob

The copper ESC1383 (same dies as the ESC1382 above) that I kept is a better coin than either of the two silver pieces shown, so getting rid of these two silver pieces was the logical move. I just didn't anticipate the difficulty replacing the ESC1380 with something other than the dies seen on the ESC1382 above.

I'm backed up onto a separate hard drive. Unfortunately I had my system updated to Windows 10 at Christmas, so no longer have 'my computer' at my disposal to look for files. I'm not sure where the drive is now other than C being the hard drive. The browser symbol is a wheel coloured red, green, yellow and a blue centre (Google?) - no idea what it is called.

That's one I regret. I had the reverse duplicated with a copper 1383, so was hoping to find the same obverse with a different reverse. Just never happened.

New problem. A couple weeks ago I was trying to tidy up my bookmarks by eliminating 100 or so I didn't need any more, but when right clicking and deleting it cleared all my bookmarks. Is there any way of extracting bookmarks only from an old backup, or is this just wishful thinking? I don't want to go back to the last backup which was a couple of months ago as I will then lose too much data. Ta.

Not knowing about and lying are two completely different things. Lying is knowing you are wrong and deliberately misleading. If you are desperate to give her a negative, buy something. Common sense dictates that you don't waste your money on something that is obviously crap. The counterargument is that if the buyer knows no better than the seller, then both are happy, so where is the reason for the negative? Negatives appear when an item has been misrepresented, not incorrectly described to the initiated.

I don't think she is lying at all, just ignorant. I suspect she knows as much about coin grading as I do about dress sizes. There's a £2 listed as B/UNC, because most of them are. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can find a coin, which must be valuable as it's old and will list it according to what appears to sell well. You have to remember that we are very much in a minority when it comes to numismatics - the rest of the world just spend coins.

1858 halfpennies are a complex group. There are 8/6, 8/7, large date over small date 8/7 and 1858, widths, font sizes and most things in between. Because of the large mintage there will be a lot of varieties, but given halfpennnies are unloved, I can't see the varieties being any more popular.

That's a normal 5.

So I was right. I was responsible, albeit only partly for the deterioration in service. Be careful what you laugh at Peck, I'm more dangerous than you realise. Edited to add that seconds after I posted this, it left the page and went to the home page uninvited. Something is a bit unstable.

I assumed it was me applying the kiss of death to anything computing related

I have no problem with the existence of two examples from the same worn dies. I note the marks to the neck and rims are in different places.

No recorded mintage, but very common as they were struck over a number of years. Yours has graffiti in the angles that has been partially removed and it looks to have suffered from a bit of haymarking. I suggest it was dug up at some point looking at the surfaces.

And the edge? That's the thing that copies always fall down on. Out of sight, out of mind (invisible idiot)

There's nothing wrong with it, but the question has to be asked, if you were uncertain, why buy it in the first place?

A decent demonstration of rusted dies.

Thank you. 2 down, not too many to go

Anyone else like to say not me? Eventually someone will be named by default!

You might have to look across the pond for someone similarly obsessed with Canadian coinage. I can only offer what Charlton says which is that 'there are 3 reverses from independently engraved master tools. The provincial leaves 1876-82, Large Leaves 1884-91 and Small Leaves 1891-1901. Four varieties exist for the obverse but their detailed listing is not included in this catalogue'. So methinks you will find something if you dig a bit deeper.

OK, own up. Which kind soul anonymously posted me an aquatics 50p? Thank you, whoever you are.

I think we have two parallel threads here. There is no debate about need for both simple and detailed references, rather the extent to which they should overlap. i.e.These discussions are based around the desired complexity of a simple reference, because the detailed reference can always be expanded to include all information available - that is its raison d'etre. The extent to which varieties are added to a book will be an entirely commercial decision and not based on the whims of individual collectors. It has to be a happy balance of time spent, information conveyed and profitability. Only the last point ensures you have any references at all. There is an argument for dividing the pre-decimal CoE volume into discrete hammered and milled books just as the decimals now have their own volume, but every sub-division increases the cost to return ratio for the publishers as collectors will in many instances only buy one volume instead of the three available. I get copies of CoE to put on the table at fairs and will separate them if someone only wants one volume. Roughly half the book packs I buy for stock are sold as split packs and demand at the tables is such that I never get more than 2 spare copies of either pre-decimal or decimal volumes. i.e. the demand for both sections is roughly equal, notwithstanding the fact that eventually I must sell equal numbers of both parts by default.

I think people are getting too exercised over what does and does not get included. There simply isn't the room to include everything to accommodate all interests, and never will be. As it stands, the pre-decimal section of Spink weighs over 1kg. On a practical level I would like to see the weight reduce to below 1kg including packaging for postal reasons, so as far as I am concerned there should be either fewer coins listed, a smaller font size used, or they use less dense materials. In terms of what should be included - this argument will rage indefinitely. If nobody knows of an 1860 6+whatever penny which was removed, then it could have been entered as an unverified opinion. After all, nobody has seen an 1845 crown with star stops yet and that has been in for years, ever since it appeared in ESC. All this huffing about not including a particular variety, which in practical terms is only slight variation from the norm, will if rectified, simply lead to a different form of largely incomplete references. Every denomination really needs a dedicated specialist volume to satisfy the specialist collector, but without a customer base willing to pay for the compilation and publishing costs, it will forever be the preserve of individuals. That is why you need to buy books and then some more. Of all the omissions in CoE, there is only one that I feel really warrants inclusion - the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny. There are many more which I feel could be left out.

It has long been a problem. Include one person's variety and you upset someone else who didn't. A big positive from paring it back to the basics would mean there would be far fewer people with Churchill crowns worth £600. It's a circular argument that is intractable - which is something we need to accept. As it stands we have the whole world complaining that the standard references don't have the individual's required info, so let's put the question back to the collector and ask who is going to be the person responsible for making tens of thousands of customised references that conveniently fit in their pockets, and get updated on a regular basis with only the bits they are interested in. I know they won't pay for the service.

My gut reaction is to suggest buying a lot of books tailored to your personal interests, as specialist volumes invariably touch on the history as well as the finer detail. As I look at the desk in front of me I see Robin Eaglen's Book on the Abbey & Mint of Bury St. Edmunds, Spink 2018, a privately compiled list of halfcrowns with known examples of each listed with their provenances plus where the owner acquired his own, Challis' History of the Royal Mint, Sotheby's catalogue for the Murdoch sale part III (1903), Pirie's Northumbrian stycas (1995), Krause & Mishler and four books on the history of Chester in the Civil War, all of which make for a fairly eclectic mix of reading material. The big problem is finding a central point for storing all this info. It also goes without saying that not all people agree with an attribution, so who is right? We haven't agreed on what constitutes a variety yet as you will discover if you search the forum.

It has grown organically over the past 50+ years. The most obvious ones, or the most popular got included first, but now it is probably down to pressure from an individual whether it gets included given the potential explosion in listings.

Because if you listed every variety known to man you would end up with a volume to rival the Encyclopaedia Britannica in size. If you took say the Weyl patterns that I wrote an article on a few years ago, then you have around 100 varieties to add to the book, none of which are currently listed. Withers small change lists the hammered halfpennies in 5 volumes from Edward I to the Comonwealth whereas they currently occupy a few pages in Spink. Maurice Bull's halfcrowns of Charles I also occupy 5 volumes taking up 6 inches of shelf space. See where I'm coming from?