Rob

I think it is badly mixed metal. Silver in purified form has to be alloyed to reduce it to the correct fineness (92.5% is sterling silver). The normal metal added would be copper. I have noticed a far greater tendency for silver to suffer from haymarking than gold. I think this is due to the difference in melting points between the three metals. Silver melts at 100 degrees below the melting point of copper, so the pot needs to be heated far beyond the point that liquid silver forms in order to melt any added copper. Failure to melt the copper would result in specks of sold copper remaining as it is likely the lighter particles would be in suspension. Gold on the other hand melts within 20 degrees of copper and so there is less chance of the copper failing to melt. Time allowed for melting is another factor. Once poured and cooled, any copper will react with the air to make copper (II) oxide, which is black.

I threw the question of filling and recutting into the mix as a possibility, but without any proof either way. It could be partly rubbed down and recut. The evidence from some coins dating to the civil war shows underlying detail that can be identified as being from a particular (different) die. This only predating your coin by a few years suggests that it was standard practice at the time. Pre-Civil War, I have a type 4 halfcrown with a star mark overlying an anchor. Anchor is unknown on a type 4. Similarly there was a type 3 halfcrown went through Lockdales in the past year or so with an underlying Portcullis, used on type 2 coins of that denomination. Engraving the dies on the end of a piece of hand-held bar for hammered coins is more flexible than dies used for mechanical presses where the surfaces need to be more consistently parallel given the mechanical alignment of the press. A seriously undulating die face in the latter case would produce inferior coins.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the coins advertised will be skewed, with those getting a higher grade than one might expect being advertised for sale with the number made prominent, whereas those the owner feels to be undergraded are more likely to disappear into the collection - particularly those slabbed in the 63-65 region. Below that it is less likely to be an issue unless rare.

There is evidence from only 20 years later on from the milled coinage that dies were also filled and recut with the new date - e.g. see the 1675/3/2 halfpenny in the unlisted thread. This method was definitely used until the 19th century. I don't know whether any hammered dies were so treated, but given the short intervening period it must be a possibility. As for whether dies were ground down and the new feature entered, I would say it happened on occasion. Sometimes it was only necessary to add an arc for example, so I guess the action would depend on the outcome required.

The obverse looks a lot worse on the 1916 compared to the 1917

The other alternative is an R. I suppose the F could be a filed down E.

Better strike on the second's reverse.

No.9

Sorry, that should be B after M and not R. Faulty operative.

My thoughts were that it is water worn or ground corrosion. Same alloy component involved (copper) and same effect whether it is silver or gold.

You will need a greater accuracy than that obtained with kitchen scales. A couple of decimal places is required.

So a blank that missed the plating process in that case.

Is it magnetic? An unclad blank would be, a Cu-Ni flan for something else not.

You're the second person to ask what the mint is.

A Friday afternoon job. MA over FR, though the M is also blundered and entered twice, the G possibly with either a flaw or over the left side of an M, the following R made from a couple of misplaced Es which were reinforced to form the R and F of FR over an E. Apart from that it's fine.

Canterbury. Allen die pair 97. I can see someone being disappointed.

Nope.

The York Fair is at the racecourse this coming Friday and Saturday. Plenty of dealers there in one place, so you could pop in if you are close.

All dealers will buy coins - they have to in order to make a living. Whereabouts are you? There might be someone close.

Again. Why? After 10% ebay and 0.034% +20p Paypal fees which come to just under 14%, you are left with 200-210. You would get more from a dealer for a sovereign given its spot value is currently just under 230.

Why would you do that? 1 new pence is 2.4 old pence. The scrap copper value is a couple (new) pence per old penny. i.e 5 times or so face.

£275 Fine, £700 VF. The second is better, but still room for improvement.

I'd go for a better one. They are relatively cheap as hammered gold goes and not rare.

These will never be put to bed. Everyone wants to find the coin worth a grand instead of a quid, so satin Churchills, proof just about anything and the good old 2 new pence questions amongst others are likely to be asked in perpetuity.

If you don't already have one, get a yearly price reference, Spink's Coins of England or Collector's Coins (at the top of this page in the advert) will do and it doesn't have to be the latest volume either because all the types available are laid out and rarity pretty much correlates to price. Do the exercise and you will learn as you familiarise yourself with the prices, what constitutes an affordable year. or indeed whether it is possible.