scott

I already pointed out the line before 1, it is like the others. the 1st one is hard to tell but the bit after the 9 isn't an exergue line, especially as i checked for Variates before uploading the picture for the 2nd one.

will the 1862 B over R halfpenny be included?

coincidentally bit rubbed and scratched but no line. sign of what is left of a line before the 1 again?

I saw one that matched the dies, and had traces of the 2nd line. that single line has part of a 2nd line before the 1 in the date does it not?

starting at 1760? needs to go back at least another 100 years problem with modern decimals is no one knows the mintage figures of the coins before getting hyped nowadays.

it is the reverse I have more issue with, cant tell if they are beads or teeth.

looks TB/TB to me :/

pleased with this little find. hadn't seen the overdate in the initial pictures but the 18 is clearly recut and the 2 is over and underlying 1 was part of a bunch i bought, £3.95 on its own excluding postage £11.25 don't see many of these.

some rarities get listed on ebay and don't sell for as much as the washer selling at the same time.

dunno how rare it is, but W&M seems to sell well even in washer grade, which is probably what makes these rarer.

no I dont have one of those, charles is expensive when you get above washer

well these were found a good time apart from each other, not like a flood of them, so in rarity terms still rare, whenever i go about looking at early milled i check the collections on colin cooke. and do my research. some coins are not even listed there yet exist, Peck missed a fair few as well. I used that to make up my mind so to me, they are missing N given my knowledge, and research, and given the notes in the Nicholson collection, it was debated then, and is now, and I have the same approach as you, level headed. whats odd is nobody spotted the missing letter and corrected it in the first place.

it says there are 2 dies in the collection, and they also have the missing arm and sprig, what seals it in regards to the second example is how clear the lettering is.

having 2 examples, I wanted your thoughts on this one. my first example, from being in the ground the general green and other markings from being in the ground effect that area as well as effect other areas such as the shield 2nd example. Thoughts, Letter placement seems different, but that could be due to lack of detail on example 1

either way, to me they are the same pairing. and I know the 1675 no stops halfpenny was using the 1673 dies as well, so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

slab em as poor 1 and 50p each

5 over 3? I don't see a 5 those look like both the same reverses to me.

17c Dutch piece

Depends on what you want from the Rarity, if you find one and know it is cheap, nothing to stop you buying it and selling on, there are plenty of Unlisted rarities, there are plenty of rares that sell for modest sums especially in lesser collected areas (have a look at halfpenny prices for example). this is the most expensive coin I bought at £60 it is not the rarest, and not the most valuable coin I own, yet it is an easy rarity to identify and as such costs it. and given the price of similar grade Charles shillings, not that far above the going rate.

lovely hammered in high grades but I like the history of a worn piece

plastic you say?

proof he did it standing on his head...

stumbled across this one, I have had a while 4+E with some die damage to E in REG and F in F:D

1873 no stops on obverse Halfpenny, rated ER by Peck GVILELMVS error 1699 halfpenny again extremely rare these have been on the new purchases thread, but time to put them here