chris

hi kris yours looks to be one of two coins its def henry VII but looks more to be the half groat due to the spacing between the neck and head nice coin though ive just recieved another coin today an edward IV ight coinage groat minted in norwich which i can see know real deal. i am to believe is not a common issue to come by. now i have these two coins and i am 100% sure that the london one i have above is dodgy ive had that feeing since first handling the coin, it just didnt seem right Why not take it to your local dealer Chris and get his opinion before sending it back i did try and see one yesterday but he was working at his other shop until thursday. im pretty sure its a copy, its a thicker coin with an edge its 1gram underweight theres too many bubbles on the coin unlike the one i recieved today which it 2.5grams but clipped its a much thinner coin but the main thing is theres not too much off that bubble in the coin

hi kris yours looks to be one of two coins its def henry VII but looks more to be the half groat due to the spacing between the neck and head nice coin though ive just recieved another coin today an edward IV ight coinage groat minted in norwich which i can see know real deal. i am to believe is not a common issue to come by. now i have these two coins and i am 100% sure that the london one i have above is dodgy ive had that feeing since first handling the coin, it just didnt seem right

sorry about the spelling the letter 'l' is paying up

hi everyone i have recently recieved a hammered groat from edward iv which on getting the item i feel it to not be real. the weight is only 2.1 grams but that i suppose could be taken into consideration of the cipping on the coin the second thing that gets me is the ammound of pits in the coin especiay at just after 9 o clock on the obverse i have gotten back onto the seller and they are happy to have the coin back and refund monies but if anyone has any positive views to change my mind then pease say so as if it is real id realy love to keep it thanks

yeaa i did pay a few quid for it but, got back onto the seller regarding my concerns, the seler was also unsure and decided to refund my money and i got to keep the coin

last 2

here is some side photos and feel free to keep them if youd like for future reference

hi everyone i have bought a charles the 1st hammered shilling and am wondering if anyone here could give us any info to whether its real or a copy everything seems ok with it but the weight is 4.5 grams

hello everyone now im more of an early milled coin person but upon finding my first hammered coin in which was an elizabeth 1st half groat im starting to like the hammered coins more than early milled now i have come accross a henry VIII hammered groat that is in very good condition and i mean very good but has been weakly struck on the front of the portrait which has also weakly struck part of the reverse. i have added photos of the coin and was wondering if anyone knows about values for this demonination taking into consideration the weak strike thanks again

gooday everyone back in 2008 our coins changed but they still mintesd small ammounts of the orgional designs for that year. now when the mintage figures were released back in feb/march 2009 the 50p was set at 700 and something thousand coins and have just checked the royal mint website and it seems they have changed this to 3.5million is this another mint error or do thay change these numbers around?

heres the second photo with the 9 cut out

hello to everyone looking at this post i have an 1829 sixpence, now it isnt in the best of conditions but itl do until i can afford a nice one. now looking at the date there seems to be some extra metal over the number '2' and on first glance it seems to just be an extra piece of metal. also i can see that the coin has been hit with the die at least 2 other times which can be seen in the photos i have uploaded but this fault is on the same level as the date. after looking at this coin it does seem that there could be a number '9' involved so what i have done is cut the number out in my second photo and put it over the number 2 where the extra metal is and it fits like a glove, i have also cut the hole out in the number '9' so you can see behind it. now the best way i compared these was to save both images and then flick back and forth each photo as they are both the same sized photos. now i dont think that this extra piece of metal could be as it is on the same level as the number and also doesnt have the same curves. so, is this a number 9 or just a die crack? thanks for your time and any input would be appreciated

hello everyone i have bought a 1758 sixpence which has been sold as a 1758/7 but was happy with the price either way. the number 8 does look a bit funny and could have a number 7 but i would like some input on the coin if anyone knows about this variety thanks

Why do you think it is a fake? 3g is correct, but could be anywhere between 2.5 & 3.5g. What is the weight to 2 decimal places? If it isn't made of silver, then the ring would be a different tone to a genuine one which you obviously have as you have compared tones. Is there any difference in the detail of the two items? i think what set me off was in my last post i had a 1699 sixpence that only weighed in as 2.4 grams it was dull in colour. Where as the 1696 made a ding the 1699 went dong, luckily enough i got onto the seller which has offered a full refund including postage. but i think i might try and offer him a couple of pounds to keep it as it is quite an interesting item. now when i compared a 1697E sixpence with my 1696 they both dinged the same tone. i think i was just getting a little picky. the coin has the right weight, size, tone, no evidence of casting. i think this coin is real but could be the result a metal detecting find as i have compared it to one of my detecting silvers which has a similar surface to the one i am questioning. also i would say that my 1697E has been shown no remorse and has been cleaned by a monkey armed with a bottle of silver polish. luckily it only cost me a couple of pounds

sorry my mistake this is a 1696 sixpence

hello i have a sixpence that i feel might be a copy. i have added photos of the coin that i had bought to see if anyone can see if its fake or not the weight of the coin is 3 grams. i have also done the bell tone ring and the pitch of the coin is the same as a normal coin but the ring does not seem to last as long as the other coin. could this be a (i dont like to use it but) FAKE

they all do ring. though, if it were music the 1696 +7 would be a G, and the 1699 would be an E maybe an F

thanks tested the coin using a 1696 which gave out a higher tone 1697 which gave out the same higher tone 1699 which gave out a lower tone i am presuming this is not good?

no takers yet. am i just being a little paranoid about this!

hello to everyone my latest purchase is a 1699 sixpence with plumes in angles but as its a coin you wouldnt come by every day i am having small doubs about it and its authenticity i have found another example for this coin which spink either own or have had and it matches up to my coin but obviously not as good condition as spinks but what bugged me is the weight being 2.4 grams. the milling on the coin is good though there seems to be a small ammount shaved from the top of the coin which could compensate for the 0.4g loss i suppose but i am not toally convinced its real. i have added a photo of spinks specimen and the fist thing that sets them the same is the lump on the obverse on the nose which are the same. there are a few more similar points to these coins and im sure youl all pick them out. sorry about the crude scans the coin is in much better condition than shown but asnt been picked up thanks for reading

The first one is a flaw from the base of the F which then passes below the legend to the right. The second is just a double cut 1. The third could be due to a filled die or weakly punched in the first place. The fourth again looks to be a flaw. It doesn't appear to be a 1746/5 which is a recognised variety. I don't think there is anything to get excited about with this coin as all the evidence suggests it is struck from a worn die that may or may not have had remedial work done to extend its life. As it isn't in the best condition it is difficult to say precisely. hhello again everyone. i have just found this photo on a coin dealers website. this coin is being sold as a 1746/5 sixpence and looks exactly the same as mine with the same errors in the same place is this dealer right or wrong?

the photos are the best i can get at the mo and does not do the coin much justice and is slightly out of focus.