Teg

Hi, not ex his collection - but ex his business - sold before on eBay. Teg

Hi, Colin was not that interested in V.I.P. Proofs - or even most Victorian proofs. He was also not 100% concerned to get the very finest possible coin for every gap. He would prefer a slightly worse - but well pedigreed coin (Peck, Johnson etc). I too don't see all his coins (yet??). No 1860 CU, or 1864 CU. No large uncut strips of early coppers. Only the Edward Silver farthings. Still most of the rest is there - and very fine it is. Teg

Hi Bob, It is a "minor" variety, many Vic Copper 1/4ds have weak or missing As. Some people collect these - more may do so in the future. £200 must have been for an exceptional BU coin. An Unc lustre would be nearer £90. So GF - NVF - which makes the unbarred As harder to authenticate would have very little premium over normal. If normal was £8, unbarred perhaps £12. Just my opinion. hope this helps Teg

Hi, There must be an easy way for me to post a formated table here, but I can't get it to work. Getting late - and I promised some info, so please see the link below. Thanks Teg Charles II

TWO hours crafting a reply and the f********g computer crashes. Very f*l*ip*in*g annoyed, Will start again tomorrow! Arse. Teg

Rob, Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed replies - I really appreciate it. Very briefly, I understand the 3D argument for these possible overstrikes - the farthings are the same. I will go into more detail in my next post. There is information on the mintage of Charles II coppers, despite what Craig said. In all some 10,000,00 1d equivalents (split between 1/4 and 1/2d), which is a substantial amount. Again I will supply details in my next post, and try and give an estimate between the 1/2s and 1/4s. Sorry this is so slapdash compared to your answers - I am a Welsh rugby fan, and kick-off against Italy approaches. More tomorrow. Teg

Hi, Hmm venturing into an area where I know a lot less than others on this board (1/2ds this time). < tin hat> Is this a credible variety? CRAOLVS exists for 1672 , it's almost incredible that the die lasted into 1673 - but obviously true. To be still going strong to mate with a 1675 seems a step too far! How does this relate to the 1673 version -Dr Nicholson 14 the dates look similar to me. On a wider note:- Dr Nicholson / Colin list five different 1675 /3. Hard to believe that Peck and Bramah did not see any (but then they did miss a lot!) Peck states that there were four farthing presses and one halfpenny press. This gives you four different 1/4d dies to start with - but only one 1/2d. It's hard for me to imagine a mechanism where the mint ended up with 5 "spare" 1673 rev dies - all of which they altered to 1675 in a clumsy way. None of the Nicholson pieces seem to come from very old / flawed dies, are any any of these known from 1673? One other possibility is that in 1673 they had an odd 3 punch - even normal 3s looked odd then, I say all this without having examined the coins (other than photos). On balance if Colin thought they were 1675/3 they probably are. I would like to hear peoples thoughts on how they occurred though. I am interested in all this because Colin said that 1675/3 also occurs for the farthing. Again claiming a definite specimen in GVF - so almost certainly true. Peter Lawrence had two in his collection - neither was convincing. The obverses looked more like 1673 to me (and because 1674 farthings were minted, there is less chance that any would last until 1675). I have seen a lot of 1675/3 for sale (even bought one) - none of which convince me. A much rarer coin than it seems. </tin hat> Very neat error by the way! Teg

Hi, I have just downloaded a copy of Chris's price guide. I see an entry for a 1825 / 3 farthing. I have never seen one- and don't think they exist. Anyone got any proof for one of these? Teg

Hi, sorry to drag this up from the past! I don't think Peter and Colin disagreed on much. If P.L. thought a particular variety was correct he called it x over y - or whatever. If the jury was still out - or Peter did not believe it himself, he called it x over y type. BTW the 1773 farthing could be a contemporary counterfeit. Teg

Hi, great coin Rob - young head G II copper is hard to beat - and that is a stunner. I was worried that I might have missed out on a high grade 2 over 1 farthing! The only 1/2ds I collect are G II, G III contemporary counterfeits - do you collect these? Teg

Rob, Neil does have all of Colin's notes, and he is happy to describe all of the coins - including pedigree etc. Hell of a shame Colin is no longer in a position to do so. You have got me intrigued with your 1732 / 1 from the Cheshire collection. I did not see a 1732 from Cheshire? Is it the 2 over 1 over 1/2d 2 variety? Any chance of a pic? As an aside I bought the 1734 Cheshire farthing! Some of you may know me from the C.U. boards, to all others -I am a UK based farthing fanatic. Hello. Teg