DaveG38

Apparently this is a 'nice coin'. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Great-Britain-Victoria-Halfpenny-1-2d-1866-nice-coin-R35573-/142416620926?hash=item2128b12d7e:g:rOQAAOSwYvFZHBsm

Ridiculous price - I dropped out at £600 and even that was too much in my view. One in much better grade went on ebay recently for around £500.

Your dad is quite right. I worked for J Lyons teashops in my school holidays and on occasions I was trusted to work the till at the end of the counter. Bun pennies, usually very worn (clear date) were easily found, as were widow head coins in around fine. I never once saw a Victorian halfpenny of any kind, and even Edward VII ones were rare and very worn. The best Victorian penny I ever found was a 1892 in GVF, which I still have. Otherwise, the only other notably decent coin was a 1866 one thirteenth of a shilling from Jersey in EF. The coin is absolutely jet black and has a commonwealth style bust, which is probably the reason it got spent - the owner I would guess thought he was fiddling me with a foreign coin by passing it on. Again, I still have it. It is probably the fact that interesting coins could be found in change which set me on the path of collecting. I put together an album in the late 1960s/early 70s, and was inspired to pick up the interest again in the early 1990s, and the rest as they say is history.

His website isn't active.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Queen-Elizabeth-I-silver-hammered-sixpence-1st-coin-/232341544915?hash=item3618a29fd3:g:tOAAAOSwlY1ZI0nu Here's another one - the classic 1562 sixpence. Reported for what it is worth.

May, and previous governments sold arms to a legitimate government, who were asked to aid another government against terrorist insurgents. Lets get a bit of honesty please. People may not like Saudi, but its position in this case is internationally sound, whether we like them or not.

Not William III, but the third design of bust used for strking. For what it is worth, I sold one a little poorer for wear, but with rather nastier scratches for £15 on ebay recently.

When I was a teenager (I can still vaguely remember this experience) I worked at a J Lyons teashop in Brighton, and occasionally relieved the cashier on the ground floor till. In those days a cup of tea was 6d, and one day a customer came along the counter with his tea and handed me a coin. I took one look and asked what it was, and was told a shilling. I'd never seen one like this before, but I took it anyway and gave him the change. I swapped the coin out for a shilling of mine and took the coin home, and some time later discovered that it was indeed a shilling of George IV dated 1826 and in GVF grade. Goodness knows why the customer had spent this coin, which was certainly worth a few pounds back then, but he did. How it came to be in such good grade I've no idea. Either way, It's still in my collection and although I could easily obtain a better grade example this one has special place because its the coin that started me off collecting. I've no intention of swapping it out.

There was one on ebay a few months back. I was all set to go for it and some barsteward made a preemptive offer for it, and it was taken of the site. So much for sticking to the rules!!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1723-SHILLING-GEORGE-I-BRITISH-SILVER-COIN-/322515523260?hash=item4b176c56bc:g:cygAAOSwmgJY740Y A rather worn 1723 SSC Shilling, with French Arms at the date. Nothing special, if a little over priced in that grade for £50. The interesting bit is the description in the small print which reads 'My coin is very close to the condition in the picture' presumably meaning that it isn't the one shown. If so, that makes quite a difference to the price.

Good point. I'd forgotten about him. However, the description is an apt one.

Is he anybody's favourite guy? If so who is this idiot? There surely can't be more than one.

Or to put it another way, socialists are very good at spending other people's money.

Just checked mine again. None have the reeding to the left, but one has the reeding mostly to the right, but with 3 lines into the left hand side. This is paired with the reverse that has almost all of the thistle leaf in the brass ring and the legend touching the inner ring. i.e. appears to be struck slighly off centre.

I doubt that there's a whole batch of these errors. As has been suggested already, this is almost certainly a die clash, where the two punches struck each other without a blank between them, leading to elements of the two sides imprinted on the other. It seems to me that it wouldn't be very long before a customer of the Royal Mint went through the personal striking process, and then almost immediately examined their coin, discovered the apparently poor quality of the coin and drew this to the attention of the RM staff. RM staff would almost certainly then substitute the dies and striking could continue. If this scenario is correct then it is likely that there are very few of these misstrikes.

Don't see anything wrong with either of them.

Here's a question I don't recall anybody raising before. Does anybody know if there is a non abrasive way of removing enamel from a coin? By this I mean the colours applied to coins, often in Georgian or Victorian times for broaches etc. I guess it will always depend on what the coating consists of and how it was applied, but any ideas anyone?

Are you referring to the coin or the seller???

The two types I refer to in my post above pretty much equate to your top two photos. I've yet to encounter one like your bottom type.

To add another quick assessment. I've just examined the three pound coins received in change to date. All three show minor differences as follows: Coin 1 - Obverse. The truncation point touches the inner ring. The gap between the lettering and the ring is wide. - Reverse. The leek leaf is roughly bisected by the ring. The word 'POUND' is centred in the outer brass ring. Coin 2 - Obverse. The truncation point touches the inner ring. The gap between the lettering and the ring is narrow. - Reverse. The leek leaf is cut by the ring, but the section in the outer brass area is larger. The word 'POUND' actually touches the inner ring. Coin 3 - Obverse. The truncation point does not touch the inner ring. The gap between the lettering and the ring is narrow (as per coin 2). - Reverse. The leek leaf is roughly bisected by the ring. The word 'POUND' is centred in the outer brass ring (as per coin 1). In none of my coins, does the ring meet the leek leaf practically at the point of the leaf, as in the first of Cliff's example above.

You will also notice that there is an obvious difference in the gap between the lettering and the inner ring. In the upper example the gap between the ring and say the 'E' is small, whereas on the lower example it is much wider. That may be the result of a difference in the size of the letters. It's difficult to tell from the photos as they are not precisely equal in size and orientation. The gap between the letters and the rim appears to the same in both cases. However, the gap between the rim of the crown (which is inverted here) and the inner ring is large on the upper photo and small in the lower.

Assuming its genuine, I don't know anybody who would even consider scrapping a 1905 halfcrown!! Don't see much wrong with any of the other coins posted. A fair bit of value there, but the yellow crud is obviously something to be carefully removed.

Anybody help me with a different question. Before the saleroom changed their website, I could always hear the auction. Now, with their new site, I find I am unable to get the sound to work. The icon just above the list of lots generally says that the sound can't be enabled or words to that effect. Anybody get any ideas what I need to do to get the sound to work? To the best of my knowledge, I haven't changed anything on my PC or on the saleroom website.

Looks like it's trying to be a guinea or half guinea. It might be the light on the photograph or it may be that the slight gold tones are the remnants of gilding. Interesting but not a genuine coin.

The only one I have seen so far is where the queen's coronet intrudes into the outer ring of the coin. Most appear to have the portrait entirely within the centre disc. A few have the top piece of the crown into the brass ring. Its also noticeable that the truncation of the bust is usually close to the edge of the inner disc, but on the 'intruding coronet' type there is a gap, as if the bust was struck off centre. The only other type, of which there are hundreds on ebay, are those where the centre has been pressed out and swapped round, plus there are some where the centre disc has been rotated. All post mint of course. Haven't seen any with 2017 on the reverse and 2016 on the obverse.