Sergy

Hello. Is it something wrong with last 4, or I just going mad? :-)

$3000 !!!! Clown!!!

However, firstly, the scottish shillng been prepared for Edward VIII coinage.

That's right, and if the date is 1887 or 1897 it's bound to be one of the many unofficial medals struck in honour of Queen Victoria's golden or diamond jubilees. Geoff I am not sure aboute jubilee, or it would be queen face or coat of arm, but here I can see the bridge and the someone's coat of arm.

99,9% sure, there are bullion value ~ about nothing.

Hello. It's not a coin, it's a medal.

Just a guess, but probably the fine work pieces of James 1st should be considered proofs as some of these and the subsequent Charles 1st fine work pieces have highly reflective fields and are struck on as round a flan as could be expected from hammered issues. Similarly for the patterns of this era which are struck on obviously specially prepared flans. It is possible that there were a few made to similar standards in Elizabeth 1st 's reign too. In terms of milled, the 1662 crown (ESC 16) is a good contender. The 1662 Crown. Is it double strike or it's just the special dies?

Thank you. I have bought your book this spring from a shop just near to Strand, but it was on a lane from Strand. Can you give me her address?

Where in London I can buy them? Not now of cause, but in October?

Wow! Nice job, I predict! But only from 10/10/07?

Sorry, but it's realy bad photo. According to this photo I can't see the condition of surface. All I see that lion's head as not so bad as it could be. Moreover the postal price made it 30-50% more expensive.

As for the date, I am still not sure there is no something here (pls look at the first 0):

Oh, thank you for answer. So here is the observe:

Just get this halfpenny. I only have SPINK catalogue to check this kind of variety. So it's not listed there. I think it's " BRTTANIA ". Am I right? Is it listed somewhere? Also may be it's 1700 over 1699 or something. What do you think?

It's different from coinarchives. Don't you think it's the copy or fantasy? How serious the seller is?

Thank you. It's very attractive, but as you have noticed 99% of them have bagmarks.

My english is awful! I don't know how to explain It is definetly not proof. Let's forget the "proof-like" word, I hardly suspect it's lead them astray. It's mirrored field. So as I know now it's come from new polished dies. But, does 1897 (or other old head, apart from 1893) crown proof is exist?

Still don't understand. What I mean by proof-like: mirrored surface + mirrored edge. It's surely not proof, because the proof is double or more strike, so very sharp details and rims. So I think there are only two ways to get proof-like crown in 1897: 1) Using old dies from proof crowns (with only one strike). 2) Using absolutely new dies (but I'm not sure why the dies have been polished before using?). I have looked all my literature and there are no evidences of proof "old head" crowns, apart from 1893.

I just have seen the cronw 1897 proof-like. Do it mean that there are proof crown 1897 are exist or it is the first strike of new dies?

I've got 1679: By the way, is it VF or GF?

Spice Up their lifes?

The new face is lost. But the horse has a nice tail.

As for me: most lots are overgraded.

electrotype copy, I think.

Just got this penny, according to SPINK the die axis should be 0 degree, but this penny is 180 degree. What do you think, how rare is it?