Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Coinery

Expert Grader
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    7,665

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    101

Posts posted by Coinery

  8. Posted · Edited by Coinery

    My thoughts:

    Essentially we have the Class 5 crown (image here from Withers’ Galata Guide to The Pennies of Edward I and II, 2006), common to Classes 5, 6 and the early 7s. 

    Simply put (I think?), if a coin has crown 5 with a pellet on the breast it’s Class 5, and if it has crown 5 with a rose on the breast, then it’s Class 7…all other coins are Class 6 (as I best understand it).

    So onto Class 6 and some of the things I’m trying to reconcile?

    Firstly, Withers haven’t divided Class 6a into 6a1 and 6a2, unlike Blunt and North (North in his interpretation simply suggests there is a variety of 6a), which does make some sense given the following.

    Withers’ Class 6a (or Blunt’s 6a1) is primarily identified by the plain/greek cross and obvious crude workmanship and bust which has almond eyes - the Withers and Blunt images appear to be exactly the same coin for this type (believed to be a best known example, though I’ve yet to see the reverse), with my own (newly acquired) coin from the same die, the only other example I can uncover (so other known coins or images greatly appreciated). 

    There is just one possible anomaly with 6a which I haven’t yet cleared up? 

    The North 6a plate coin looks to be what Withers’ might be calling (at least in their text) a 6b? Essentially they are saying there exists ‘a London [6b] die with B of hYB punched over the initial cross,’ unless of course this also happened in another die they’ve seen? 

    I managed to find a clearer online image of this error on a different coin (highly likely from the same die as North’s plate coin?), appearing to have been sold by Spink, who themselves attribute it as 6a. Maybe it’s a typo in the Withers book, with the line intended to go under the 6a text, or that there is indeed another die with a similar error but on a 6b coin? The North plate coin, and the Spink error-coin image, certainly appear to be 6a coins? Other than this the 6a (or 6a1) looks to be relatively straight forward.

    However, the difference between the other class 6 coins becomes slightly more tricky, with 6a2 and 6b both sharing a cross pattee initial mark.

    Withers and North go nowhere near the eyes for 6b, but Blunt states clearly that the two faces used on 6b coins now have pellet pupils, leaving (as far as Blunt is concerned at least) all the almond-eyed cross pattee coins to the rank of 6a2, or not belonging to 6b at any rate.

    Blunt also marries 6b with long, sloping shoulders and a better bust styling (I agree). However, where does this leave Withers’ 6b plate coin (rounded chin)? This would surely be a 6a2 under Blunt’s assertion? Unless of course these are pellet eyes, and where it gets complicated for me, in view of the example that follows?

    I’ve seen our own @descartes old 6a2 coin (changed hands again quite recently), which was validated by DG as such, but this appears to me to have something more transitional than almond eyes, certainly less almond than the Withers’ plate 6b coin? All very unclear, and maybe the reason Withers stayed well clear of it?

    I think the 6b (and the 6a under Withers) is a clear class with its new, stylish bust, long sloping shoulders and pellet eyes, but 6a2, where that one slots in is not so clear for me, even when taking the lettering into account?

    Anyone want to chuck something in the mix?  I’d really like to wrap my head around this one, once and for all!

    IMG_2321.jpeg

    IMG_2051.jpeg

    IMG_2044.jpeg

  9. Posted · Edited by Coinery

    - Henry viii is a groat

    - All the coins marked XII are shillings

    - The Elizabeth I coin is also a shilling

    - The William and Mary (Maria) coin is a half crown.

    - William IV also a half crown 

    I’d be very happy to be left that lot :)

     

    edit to add: these are all eBay coins, really, that’s if you were looking to sell? Provided you title them correctly, you will likely reach their true market value on that platform. Of course if they were top grade, you’d want to approach things very differently.

    Good luck, whether you sell or start to collect.

     

  10. Posted

    28 minutes ago, Rob said:

    It's the only candidate listed in 1963, but with the number of listings counted on your fingers and in one month only, I would find it hard to believe that they had no more Ed.1 pennies for a whole year. Also, the IIIe was listed at 15/-, so either it didn't sell and was repriced at a later date, or it's a different coin. But it wasn't in the April 64 list which was quite extensive, and the other thing not in its favour is that a purchase date in 1963 doesn't leave much time to include it in the January list prior to printing.

    Ah, OK, thanks Rob, thought we were getting somewhere then…a big ask I guess when considering the sheer volume of the series.

    Nice coin though :) 

  11. Posted · Edited by Coinery

    So, just had a better look and only just put it all together…all the class 3 Newcastle coins are Es, and all the features of the obverse in combination with the full reverse legend corroborates this.

    So are we thinking then that this is the 3E from the ‘63 sale? Does it say anything else or suggest a collection?

    Much appreciated, Rob, as always :)

     

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, Rob said:

    Anything on the other side of the Seaby ticket? No IIIds of Newcastle in either 63 or 64. One IIIe in January 1963 and a whole raft of Edward pennies in April 64, but not one was a Newcastle. There were only a handful of Ed.1 pennies listed in the whole of 1963, so suspect these were too common a type to bother with.

    They made a good profit on it.

    Thanks, Rob. I’ve not had a chance to fully study the coin itself, it was a quick ‘must-have’ buy.

    A brief look at the reverse legend of the coin suggests it’s actually a 3E, so could perhaps allude to the ‘63 sale? 
    The only ticket with anything on the reverse is the bottom one in the images. The Seaby ticket is the top right, then, I’m guessing?

    IMG_1325.jpeg

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    2 hours ago, jelida said:

    Yes, I was watching that. Nice coin, but as I already had two I thought I wouldn’t be too greedy! Did you bid?

    Jerry

    Yes, I was the underbidder, it would’ve been a very cheap coin for someone otherwise. I’d spent a bit already and equally had my eye on some other things, so couldn’t really chase it too far.

  19. Posted

    5 hours ago, Master Jmd said:

    I'm amused that they don't have a better way to present lots like this one:

    3zJGvRB.png

    I'm also rather curious why such bundles exist on their platform in the first place. You'd think they'd reject single lots that are this varied.

    At least the listing photo shows us everything in the lot without having to read through the whole thing... (sarcasm if that wasn't clear - there is no photo).

    Absolutely ridiculous isn’t it? What a nonsense!

  21. Posted

    It looks like such a perfect ‘bead’ relative to the condition of the donor coin that I’d personally be thinking it was an old ‘spatter’ of something unconnected with its minting…soldering, braising, weld, etc.?

  22. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

    I'd go for a grade of AUNC on that reverse - it may in fact be UNC but the 'lustre wear' together with the fact that it's a slightly weaker strike than the obverse would make me downgrade it a little.

    Thanks, Peck, appreciate you commenting…not my natural playground at all, and all the more difficult to judge from a poor image.

    I’m looking forward to taking an in-hand photo! :)

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    Firstly, can I ask what you think the reverse grade of this coin might be (Sellers pictures, I haven’t seen it in-hand, yet)?

    The obverse looks a clear unc to me, but the lighting/lustre reflections (or not) on the reverse are making me wonder whether I might have to downgrade that expectation overall? You’ll likely have made thousands more predictions of grade from seller photos than I have, so I’d really appreciate your insights.

    Oh, and secondly, I don’t suppose anyone recognises it for a bit of provenance, perchance? The reverse, with its die-crack and ‘straight-edge’ toning at the second N of penny, through to the ship, is reasonably distinctive.

    IMG_0405.jpeg

    IMG_0403.jpeg

  24. Posted

    On 1/27/2024 at 6:12 PM, VickySilver said:

    Some of the MS64 RB coins are really special; also I will try to dig out a picture of one "detailed" for a small DIE CRACK! It was an 1871 and beautiful as well....

    Why would they ‘detail’ a die-crack? Is that standard practice, or a crazy one off?

  25. Posted

    3 hours ago, pokal02 said:

    It would only mean that some of the '1551' coins could have been issued in Jan-Mar 1552.   It would still be the case that if the Southwark mint was closed in July 1551, the fine silver would all have to be Tower if the Oct 1551 date is also right.  The 1551 'tun' crowns are rarer than the 'y's, suggesting the change over (whether of mint or just mint mark) must have been Jan/Feb 1552. 

    Ah, yes, I see what you mean.

    It’s turned into a very interesting read :)

     

×