Coinery

Could I ask opinions on this coin re its class/pedigree and grade? 310428456958 (again a proper link would be appreciated)!

Thanks Accumulator, that's cleared that up! I think the last 9 on Declan's close-date is larger than the other last digit 9's shown, I'll go back to the images and chop and overlay...see what comes out.

Low feedback too! Perhaps they don't know what they've got!

I don't think it was to make the wide date possible. I'm wondering whether they quickly made the 9 smaller because it was too much of a jam to get the full-size 9 in, due to the curvature. I wonder if maybe a bead or two got damaged on a couple of dies, leading to the decision to shorten the 9, making the wide-dates a possibility? I don't think the wide-dates would've been possible with the full-size 9. I overlapped the first and second 9 of your close-date and they were identical, so full-size 9's were definitely used. All speculation from me, I'm no expert in these things, just always find them interesting!

Apologies, but I can't for the life of me find the original thread with Declan's 1899 pennies in it, so here's a new one! I wanted to re-read the original to make sense of what I was trying to achieve by overlapping the two images with transparency? The below image is the two pictures overlapped with transparency, not that clear unfortunately as one of the images is, as Declan himself declared, pants. However, I think it shows the last nine to be a different size. It is probably much simpler, and much easier to see this in the bottom image (if this was the only point of the exercise???). I'm wondering whether in the narrow date coin, with what appears to be a full-sized last 9, the bottom tooth had been damaged by the 9 (others will know, of course) and that subsiquently they shaved a little off the bottom of the 9 for future dies? Just a thought, as the other components of it look identical, excepting the length of the tail? I wish I could remember what I was trying to achieve!

Though I have to say that I LOVE that Geo III engraving of Britannia! Well they've only just been listed (assuming Peter hasn't spent all his claret money!) on Antony Wilson's site if anyone is interested. http://www.yorkcoins.com/septi2012newads.htm blue nun,thunder bird with a splash of bulls blood for the rest of the month.No honestly I haven't been tempted.Thanks for the heads up.Last time you did this (John Newman) I was I ended up buying that perfect little martlet penny from John Newman, very pleased!

?john...not argentum & coins!

As always for me, it's the rubbish inconclusive images on TPGC's websites! "There to combat the fraudsters!" Well do a better job then please!

Most of my ladies have been happy with a bit of Suffolk purple vein. That's a kind of cheese, right? Actually a fruit. Well it is a peach (Best enjoyed with a piece of cheese, though :D ) You make it too complicated...it's just CHEESE! Very nice with Port and a Starbird! In an attempt to steer this thread ever more away from coins and increasingly surreal (but of course remaining faithful to the 'Something for the ladies' topic), I would like to put forward Venezuelan Beaver Cheese as a tenuous and delicious food item I'm rather partial to a bit of Sussex Slipcote, or occasionally a Stinking Bishop...no accounting for taste, I guess!

Most of my ladies have been happy with a bit of Suffolk purple vein. That's a kind of cheese, right? Actually a fruit. Well it is a peach (Best enjoyed with a piece of cheese, though :D ) You make it too complicated...it's just CHEESE! Very nice with Port and a Starbird!

True that they look different from our current coins. That's largely the difference between hand made and machine made coins. Wobbly edges. Parts of the design unclear due to wear or poor manufacture. But I think one of the nice things about coins is the link to the past. Here for example is a vary similar shield design. The first is a shilling of James I from 1624, the second is a pound coin from 2010. Apart from the lis of France being dropped from the design in the 1800s they are pretty similar I reckon. Sincfantastic Richard.It is like comparing a British Leyland to a modern car. All we do with our cars are service them.I have been lucky from 1984 to have company cars (until 2006).Since then I have stuck to Vauxhall...although Mrs Peter drives her Hyundai Siii.I'm now after an Omega Estate with a doggie guard and a Cayman...I would also like a Honda fireblade and 20 pairs of M&S pants. Ahh, Fireblades! They were the reported DB's when I was scratching the footrests off my GPZ750 - and you needed quite a few pairs of M&S pants for that task too, I can tell you, what with the yucky long chassis of the GPZ series of that generation (white-line wobble of the greatest fury)! I never dreamt I'd ever desire a faster bike when I first started squealing my old Kwacker around...how naive of me fortunately I never got one!

With you on this one! Even as is it's aesthetically appealling; what a sharp arm strike and incredibly pretty, compositionally speaking! An EF would be something to behold! I'm still trying to crank someone down from £1800 to a more realistic price for a keeper Elizabeth I, proving to be a tough nut, would love that penny though if price were no issue! Glad to see another Pewter Elizabeth 3D bite the dust! It doesn't take too many 'winges' from the community to make it count!

.

I have emailed him twice. The first time telling him it was a pewter replica. The 2nd time asking him why he hadn't added this to the listing. Reported to ebay who do diddly. I reported it this morning too! He's a 'top' seller with a lot of feedback, bet they ignore it! What really annoyed me about this one was the blatant 'what is it'? You mean he couldn't actually read ELIZABETH on the edge of the coin and, putting two and two together (ie the date), realise it probably isn't Elizabeth II? And another! 170906386505 please do add link please!

This idea might have some merit, so I will have a look later on. We know that punches existed at York to cut out a circle as the coinage is usually found without any flats except where the sheet was incorrectly positioned and the dies passed over the edge. These coins are usually centred on one side only with the other being slightly off-centre as a result of the dies not being in perfect alignment. In the case of Truro and Exeter coinage, it would appear from the coins which are frequently double struck that traditional methods were employed, but the use of a rocker press is not excluded as there are coins with a characteristic bow. The list of equipment seized in June 1646 gives 6 pairs of shears for clipping, 4 large and 2 small, so we know that the flans were trimmed at some point using shears. There is also a pair of tongs and a hammer for rounding listed. There is also 'one iron plate for nayling' (annealing) which would make the shears easier to use. The later undated crowns (C3-C7a) appear to be mostly round with only the following square examples in my images - C3 (4, 1 clipped), C6 (1), C7 (4) and C7a (1). There are a couple of hexagonal pieces too. The C7s account for nearly half the images I have of this type, but square flans as a percentage of the total C3-C7a (approx. 70) is no more than 15%. The 1644 dated crowns (C8-15) only have one or two at most that are square for any given type which equates to less than 10% (sample size approx.100), the rest are nominally round, as are most of the 1645 pieces. This would date the angular pieces to earlier in the period, or in very busy periods. It is possible the nine items listed as iron rings could be cutters which would be used up to the end of operations. This could explain the improvement over time in shape. So many questions without answers. Cutting crown flans by hand, you'd need a good pair of tongs/pliers to hold them with! I don't think it would be physically possibly to cut a thick decently-round flan by hand, without much time-consuming nibbling, leaving hand-cut flans, providing the square was close in size, which we'd presume it to be, with at least a third/two-thirds section which was a credible curve ( depending on how conscientious the cutter was) and the remaining edges a struggling series of awkward cuts, for the reasons mentioned? What a subject, Rob, crikes!

Another variable, Rob, it that these are pretty chunky bits of silver to cut by hand. Forming curves would be near impossible at this thickness without grinding afterwards. Even cutting the thinnest aluminium sheet with modern cutting shears it is all but impossible to get them to form a curve, UNLESS the waste edge is very thin, namely, right against the edge of the sheet! I don't feel these coins would be cut entirely free-hand, wouldn't there be too many mistakes at apprentiship level to justify it? My thoughts would be a lightly stamped circle to cut around. Also, in view of the near-impossibility of cutting a curve with too thick a waste edge, I'd say the blanks were first squares cut as close to the maximum dimension of the coin, as is possible, and then a circle marked onto these (another point here is this would of course 'lead' the work and take away a lot of the individuality). My theory then is the circle would likely not always be perfectly centred on the square blank, namely, it could potentially be in a position where it already has one or two sides minutely breaching the edges of the blank. Where you find one 'longer' flat edge followed by a nice curve, it would be my proposal that the 'stamp' breached one edge of the blank, and was extremely close to the other, allowing the worker to follow the curve more easily, due to the easily bending away of the thin waste strip. Shorter, more arduos cuts, suggest there was a greater amount of waste between the 'curve' and the edge of the blank, and we would be talking millimetres here. I hope you can understand my thoughts? I did mentally put squares around each of your images, and thought the theory might hold water. Where there were short straight cuts, I presumed to find either a longer straight 'edge' on the opposite side, or a slight curvature, both indicating that the stamp was either perfectly against the edge of the square (curve on coin) or fractionally over (flat edge on coin) with the short cuts opposite being due to the thickness of waste, which couldn't easily be forced away by the shears to form curves. A perfect '50p' crown might indicate a nice centrally struck circle on the square flan...probably a pain in the arse for the cutters! If you consider any logic in the above ramblings, you could try drawing squares over the coins, using the proposed theory. If the squares all turned out the similar in size, it would add a little weight to the theory, maybe?

I like it because it's better balanced than most I've seen in that grade! Artistically speaking, it's rather appealing!

Welcome, Nicky, and congratulations on selecting one of the top forum on the web in which to make an entrance. You'll be glad to know you're not the only lady on board, so you'll no doubt get a big thumbs up from her at some point very soon too! Being honest and straight forward in life has won me more friends than ever has lost them, I admire your approach! So, once again, welcome aboard!

His 'bottom' was probably too (Christ, just had to edit and add an O to the to ) wide to fit inline on the screen, you can be so insensitive at times, Peck! Are you Dave in disguise??? That's me! Oche, Nooooooooo!

His 'bottom' was probably too (Christ, just had to edit and add an O to the to ) wide to fit inline on the screen, you can be so insensitive at times, Peck!

its a lesson learnt for sure, but now with that knowledge, your better placed to bid in any future auction. dont dismiss auctions on the basis of 1 bad experience, by bidding on individual coins rather than bulk lots, you may fare better. ive never bought a bulk lot, ive had reasonable success with my bids on individual coins, i have returned 1 coin (in many lots)as i thought it wasnt of the grade the listing suggested and was given a full refund. maybe ask some help here on a piece and take another punt. ski I have bought some great bulk lots from W&W but I suppose it depends how you define the term - one was a collection of pennies from 1860 to 1967 many in high grade (buns average VF, though the only rarity was 1869 in Fair), an incomplete collection of halfcrowns from 1874 to 1967 many in high grade, and a collection of coins in flips in two coindex trays, some of which went into my own collection e.g. an EF 1797 penny. The point I'm making is that all three lots were obtained at considerably less than the total book price for the individual coins. On the other hand, if by 'bulk' you mean accumulations mostly in bags, then you do have to be careful. If there are one or two coins among them that you want, you're better advised to work out what you want to pay for those, and then add on top an amount for any bullion value, or if no silver then a notional amount to cover the remainder of the lot. If your bid fails, you can always note who wins it and approach them afterwards explaining you wanted a particular coin(s) and asking if they would sell to you. A genuine dealer might be perfectly willing to horse trade on that basis, and you can't lose anything by asking. I once missed a superb collection of farthings from 1860, all in minimum EF many UNC, but I'd also noticed that the 1915 was the rare one. So I found out who won it and left my phone number for them to call me. When I said I was only interested in the 1915, the dealer didn't know (or care) that it was a rare variety and I got it without any problem. Good tip re approaching winning bidders of lots - I'd been writing lost lots off as a bad cause! This happened to me at the last W&W, I was bidding on a couple of lots for specific coins I'd spotted in them...never occurred to me to hand a quick note to the winning bidder!

Don't forget, the shilling suffers from the same syndrome as pennies; those often show Britannia with barely any facial or breastplate details. With shillings it's the lion face e.g. nose. This has nothing to do with what's conventionally called a 'weak' strike (which would show an overall weakness), nor a worn die. It's entirely due to the fact that first series George V coins have a very deep portrait, very high relief, much more so than any other monarch in the milled era. Where the reverse is strong and detailed as with halfcrowns, this doesn't really affect things, but where the reverse has a shallow design and rims - as is the case especially with pennies, halfpennies, and shillings - the obverse 'sucks' metal from areas of the reverse and they don't fully strike up. Would this affect all the coins of a given year? If not, what sort of percentage are we talking about? I'm presuming, if the percentage of sharp strikes is small, that a GEF fully struck up would attract a higher premium than a weak UNC? Difficult question. In the case of pennies, it's rare indeed to see a fully struck up Britannia before 1921/22. And yes, it would affect if not all, then certainly the vast majority of strikes. It's worth noting that on the 'recessed ear' pennies of 1915/16, Britannia is usually fully struck up, indicating that the Mint were aware of the problem ('ghosting' was the main effect they wanted to eliminate) and tried experimenting. Would a fully struck up Britannia command a premium? Very hard to say. It might, for example, go along with a not fully struck up portrait with weak hair detail which would actually be more noticeable and have a negative effect on value. Some dates are notoriously bad - the reverses of 1917 sixpences are a case in point - and a good example would almost certainly attract more buyers. In general, eye appeal counts for a lot, so in any reign a sharp and attractive GEF would nearly always score over a weak UNC. It's also a factor that collectors get so used to a feature - e.g. a not fully struck up Britannia on Series 1 Geo V pennies - that they expect it, and it therefore doesn't affect the value. If only we could 'save' favourite threads on this forum! Thanks, peck!

Only 2 widths for 1898, but two different fonts for final 8 The variation just goes on and on for these coins, I often wonder how big a work it would be to finally get to the bottom of it? You've obviously got a significant collection, I think you, accumulator, and Declan should get together with numisdan and get the work done!

Don't forget, the shilling suffers from the same syndrome as pennies; those often show Britannia with barely any facial or breastplate details. With shillings it's the lion face e.g. nose. This has nothing to do with what's conventionally called a 'weak' strike (which would show an overall weakness), nor a worn die. It's entirely due to the fact that first series George V coins have a very deep portrait, very high relief, much more so than any other monarch in the milled era. Where the reverse is strong and detailed as with halfcrowns, this doesn't really affect things, but where the reverse has a shallow design and rims - as is the case especially with pennies, halfpennies, and shillings - the obverse 'sucks' metal from areas of the reverse and they don't fully strike up. Would this affect all the coins of a given year? If not, what sort of percentage are we talking about? I'm presuming, if the percentage of sharp strikes is small, that a GEF fully struck up would attract a higher premium than a weak UNC?

The bottom one is a manky scan, Coinery - do you think it'll work? Let's give it a go, nothing to loose if you're up for it? Just PMing you now!