Coinery

Just out of interest, on the E2/3 coin, is that a reverse denomination mark?

I'm not in the frame, as you may well guess, but hoping for good prices all the same!

I'm definitely in the Vicky/Copper camp on pricing.

Utterly amazing and, as I've said before, I can't believe the stability of the image! It's as if it's attached to a fixed arm...it's that good!

Thanks, this is the only example I have found in almost 3 years of looking. Just very lucky it came in the grade it did, I would have settled for any grade to fill the gap in the collection. It was on eBay item number 351476105264.Wow, very rare, then! Goodness, what a steal too! Were you brave enough to make an offer, or did you snap it straight up, rather than risk losing it?

I've struggled to sell the 45 in the past. Your's also has a nasty edge knock too! Sorry for the hard news!

By at least half IMHO! Worse than that, a lot of people wouldn't buy it at all, which also makes it a hard sale to make. The chances are it's also hairlined, being an ex-mount, though your pictures don't highlight this. If it was from auction as a single lot, they should really have described it as a holed ex-mount!

Nice coin! Do you mean it took you longer than expected to find one in that grade? Did you see many others along the way?

Not at all! We are all in the same boat here...playing, tweaking, experimenting, no perfect way, believe me, I've tried!

Does this mean you have that error in your phone's dictionary as an accepted or first option, Rooney?

Not a cnut spelling error, surely?

Looks post mint damage to me, CM?

Wouldn't they be filling the die letter, not grinding it off?

yep

I echo your thanks to the forum, it has been a great source of learning for me too!

Sounds like you already know the score?

It's not a great coin at all, either, to be honest, whatever the mintage!

Mine's gone. However, of importance here Non is your expenditure? If you've got £80 to spend on a single coin to build your collection, why not spend it on an £80 UNC or decent EF of a different type alrogether? Or even buy 2 £40 coins if it's about building a collection up? It's a pretty decent budget you have for a 20thC coin, don't rush into it! You'll just be giving yourself a resell headache!

I hope he's pleased with that?

'Tis true TG they are didly! You'd need more than 18 of these little 'Blumens' to tip any scales countered by a Charles shilling! I'd try getting in touch with the Withers', but can't yet articulate the issue clearly enough that even I can understand it? Hah! Publication, Peter, I ask you? I'm only regurgitating what's already out there, and just piling a bit of fancy old icing on top of it! I do try and get value for money out of this little pastime of ours, so tinkering around with any purchase I make is all part of the fun! I also have the nature that wants to understand things to the n'th degree before moving on PS: Just realised I've ended nearly every sentence with a smiley! It does make me smile, this coinie life!

OK, this cross-over period needs disseminating, and I’ve now read all I can, discovering the truth probably already exists within the texts for Type 30 at least (unless you would like to challenge the texts rather more academically than a mere literature review?). Withers being the most updated, and currently undisputed work on the hammered farthings of this period, have Type 30 clearly within the Edward II reign, dating it (with others) as 1310-1314. It is only Spinks that complicates the matter, because it hasn’t yet come up to speed with the new classifications, despite the fact that Withers’ is the text they now use to develop their catalogue numbers (and I can see why it is as yet woolly). They (Spinks) have the ‘new’ issue farthing (inner circles both sides), spanning both reigns and, to complicate things further, have ALL the Edward II farthings (of which there are a number of types) listed under just one Spink number. We’ve all been there before I know! Anyway, of real interest and significance, little did I know it, are Types 28 and 29. These, according to Withers, actually DO span the two reigns in date (1300-1310), yet Spink has them both catalogued within the Edward I reign. Now, as far as I can tell, because the crowns and busts overlap the two reigns, is that the E and C are the only separating indicators as far as Spinks are concerned? Namely, round-backed is E1 and Angle-Backed is E2? However, as far as Withers is concerned, if I’m disseminating this correctly (and Withers hasn’t actually said this), is that the round-back and Angle-back letters traverse the two reigns, without a distinct timescale? But Spinks classification appears to make the statement (though they haven’t said this) that the angle and the round are the difference between S1450 and S 1474. I’d absolutely love to understand this fickle little detail about the farthings, as I’m sure the information is there now, but yet to be effectively articulated...unlike wot I ‘ave just done. I know it can be brainstormed through to a satisfactory conclusion, however! I do at least feel satisfied that my two farthings (W30h & W30b) are both Edward II, despite the significant deterioration in punches and dies of the 4 years they are thought to cover.

Dup.

It's difficult to photograph proofs at the best of times, I just meant for personal satisfaction it's worth checking them over in that way!

Something I found useful with proofs is to tilt them in artificial light. This exposes any hairline issues far better than daylight does. Or is it the other way round? I forget now...try it in both lights in the future! But, hey, if it looks good in-hand, it probably is!