Paddy

Spotted this sign at auction. Can't believe they ever got away with this!

... and finally the 1863 Shilling - substantial upgrade for me, but not the 1863/1 mentioned above:

... 1725 Shilling - another upgrade for me:

... 1672 Shilling - a new date for me:

So here are my pickups from the auction - arrived today. One per post. 1663 Shilling - an upgrade for me:

I didn't get all the ones I was interested in - the bidding went too high - but like you I pout in late bids on a couple that seemed to be going very cheap. I am also very pleased with my wins and should have them in hand very soon.

Well spotted! A great buy for anyone into the variations. I have just checked back and you are correct - Irish and Scottish shields switched across. I don't go looking for that sort of thing, so probably miss some bargains. I am content with a decent example of each date.

Devon to Mayfair is not much easier! I didn't view in person either - just trusted to their photography. (Noonans are reasonably reliable, unlike some of the others.) In fact I nearly missed the auction entirely. It was only an article on the BBC website on the morning of the sale that alerted me to it. The others I got were: the 1663 Shilling lot 14 as an upgrade; the 1672 Shilling lot 23, filling a gap; and the 1725 Shilling lot 163 as an upgrade.

I was bidding online too. I picked up 4 lots, which must mean the prices were not as strong as usual. I got the 1863 as an upgrade, but not the 1863/1. I will post pics once I have them in hand.

... not even with someone else's bargepole...

I can't help you with that specific version, but there do seem to have been a huge number of different versions produced. I had this one, with the same bust but a slightly different reverse quite a few years ago: Are you sure yours is silver? Many of these were struck in a pewter-like alloy. I assume you have checked the edge for any inscription that might relate it to a particular place?

I don't know if anyone has definitive figures, but I have one, so it can't be that rare! 🙂 The rarest pennies site shows two examples, neither of them mine.

This one is a Dubonni Silver unit:

I have struggled to buy any of the 17th and 18th century silver I need in the last few months, so in desperation I resorted to bidding on Celtic coins as they seem so much more affordable. Two just arrived - this one is Atrebates Silver unit:

No postage specified, otherwise I might have made him an offer of £1, just to see his reaction! First time I have noticed the "Ebay automated Feedback". How long has this been going on? Positive but "This seller successfully completed an order" certainly counts as "Damning by faint praise!

I find a single source of light striking the coin at an angle works better.

That is a very pleasing inheritance and a great starting point for a collection! You seem to have the basic identification of the monarchs on each coin correct. It would help to add the denomination to the description as for some coins only the size differentiates one denomination from another. For example the Queen Anne 1707 could at first glance be anything from a Crown down to a sixpence, each with a different value. If you are unsure of the denomination, add a scale so we can advise. As to how to value the collection, there are two main approaches: - Learn enough to do it yourself. Buy the book (Spink Coins of England) and read up on how to grade, then assign a value based on your acquired knowledge. - Get hold of an expert. You can find local coin dealers online or at a coin fair, or you can go to an auction house. Bear in mind they will be looking at the coins mostly with a view to what they could buy or sell them for. Some dealers will do an Insurance valuation, but quite rightly they would charge for this as there is no profit for them in the deal. I can't see anything in there that is outstandingly valuable, and one, the 1977 Crown, has virtually no value. Unless you are planning to sell them, why not just enjoy them as they are rather than worry about their precise value? In any case, any value is only an opinion and only becomes fixed when you sell it. Good coins can go for peanuts on a bad day, and poor coins for a fortune on another.

Certainly seems to be 9+L. As to the raised dot - I think we would need a close up picture of that area. To me it just looks like a piece of extraneous metal has got stuck to the coin at some point. Unlikely to be called out as a new variety unless others are identified with the same mark.

The concerns were discussed at length on this forum several years ago. The usual gripe about always winning with one's maximum bid was the start of the debate, and this linked with the lack of live online bidding (this may have changed since then) meant the auctioneer could have prior knowledge of the top bids left and so engineer the auction to ensure this limit was reached.

I gave up on LCA several years ago. The combination of over-doctored images, inaccurate descriptions and (reportedly) dodgy auctioneering practice put me off. Visiting Bracknell to view or bid was too much of a trek, even when that was an option. One has to be able to trust the auction house when bidding online. Trust takes a while to build up but can be blown away in moments.

Don't get me started on the film industry messing with historical fact! I gave up believing anything they portrayed after Braveheart.

Yes - it seems to me that we have an unfounded trust in the goodness of human nature, despite continuous evidence to the contrary. We elect people to govern us, or appoint civil servants to administer us, or employ law enforcement agents to maintain the rule of law and expect all these people to operate to a moral code and in the best interests of the general public and society - and they consistently let us down. Maybe the anarchists have a point.

Interesting discussion on the worst king title possible here. I'm not sure I would agree with @copper123. I would suggest John as the worst - corrupt and greedy. After that it gets closer for second worst - Edward II, Richard II, Stephen and Edward VI are all good contenders with Charles I. George IV I let off as by then the monarch had virtually no power, and so could do little damage. Not sure what you have against James I - apart from his penchant for killing old women because he thought they were witches?

I fear we are more of a bureaucracy at the moment, ruled by an ever expanding Civil Service and semi-autonomous organisations that seem determined to ignore the will of the people and even our elected representatives in a trenchant defence of their own jobs and beliefs. There is no limit to the casual cruelty of the bureaucrat!

Not so much Catholic - more a Monarchist as opposed to a Parliamentarian.