Red Riley

I have just spent the last hour poring over various books trying to identify these two Mediaeval pennies and have emerged none the wiser and in a very bad temper. I would be extremely grateful if someone would just have a quick look at them and tell me into which of the thousands of varieties these (rather worn) pennies fall. I know the answer is probably to consult North but I haven't got a copy and have never seen one for sale. Please help me! Here's the first;

I think you're right 400. A sovereign would be a good investment, but that's all it would be. A couple of months ago I was asked to put together a starter collection for each of a lady's four grandchildren with complete free reign as to what I supplied. I went for a varied selection of lower grade, more interesting coins going back to the early Victorian period which would, I hoped, capture a kid's imagination but at the same time be robust enough to be fairly roughly played with. The lady seemed very satisfied (she even gave me a tip!) but of course I am never going to know how the grandchildren reacted to the coins.

Just let it fall from a few mm. onto a wooden table, it won't come to any harm.

Without going into the legend/mintmark on which I'm hardly an expert, I would agree - the planchet is just too round and the design/legend too even. I would strongly suspect it of being a modern replica in pewter. Sorry if that's bad news.

Also, a feature of many examples of reverse G is that the date can be very weakly struck.

Laundry machine? I could do with one of those, the old Wife Brand one is wearing out.

To me they are all 'clear date' - a description if not a grade which has been around since the late sixties to my certain knowledge.

Suspect it was a half sovereign although the size you gave doesn't tally (1/2 sovereigns are just short of 2mm.). If it was a full sovereign, you were well and truly screwed!

I have seen that kind of toning on coins bought randomly i.e. as part of bulk lots. Not common but it does seem to happen from time to time.

Amonia would certainly work on the verdigris, but it evaporates quickly, so cannot just be put on affected parts of the surface and if you immerse the coin in the ammonia you strip the patina. Being me, I would have to experiment, particularly as it is pretty much unsaleable as it stands.

The collar is actually in 3 pieces with joins as follows; DECUS/ET TUTAMEN*/ANNO REGNI/L... The joins on some coins can be more noticeable than others.

OK, here's my way of treating a toned copper coin coin with a verdigris hole appearing; 1) Carefully scour the hole with a needle to remove as much verdigris as possible; 2) Carefully wash coin; 3) Soak end of cocktail stick in ammonia for 15-20 mins; 4) Very carefully knock off all drips from cocktail stick; 5) Even more carefully insert stick into hole and twist around. What you are trying to avoid here is getting any ammonia on the undamaged surface of the coin; 6) Make up a paste of sulphur and vaseline. You only need a tiny quantity; 7) Take another needle and put a tiny amount of the paste in the hole; 8) Leave for a while. The longer it is left, the darker the area treated with the paste will become, so it is possible to some degree match with the colour of the coin; 9) Wash coin again; 10) Bob's your uncle, Fanny's your aunt!

I have just returned an 1819 6d said to be AU, to a well-known auction house on the grounds that it had been aggressively cleaned. I did not attend the auction and bid purely on the strength of a photograph on their website. Following a fairly cordial conversation with them, I don't anticipate any problems getting my money back. My point however is this; I have visited many auctions over the last year and quite frankly uncleaned silver coins appear to be in the minority but seldom if ever is this noted in the auction catalogue. Now something is wrong here, the first thing we are told on becoming a coin collector is that you shouldn't clean your coins as this will affect their value, but somebody is doing it and has been for a very long time if the numbers involved are anything to go by. If a saleroom is able to spot an obscure variety of King Charles I shilling or whatever, then surely they must be able to spot the tell-tale hairlines typical of manual cleaning or the flat deadness of chemical dipping. The answer is I suppose, obvious - the hammer price would be lower if they came clean (pardon the pun) and their profits would be affected. Or perhaps it is us that should stop being so naive. The older a coin, the greater is the chance of it having been found in less than ideal circumstances i.e. the soil, and let's face it, no William I penny has been handed down from father to son over nearly 1000 years, therefore all will have been found in the ground and all will have been cleaned - the only point at issue is how well has it been done? Hand-me-downs probably only start from the 18th century, but even then they will be very much in the minority. Time has at least partially cured many of the more obvious signs of cleaning, but we would be wrong to assume that a 200 year old coin has never been cleaned. So, should we accept the situation and assume that a coin has been cleaned or should we lobby the auction houses to be more honest in their descriptions?

Exactly what I found with the previous W & W sale - one guy must have bid on 60% of the British coins on offer and taken home half of those!

Happy birthday Patrick. Don't spend all your money on coins (that's what my Dad used to tell me).

Agreed, if you want to get good value for money, avoid pennies and large silver (i.e. florins to crowns). Oh, and you weren't thinking of gold either were you?!

The designer of the Morgan dollar was actually an Englishman, who studied under one of the Wyons. Given the Wyons reputation for flattery, I would have hated to meet this lady in real life!

Susan B Anthony. She's the one that looks like Grandma Clampet, right?

I'm sorry if I'm standing on any American toes but the Walking Liberty half dollars just make me laugh! The obverse shows Liberty toddling off down the shops, to a baseball match or somewhere and the reverse has the eagle following her. Where are they going? I think we should be told. The British tradition is to take a pig ugly monarch and make them look like a film star (e.g. William Wyon's George IV). The U.S. on the other hand has the choice of the entire country to model for the purely allegorical figure of Liberty, so where on Earth did they get the lady on the Morgan dollar from? And even worse, the incarnation of Liberty on the V nickels could have been the inspiration for Les Dawson's mother in law! I am truly, truly sorry if I have offended any American sensibilities, but sometimes these things just have to be shared...

You're going to be a busy man Declan. Now if you could see your way clear...

The wren farthings, ship halfpennies and thrift threepences sadly represented a blind alley in the development of our coinage. Since the accession of the present queen, the reverses of our everyday coins (i.e. excluding commemoratives) have all reverted to royal themes which really is a step backwards in my opinion.

As an American, you may need a little explanation as to the subtext of John's post. Have you heard of cockney rhyming slang? (apples and pears = stairs, skin and blister = sister etc.). Well 'threepenny bits' is rhyming slang for something (or things), but I'll let you work that out for yourself... Personally, I couldn't disagree more, especially the 1953 variety!

My nomination for the ugliest predecimal coin I wouldn't say ugly, just unartistic. Reminds me of the day my Dad had a go at flower arranging... Am I just being a grumpy old git or has coin design been on a slow downward spiral since some point in the early 19th century?

My view is that bullion will remain high until stocks recover, then I suspect silver (but probably not gold) will fall away. Personally, I don't keep scrap for that long prior to selling on and my advice would be to sell when you have a reasonable amount.

I should learn to read posts from beginning to end! Thanks Dave.