Red Riley

I don't believe they are rare at all. As seen by the number of results when I did a quick search: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&q=countermarked+George+III+dollar&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.d2k&biw=1280&bih=631&wrapid=tlif135781988748610&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=8q_uULinCouY1AW94ICQDw . What is needed to command better prices is a good clear countermark, ideally on a good clear coin. Worn examples just aren't as attractive to buyers so buy the nicest you can afford (as usual!) AFAIK, the octagonal countermark is scarcer, but someone else here can no doubt confirm or deny that. They come up at auction with monotonous regularity and VF-ish coins go for around £350 to £400. They have a bit of a reputation among dealers as being hard to shift. Yes, you are correct, the later octagonal punched coins are rarer (about 1 in 5 of those offered?) but the bigger punch makes a right mess of the reverse!

No, that's a bog standard 1862 and it's got four little chunks out of the edge...

Saw them three or four times in the early seventies at such venues as Earl's Court and the Finsbury Park Rainbow. Absolutely my favourite band for many years but think they lost it from The Wall onwards.

Thanks for the plug, and thanks to everybody who has bought coins from me this year. Rest assured that you have kept the wife off the streets for another year...

I thought 'Concrete Cow' was your local brewer?

Trying to think of a new way to say Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year but failing miserably, so greetings as above except for those useless b*stards at BT who have seen fit to leave me without any telephone or broadband connection since 14 December. Hope they choke on their Christmas pudding.

It doesn't really leap out at me, but I agree the reverse devices look soft/mushy. There do appear to be a few pin-pricks, but they can also exist on the genuine article, so not conclusive. Also, I've had a couple of these earlier crowns, where the ends of the legends have faded/disappeared towards the rim. The edge looks weird (seam-like), however, though I'm assuming this is the cut-out software, rather than the coin itself. For me, just to put some reverse psychology on it, if I was wanting to buy it as a good-quality counterfeit, I wouldn't get too excited about it until I had it in hand! The edge can be discounted as this has clearly been created by removing the background colour and pasting onto solid black but strange you would want to do that given the flat and toneless nature of the coin itself. I don't think it appears obviously cast but still a pretty grim looking coin.

What a waste of coins.

Love it ? Esther Rantzen c. 1983?

Perhaps I'm just becoming a grumpy old sod and if I'd been asked whether my photo could be used, I would almost certainly have said 'yes'. Disagreeing with somebody else's grading is hardly a heinous crime either (although perhaps not by that much...). It's when a pattern emerges that the red mist comes down, as no doubt Dave will confirm!

I've sold to them in the past. Appeared on e-bay virtually immediately from an address in Cornwall, using my photograph with acute grade inflation (I think from NEF to AU). Sigh...

I think prior to, and probably during the First World War, the Royal Mint would have sourced most of their copper from mines in Wales or Cornwall. These were mostly small producers and there would undoubtedly have been significant variations in the chemical make up of the ore mined. I have never managed to establish quite when the last domestic mine closed down, but it would have been round about 1920, which could explain the more consistent colour until the alloy was changed in 1944. The dark tone of 26ME pennies is an enigma though.

I have a large supply of square Guernsey 1966 10/- pieces which I will happily offload at face value to anyone that wants them. Incidentally, talking about inappropriately square things, does anybody remember the original Austin Allegro with the 'quartic' steering wheel? Not only were they crazy enough to decide that a square wheel was a good idea but they then had to go and invent a daft name for it. Bizarre organisation, BL.

I don't think it's the whole answer or all pre-1860 copper coins would have a consistent tone which patently they don't. What I believe, is that the Royal Mint sourced their ore from a number of different locations which would have contained all sorts of different trace elements, and the way that these reacted with their environment would to some extent dictate the tone that the coin eventually acquired. On the other hand, I suspect King's Norton obtained all their metal from one source, hence this consistent red-ish tone. On the other hand there is always the possibility that King's Norton deliberately added a chemical to the mix in order to promote this rather attractive tone. Incidentally, I have seen coins from as far back as 1893 toned in King's Norton red.

Not sure that quite works. The sort of people who would dip a nicely toned coin in order to make a few extra coppers are probably the same ones who have an army of cronies putting in dodgy bids on their blast-white apologies for coins!

Give me a 69 any day.

Over the years I have bought many coins which required posting to me, and I may be becoming a grumpy old man but why oh why do people have to put about 3 1/2 lb. of surplus packaging with every coin! This isn't just a moan, it's a serious point, there have been times when I have nearly damaged a coin trying to dig out staples used to prevent the coin from moving in transit or cut my way through so much surplus packing tape that it made the envelope resemble Tutenkhamun's mummy. What's wrong with putting the coin in a 2" square coin envelope then putting that in a Jiffy bag, writing address on said Jiffy bag and taking the lot to the Post Office. I've never had a coin damaged or removed from the envelope when sent out this way (touches head as substitute for wood...) and just think sellers are being over-cautious which ultimately puts the coin at risk of being damaged by the sheer impatience of the average recipient!

I'd agree.

To get rid of the verdigris soak it in ammonia. This will however lighten the tone but if you're going to clean, that objection falls. Personally, if you intend to sell it on, I would keep it as is. You won't get much for it either way.

I would venture to suggest that marketing really isn't this seller's strong point; http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/261125731603?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

That's a really good repair. Does he have a website? Not going all nationalistic now, but there must be somebody in the UK who could do a similar job. Perhaps a retired museum conservator/restorer? Or maybe the bloke that makes 1933 pennies out of 1935s...

Bought this coin in a bulk lot recently. When I looked at it carefully it appeared to have a peculiar ‘O’ in ‘ONE’. It is obviously not a D or anything as outlandish as that, but nonetheless the O does appear to have been the subject of some die repair. I have checked it against several other 1910s and photos of coins I have sold, but none appear to share this feature. I have already run it past Michael Gouby who felt it was interesting but even though he had never seen its like before, unlikely to command much of a premium. Anyway, here are the images;

Talking about Spink's (and other price guides), as the price of gold is so volatile, any guide is pretty much useless once it is on the booksellers' shelves. Can anybody think of a serious objection to publishing prices as 'BV' or 'BV+' if it has some numismatic value? Apologies if I've posted this before, but my memory isn't what it was...

Hi Sword, Welcome to the forum. That 1818 is very impressive.

Peeve or not, I do largely agree. There are genuine narrow/wide date varieties from 1874 to 1879 where the width of date is simply an 'ease of convenience' way of differentiating between two quite different reverses. Where it's the only difference... Nah, not for me.