Michael-Roo
-
Posts
1,540 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
53
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Michael-Roo
-
-
1 hour ago, copper123 said:
that one is very week on charles hair/laurel leaves
And the reverse die also having a little further deterioration at the corresponding area too. In all other respects the coin is about EF, with trace lustre around the devices.
-
Here's one of mine displaying the same die deterioration. A not uncommon feature on farthings of 1675.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Rob said:
Plenty of silver types, of which I am looking for a specific one. Without trying to state the obvious, it has cast copy 'written' all over it in the form of casting pits. Even if it was genuine, desirable it ain't.
I see someone has bought it.
-
2 hours ago, wlewisiii said:
There was a copper farthing in 1714 with Anne on it. According to https://en.numista.com/13073
There are no silver pattern coins listed. So, yes, I would say that that was an easily discovered fake and that the seller should be considered unsafe.
There are silvers for both 1713 and 1714, but the portrait on the ebay coin is all wrong. Numista is never reliable. https://www.colincooke.com/ccc_queenanne.
-
48 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:
That's supposed to be silver??
Possibly silver, I don't know. A genuine Anne farthing? Not likely. 😁
-
1 hour ago, Coinery said:
Definitely not the genuine article, but will definitely be the coin in that little group that will catch the highest bidder out, as there’s nothing else in there they could possibly be wanting!
Same seller:
-
1
-
-
-
-
3 hours ago, absence of uniformity said:
Please could you explain what's occuring on this coin, many thanks.
The first three digits were already on the die, the last of the four entered manually afterwards. The spacing and positioning will sometimes appear odd, and this is not unusual. Granted though, this one is at the top end of 'odd'.
-
-
7 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:
You've better eyesight than me then! I was looking hard for just that but couldn't see it...
-
1
-
-
Agreed; not high tide.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Chris Perkins said:
Can also clearly see the 'WRL' on the reverse. Westair Reproductions Ltd, I think. They make replicas for museum gift shops etc and they always have WRL stamped on them.
I messaged the seller to tell them exactly that. No response, and the listing stands.
-
1
-
-
-
Those prices are quite astonishing.
I have Peck's own 636 plate coin (Montagu 3); so now may be a good time to sell.
-
4
-
-
-
Is it possible there's a hint of a remaining crossbar, as highlighted below?
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Rob said:
Anything anyone finds at the first or second time of looking immediately becomes easy and not an issue in terms of acquisition, and immediately reduces the rarity in their eyes. Oh that life were that simple.
The entire essence of collecting anything is serendipity. Right place, right time and you are on a roll. Miss out on something you could have bought with one more bid and you are forever cursing yourself. There are so many could have, should haves out there I've stopped counting. Don't forget every missed opportunity creates the funds for the next one. Win every one and your issue becomes funding, because you are likely to have overpaid at some point just to have it and I can confidently say you don't have unlimited funds. I wanted one of the the Henry VII sovereigns in Carrington recently, so made sure the money was on standby and placed a bid. I was one bid short, or rather David Guest was the person who outbid me on the day in the room. Dragon marked sovereigns aren't difficult to find, but the price makes them appear so. This one ticked the trade off boxes just right. Not buying that meant the remainder of the auction was now up for grabs. I bought the type 1 Mary Angel and the Triple Unite instead. Not what I wanted that day, but both ticked boxes and I was happy with that. And it left me with cash to spare.
Not sure what you're saying in relation to the above 1736 (3/5), 1754 (4/0) comments Rob. Could you clarify?
-
1 hour ago, copper123 said:
A 1754 4 over 0 is even rarer it took me years to find a decent one
Certainly scarce, but I would have to disagree; examples can always be found offered for sale, whereas 1736, 3 over 5, is almost never seen. Even old Colin Cooke and Farthing Specialist lists regularly include the 1754, 4 over 0, often listed in a range of grades, but I've yet to find either offering a single example of 1736, 3 over 5.
-
17 hours ago, copper123 said:
unfortunately 1735 and 36 are both common
I have a rather nice 1736, 3 over 5. These are much harder to find.
-01.thumb.jpg.44944af8bc56a22b121178cc838c39b2.jpg)
-
2
-
-
You can view Dalton & Hamer's book online:
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, Coinery said:
For the number of different errors in the halfpennies alone, you’d have to conclude that somebody, somewhere, was having a right royal laugh!
Some nice grade errors going on there, Mr Roo!
Cheers Stu. Elsewhere, I continue to look forward to your return.... 😉
-
1
-
-
Here's another relatively recent 1701 find I'm rather pleased with. As for Vs on the obverse, large zero reverse.
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, Rob said:
And my 1694 upgrade. Quite chuffed.
. Thankfully people focussed on the description which said pitted flan, which is due to it being cast rather than rolled as per spec, but as that accounts for half the halfpennies or more of this period, should not be something to worry about.
That's a beauty.
-01.jpg.cb46deac34f0a6555add8793c5471b1e.jpg)
Ebay's Worst Offerings
in Free for all
Posted
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/127945382130?_skw=1696&itmmeta=01KWV68AKFNDSWCKKGPY94SJ64&hash=item1dca2398f2:g:iPYAAeSw35RqQGXn&itmprp=enc%3AAQALAAAAwGfYFPkwiKCW4ZNSs2u11xDovThOToFz2ZFPxugPA9XSFNn8ZGWTRKC3MuiLJB2vvvikM48JUeNQ5533R99qzPdpkTJiede8k08e1bKo7QPHnPdYirkor3VFy0FOX2Qdv22cpy62ndLBOphkklDDLEyhg7Dorvm0zathn1pNWUCTsodDHQA6DNvLqugFfUYUWRm5YRDRZiZddbZrVpucvMHW9MCW66Ze6LEzfoQ8w6lGoPt4ne1QgIBCoh6HWU%2FLyw%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR6aqoebmZw