[What year is this coin?]

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?

[What year is this coin?]

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.

 

[What year is this coin?]

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.

[Regional Coins]

You can view Dalton & Hamer's book online:

https://www.scribd.com/document/206664745/The-provincial-token-coinage-of-the-18th-century-illustrated-by-R-Dalton-and-S-H-Hamer

[1701 halfpenny, IERTIVS obverse.]

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....  😉

[1701 halfpenny, IERTIVS obverse.]

Here's another relatively recent 1701 find I'm rather pleased with. As for Vs on the obverse, large zero reverse.

 

[1701 halfpenny, IERTIVS obverse.]

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.

[1701 halfpenny, IERTIVS obverse.]

Here's one I found last year, GV over B on the obverse. Extremely rare in any grade.

 

[1701 halfpenny, IERTIVS obverse.]

10 hours ago, copper123 said:

Everyone likes a nice bar LOL

Indeed!  🙂

[1701 halfpenny, IERTIVS obverse.]

I'm pretty sure they were struck more often than on a weekly basis....

It does exist. I know my 17th century copper well enough to confirm the letter is an I, and which is even more obvious 'in hand'.

I see people listing 1700 and 1701 on ebay, stating their coins to be the rare unbarred As variety. Unbarred is the norm. As with bars are the ones to look out for.

[1701 halfpenny, IERTIVS obverse.]

Here’s a recent find I thought I should share with the group.

1701 halfpenny with an obverse reading of IERTIVS for TERTIVS and, as far as I know, previously unrecorded. My initial, and obvious, thought was die fill on the crossbar of the T, but on closer inspection I see no evidence of a bar, and the letter is an exact match for the I in GVLIELMVS but not the second T in TERTIVS.

 

[Issues on Richard's penny website]

Halfpenny varieties also no longer loads.

[Are farthings varieties collectable?]

https://www.colincooke.com/ccc_frontpage

[1857 sixpence VICTOBIA error]

Agreed, PMD. It has clipped the outer curve of the upper loop too.

[Terrysoldpennies]

 

Terry,

Here's something I came across earlier this evening which I thought may interest you.

[More Pennies]

Thank you!

[More Pennies]

I have a 13 width. How unusual is this?

 

[Stuff to Make Us Laugh]

35 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

Never mind the Spanish Inquisition, here come the Puritan woke! Closely followed by the grammar police.....

A harmless and wryly amusing joke in my opinion, playing on our stereotyping, but in your eyes not as funny as picturing Trump and Hitler greeting each other, truly sophisticated humour that, or thinking about it, berating someone for having the temerity to design their own book cover not up to your expert standards.

 

Prick.

[Stuff to Make Us Laugh]

Not funny.

[Coin prices continue to rise]

6 minutes ago, Rob said:

When you sign in to Easylive to register to bid on an auction it gives you the option of either a flat fee of £3 which is taken whether you win anything or not, or a 3% of hammer surcharge. That's a no-brainer. I've spent thousands on many occasions for the same £3 a pop. On very rare occasions I have not won anything, but happily paid £3 to give me the ability to bid live, particularly with less prestigious auctioneers, where you might be wary of leaving commission bids. 

As I said, it's the cost of a pint and you need to do incredibly badly to spend more in wasted £3s than the 3% charge on any winnings.

Me too. £3, wins or no, is neither here nor there.

[More Pennies]

11 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

I'm not surprised. I have tried to get them to include the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny, for which their laughable reply was that they couldn't possibly include every minor variety. So, a major legend change is a 'minor varient', but the tiny differences in the early Victorian pennies are 'major' and worthy of inclusion. Spink are a joke and not worth the effort.

 

'Minor'? Ridiculous.

How many confirmed examples do we now have, seven, eight? They've included the 1694 MVRIA halfpenny for many years even though, until a recent fourth came to light, only three were known.

And if we're talking about early milled minor varieties, and whether or not they are deemed worthy of inclusion, just one 'off the top of my head' example of many, I'd suggest they might like to reconsider would be their 1675 farthing, no stop after CAROLVS. Again, been listed for years, and given a value, yet has anyone here ever seen one? I haven't, nor am I aware of anyone who has.

 

[1981 25p "Experimental Coin"]

1 hour ago, copper123 said:

If sold it should go under the title of "Experimental CN test coin unknown value" that would be the most honest title.

I must admit that Britannia making all the coins personally brings a smile to my face.

Same design as the old halfpenny trial dies. I have the 1957 one.

[1879 Penny shuttle variety]

5 hours ago, alfnail said:

I'm inclined to agree Richard. I think I have a couple of irregular shaped  'extra metal' pieces myself, will check when I'm back home. 

How about this for 'extra metal'.

[1953 Farthing]

14 hours ago, copper123 said:

just a minute is not 2 -b the rare one?

The most common.

[1953 Farthing]

Standard 2/B, and not a proof.