jelida

They at ‘Boy Bishop’ tokens, mediaeval lead alloy. Not uncommon, lots of varieties and are collectable. Lots of info online. Jerry

Thanks Mike, this post may have saved me a pointless drive in the snow, they clearly don’t have my current email address. Jerry

Not, though it may be a doubled '8'. Jerry

Yes F73 but not a Gouby ja reverse. They are not always easy to spot, I try to spot the slight convexity of the back of Britannia’s helmet, which is normally concave, as on this one. Practice on narrow date 1875’s, all of which are ja. Jerry

Yes, there is a lot of variation in ‘H’ position. And yes, F71 I agree. Jerry

Lacquering was common, Lindner sold a kit, I had one back in the ‘70’s. It was meant to help preserve the coin by excluding oils, moisture, salts etc, but was prone to varying thickness and dribbles.(sounds like me on a Friday night!) I don’t think it did much harm, though the ‘coin cleaner’ dip that one was meant to use first can’t have been good. It should come off easily with acetone dip, though whether your coin is lacquered I can’t tell from the photo. They usually look pretty obviously varnished. Jerry

Yup. The signature can be seen as well. Jerry

Santa's pic is of the new obverse, which is referred to as D*, there being no suitable sequential letter to allocate to it! D* is very rare so far, and has two extra teeth which alters the letter/tooth associations. First described on this forum by Terry Eagleton a couple of years ago. Jerry

Actually I should revise my statement above; obverse 3 post DG colon points to the right of a tooth, not fully to the gap. But the illustrated coin is still obverse 2, with the colon pointing to the tooth or slightly to the left. Jerry

It is obverse 2 with the incomplete rose and the colon after DG pointing to a tooth, colon is to a gap on obverse 3.

The weak area is variable, as it depends on the depth/force of the die strike so not always present, but when it is present it seems invariably to be found on obverse 2. Jerry

What I see are tonal differences in the photograph that give a false impression of a wider gap, and anyway don’t detract from the probable presence of the signature, visible in both obverse images but particularly the first, and the Obv 2 type indentation half way along the lower bust line that Mike’s post photos show clearly. Nor can the point made above about the R in BRITT be ignored if stating this to be an F28. Unless it is a new obverse, and allowing for wear, the visible identifying features have to be all or nothing, not pick and mix. I hope this coin is soon in the hand, Mr Badexample, so we can have some photos we can agree around, though this debate is rather fun. Jerry

True Pete, we had fun with that one. It is a nice example. I haven’t sent pics to Richard yet, will do so when I can get at my PC 😣 , furniture stacked everywhere and dust by the bucket😡. Jerry

I think that impression may be a photo issue. I certainly get the impression of a signature along the lower border of the bust, and the slight ‘recess’ mid way along the lower border is characteristic of obverse 2. I also don’t see the cut away section of bust margin on the right that would be compatible with obverse 5. Another issue is the slight misalignment of the R in BRITT. I have seen this on some obverse 2 dies, but it does not feature on the F28 obverse dies so far noted (refer Richards’s site). If it is F28, it would have to be a different combination of Obverse 5 plus Reverse G dies than the others so far found. I stand by F20. At the very least this topic demonstrates how we all see different things in the information presented to us. As noted before, I would not be sorry to be wrong, time will tell. PS I see Bernie agrees with me, that gives me some confidence ! Jerry

I’m going for F20, 2+G, I think there is a signature on the bust, and the lower margin of the bust and rose looks right, and the colon after ‘G’ of DG points to a tooth. But I won’t be upset if it’s F28, fingers crossed! Either way a rare coin. Jerry

It’s a livery button, it has the remains of a loop on the back. The makers marks and address are usually on the back around the loop. Late C18 to mid C19. Jerry

I know there was a lot of machining of normal coins to create spurious ‘mint errors’ going on, but it is difficult to comment on yours without photos. If they were machined, they will be slightly underweight so an accurate scales might be revealing. Jerry

Likewise a bit non-plussed to see that 1860 penny on LCA already! The prices of your offerings were generous, and I am sure most of us (myself especially) were very grateful for the opportunity to add to our collections. Obviously in time all collections do get dispersed, but the impression here is of simply taking advantage. Jerry

Pretty much the same for me, also the 1860 proof and the first 1919H. Bit put off the 1919kn by the weak obverse strike and absent beading in places. Might be able to afford one, unlikely to be more. Big house renovation costs ongoing, though not unexpected. Jerry

I think that is near enough, given that your coin has more flan around the portrait than the one we are discussing. Also the dupondius and As are much thinner coins as well as smaller, both being almost half the weight of a sestertius. Where are you Guest Dan, you could give the diameter and perhaps the weight? Jerry

Almost crosses two fingers? I don’t think so, though measurements would be helpful. Coins like this turn up a lot, have handled dozens, and few sestertii are full flan. Unless the hand is small, when the coin might be a little too small, an As or dupondius would be possible, though the thickness seems too great to me. My two equivalent fingers measure 40mm across at this level, the average sestertius is 32 to 34 mm in diameter. Looks right to me. Jerry

One for you guys ‘down under’, I’m sure you’ll be rushing to get your bids in! https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/MAJOR-ERROR-1923-AUSTRALIAN-ONE-PENNY-COIN-LOOKS-UNCIRCULATED/112797146647?hash=item1a433bde17:g:FG4AAOSwdTBaeB8C I did wonder if the seller had intended an ‘n’ at the end of the first part of his user name🤔. Jerry

Looks like a sestertius of Trajan to me, will be made from a brassy copper alloy, hence the patina; the area that you think shows gold is probably an edge scratch, as a gold coin would not have corroded. Do not attempt to remove the patina, or you will lose what little detail the coin has, and end up with a rough brassy disc. Jerry

I agree. This whole forum has gone dotty....... Jerry

Even if others were to be found, I really don’t think it makes much difference. Most dies became somewhat battered, worn or cracked towards the end of their lives resulting in coins with extraneous raised marks, and this includes dies damaged by grit. This does not make them new varieties and should not increase their value, other than in a small number of cases that I have alluded to above. A true variety, as we have discussed elsewhere on this forum, should really be due to a physical change to the die (rarely flan) made by a human. I appreciate that some do collect mint errors and flaws, but these are beyond the remit of catalogues of varietal status. Jerry