Post Your United Kingdom (Great Britain) Coin Acquisitions.

I'd been looking for a set with a case and this one seems to be in better condition than most (at least in the price range I was looking). I was surprised how light the case is. I actually thought the shipping box was empty when I first picked it up.

Nice. I particularly like Britannia's de-boned arms on that one.
Here's a 1775 contemporary counterfeit I have:

@PaddyB, Hogarth, those examples are in a very high grade and quite scarce as such here in the US (and correspondingly expensive.) I've got about 40 different examples, including overstrikes, double strikes, clips, and such, and the quality ranges from "a 5 year old could have done it" to "would have fooled the Mint" -- some are so good as to be almost the same weight and of the same quality engraving as regal issues, and only anomalies in the style of letters, date, or stops/lack thereof will give them away. None of mine are quite nearly as attractive as those examples; but the idea was for them to be "worn" in appearance so they would not attract undue scrutiny when changing hands, often accomplished by deliberate light strikes, shallow engraving, re-use of old planchets and keg-rolling to simulate wear.

Even just looking at the last two, other than the massive die crack, you can spot clear differences in the facial profile, the hair engraving, the execution of the branch and branch hand, the profile of the top of Britannia's shield, the thickness and serifs on the legends, etc.

I love the rich brown patina of the Jersey penny!

Frank

Another shilling of Charles I for me (sorry!) Spink 2791, Sharp E2/2. 6.0g Sellers pic as it's still on its way to me.

The Tun (barrel) privy mark dates it to between 14 Feb 1636 and 8 May 1638. My guess is the earlier part of that, simply due to the fact that my researches have turned up relatively few examples of this bust with the Tun mark and certainly not many this decent.

The vast majority of Tun coins are found with 'later' busts (at least in classification terms, although it is difficult to be certain about chronology) and I've seen another example described in an auction catalogue as "the bust rare with this mint-mark". I've been looking for an upgrade for my current example for some time now.

On that point, I'm always guided by Richard Lobel's comments in his Coincraft Standard Catalogue, where he quotes his mentor saying " 'when you go to value a coin it is what you have not seen rather than what you have seen that matters'. By [which] he meant that, when you see a coin that you have never seen before, forget what it catalogues, it is rare! " I include conditional rarity (a coin that is found in unusually good condition for the issue/ type) in this.

with the above! A really lovely Charles I shilling!

That is a very nice shilling and certainly has tremendous eye appeal!!

The coin I am posting here does not have much numismatic value, but not all value is numismatic.

Someone decided to take a William III sixpence and create this beautiful memento. Given the relatively small surface area (~21mm) with which to work, whomever engraved this piece must have put quite a bit of effort into it. I suspect the coin itself was probably well-worn prior to being engraved, so it must have been in circulation for awhile; someone more expert than I can probably date it thusly based on the style of the engraving and lettering.

All of those coins of the past 2 pages are stunning and cover the spectrum of British coins. I have been a bit quiet lately - but will buy anything that excites me - case in point.

Dipping my toes into the great recoinage of William the Third





This fairly worn Halfcrown dated 1696 and no doubt Tower Hill as its missing a provinical letter. Makes me very happy for three reasons.

1. The great Sir Isaac Newton had something to do with this coin.
2. Its my first William the Third halfcrown
3. It's an honest coin.