YeOldeCollector

Welcome to the forum.

Quite right, rather gaunt. You can see the resemblance to Henry VII's Royal Seal:

I saw this going on eBay for a bargain price and had to have it. I'm in Durham currently and so it has come home. Henry VII Sovereign penny, Bishop Richard Fox of Durham with mitre above shield and R & D at the sides. 1494-1501.

It also makes sense now as Tassie was on his list of subscribers.

To think the seller had about six groups of these and I only bought one. But seriously, thanks, Pat. These are things I'm going to try and acquire more of and it's mainly thanks to your help!

Thanks so much, Pat. You have been more than helpful. So instead of acquiring what I thought were late Victorian souvenirs I actually have original casts produced by Marchant in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Splendid stuff!

Pat, you continue to astound me with your knowledge and it is, of course, much appreciated. #2 is signed MARCHANT and #6 is signed MARCHANT FEC, I presume for 'fecit'. However, I notice that #3 appears to be signed by Brown. So these could be casts of Marchant's work? Rather than his original impressions? I read that Marchant was an engraver at the Royal Mint to make models for the likes of Wyon and he engraved seals for the king. This is fascinating stuff.

You're quite right, probably not.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it is an error as it is a simple chemical process performed in schools. See .

I'm loving the site, Hus! A few points: On the homepage 'Bendetto Pistrucci' should read Benedetto. On the Coin Grading page 'its self' should read itself and 'higher grade then they actually are' should read 'than they are'. You might also want to rid the first 'coin is a' from the Proof section at the very bottom. On the Buying Gold page 'If you are buying from a jewellers, bare in mind' should read 'bear in mind'. On the Selling Gold page 'Of course the grade of your coin/s will have a big impact on there value' should read 'on their value' and watch out for 'payed' when it should be 'paid' in the Disadvantages of Selling via an Auction. Otherwise it's a brilliant site and I hope it proves successful!

I'll take the coins off your hands.

What is the point of it being an auction if it only ends when BINed? It'd be over in a shorter period of time and involve much, much less posting/'bumping'...

Thanks, Pat! This is proving to be a most interesting endeavour.

Thanks, Pat. Every time I typed 371 in it said that there was no description attached to the record. So I'm very glad to have this courtesy of you as all I had was the plate, thank you!

I've found number 3. 1103, APOLLO IN A CHARIOT IN THE CLOUDS, EROS WITH A TORCH ABOVE Reference Number: 1103 Description: APOLLO IN A CHARIOT IN THE CLOUDS, EROS WITH A TORCH ABOVE Collection Record: Unpublished Tassie: TRAY 17.2 . The others are a bit more elusive and I'll do some more searching of this fantastic database over the next few days. Thank you so much for the point in the right direction, Pat!

Thank you so much, Pat! I've had a quick glance at the Tassie Gems here but shall delve into it further this evening in order to identify these. Any idea of the date of my pieces, then?

I recently acquired what appears to be a lot of six Victorian resin casts of medals/medalettes. They appear all to be Classical in influence but I cannot pinpoint their origin. Any help would be greatly appreciated. These are all concave, by the way - it's like the hollow-mask illusion all over again. Cast #1. 3.5cm long and 3cm wide. Cast #2. 3cm long and 1.5cm wide. Cast #3. 4.3cm long and 2.9cm wide. What looks like Phaeton and his chariot. Cast #4. 3.2cm long and 2.5cm wide. I thought it was Dionysus but the lizard and stars have thrown me, as has the object he's holding. Cast #5. I'm presuming Bellona. 2.8cm long and 2cm wide. Cast #6. 2.3cm long and 1.9cm wide. Salus Publica clearly visible with the classic crossed legs and leaning elbow accompanied with a snake.

My latest purchase for my collection. An Edward I Halfpenny of Waterford mint. A scarce coin in surprisingly good condition.

I look forward to them!

I think you've got completely the wrong end of the stick. The argument isn't about claiming part of the money as some of the artefacts that Odyssey have recovered have been sold to a British museum - so that's hardly to do with the money, it's about the heritage. The ship in question is HMS Victory, one of Britain's most famous warships and I would imagine that the British want to keep such a large part of their maritime heritage for the nation, hardly undeserving slackers as they wouldn't be gaining monetary reward over the artefacts recovered and seeing as they are the ones paying Odyssey... The uproar in the article is that the MoD have sold rights contrary to the international laws - there's no suggestion of ulterior motives as it is to be given to the Mairitime Heritage Foundation which I doubt will be able to sell anything. Odyssey seem perfectly happy to undergo such work in return for a percentage, as agreed, and so no one is slating Odyssey at all - just the MoD for not doing things by the book. So I fail to see your point. I do see what you mean about some other cases, though, where international court cases have been brought against Odyssey but this certainly isn't one of them.

Bump - with another story. "The Ministry of Defence is facing a legal battle and parliamentary questions after letting a US company excavate a British 18th-century warship laden with a potentially lucrative cargo." http://www.guardian....ssey-excavation

It does have some value and whilst the different 8 won't affect the value much, the poor obverse certainly will.

Yes. Here's a similar example, albeit slightly lower down in the date space. It cannot be a 1568/4 because the mint mark of a coronet didn't come into play until 1567 as well as this being too long for standard overstriking mint practices. I do, however, agree that the base of your eight is very angular, giving it the appearance of a 1564 date beneath. The example I've pictured above has the same eight as yours, just rotated 180 degrees.

This is an Elizabeth I Sixpence with the mintmark 'Coronet'. It was originally dated 1567 but the mint has struck an 8 over the 7 to make it1568.

It is part of a 9th-century Anglo-Saxon strap-end with the animal head terminal having been broken off in antiquty. These are often made of silver and this one features an enamelled stag on it.