constanius

st. is just for street, small 's' to distinguish it from St. for Saint. 'Without' means outside(the wall), as opposed to 'Within' inside the wall. See link for map. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/image.asp...f&pubid=332

My example is dated 1825, the date was added to an undated obverse( #2850, different to yours) and the reverse is missing the banner sparrow on the ballon etc. Mine is Bell#2860 Rare. I believe there are 5 varieties. Declared Bankrupt: Sparrow Isaac Earlysman, Bishopsgate st. Without, ironmonger, July 7, 1826. Petioning Creditor: Isaac Earlysman Sparrow. Smithfield, ironmongers, in 1829 in the bankruptcy of RAYNER Robert, of Crawford-street, in the parish of St Marylebone, in the county of Middlesex, ironmonger. So he obviously was back in the ironmonger business before too long. Anticipating the question, what is Bishopsgate st. Without? It is the portion of the street(& Bishopgate) that was outside the walls of London(since demolished there) as opposed to Within for the intramural portion of Bishopgate.

Looks more like an expresso machine, just kidding Ian, very nice early locomotive.

Clive, how could you? It is bad enough you mention Elizabeth's 'LARGE BUST', but then you make reference to her 'BEHIND' Shame on you sir, she would have sent you to the Tower(of London that is) if she was still alive. Mind, I am so relieved that you stopped making any further comment on her body parts. Very nice coin, makes me wish I collected hammered though.

Great locomotive.

Sorry about that headlight business, on a more serious note, I think that the train depicted is La Brest to Paree, just a hunch though

Nice headlights on this one.

Northern Company 231 North to 3.1151 3.1170 (type SACM) copy of S 12 of the AL in 1912 , future: A 1-20 2-231 231 North 3.1150 machine No. 231-502 STATE of 1914 is not delivered because of the war, the future: 2-231 B 1 3.1201 to 3.1240 231 North called "Superpacific 1st type" of 1923 to 1924 , future: 2-231 C 1 to 40 3.1241 to 3.1248 231 North called "Superpacific 2nd type" of 1929 with slight differences from the 1st type, future: 2-231 C 41 to 48 The loco is definitely a 231, not a 230 if you look at the rearmost of the 3 large wheels in the pic of the 230 it protrudes under the cab, on the 231 all the large wheels are in front of the cab(with the 1 in 231 representing the small wheel under the cab). The 231B though built in 1914 was not delivered until after the war. The list shows when each type was actually delivered to the Nord lines. So if what is shown is a 231A then 1912 should be the earliest it would be on the Nord line. If 231B, 1919 if 231C, 1923. Great fun, I rode on the 'Flying Scotsman' which is a 231( known in England as a 462 as they count the wheels both sides) just a few years ago, in fact I have a picture of it hanging on my bedroom wall.

The 231 was the 'Pacific', the Germans first showed interest in this design type of Loco in 1905, the French in 1906 but production was delayed till after WWI, though as early as 1909 some early ones were used in Alsace-Lorraine. The COMPAGNIE DU CHEMIN DE FER DU NORD. use of the 231. The 231 C Nord was a class of 4-6-2 (Pacific type) steam locomotive of the Chemin de Fer du Nord. It served in the North of France and Belgium. The first batch were built in 1923, and last remaining were retired from service in the 60's. These locomotives were widly known as super-pacifics due to their high performance, which made them famous even in Britain. http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en...fari%26rls%3Den

Very nice medal Ian, Coinarchives give the name thus A. Sabauque dated 1900. http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...65&Lot=4580 This site gives it as Tebarque (A.) http://www.numisrail.fr/medailles/?ref=FR0000AXA05001 Looking at the style of the Locomotive I would guess it is 1930's vintage steam engine.

So pretty in technicolor, very nice Bill.

From, Appendix I in BHM Vol 3. Corrections and additional material to volumes I and II; 3 Accession of King George III For 'by T. Pingo' read 'by J. Kirk. This also occurs in AE gilt(Private Collection). So, when I thought this medal looked like Kirk's medal(mainly because of the shape of the nose) of George III's accession, I was right, and there is also a gilded medal(like mine) in a private collection. I am as equally pleased it is by Kirk, as I was when I believed it was by Pingo

Sad to say but no.

This looks modern to me, but is dated 1773.

I like the simple division into Ancient(to -500 AD), Medieval(500-1500) & Modern(1500+) for all the world's coinage. For the USA, Colonial, Modern & Current would work, please supply your own date ranges. British coinage could be Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Medieval & Modern. For China ?, ? & ? It is a bit like 'One size fits all' just means 'Does not really fit most people' so the division & subdivision of coinage into categories needs to be adjusted for each country.

I'm with Frank & Homer.

It is a great coin, accept it for what it is & be

My understanding is that a 'blind cobbler's thumb' is large, hard & swollen! From the idea that a blind cobbler would hit his thumb quite often. Here is the Urban Dictionary's LINK

Great coins in this & your following post, may I ask if you were feeling a little sad & 'blue' when you took the pics?

thedeadpoint suggested I post this here, for info click on http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?showtopic=25989

This one might shock you then. Love token E. I. S. on a counterstamped 1812 Spanish 8 Reales. Silver 41mm. Original weight would be just over 27 grams and this now weighs just 22 grams due partly to wear but mainly because of the depth of the engraved rings. As you can see, it was a brooch also, but the fittings are now mostly missing.

1861 1/2 Dollar. The heyday of engraved love tokens in the USA was 1860's-1890's, most were made from dimes which was the average daily wage for a man. This love token represents a week's wages before the cost of the engraving is factored in. Well engraved tokens were, by and large, engraved by professionals, which added to the cost of the tokens.

The small hole has been filled.

You are confusing Mary Tudor Queen of England(who did sign the death warrant for Lady Jane Gray) who was half-sister to Elizabeth I, with Mary Stuart Queen of the Scots. Mary Stuart could not commit treason against Elizabeth, even though that was what she was charged with, found guilty & executed for by the English. You can only commit treason against your own, or adopted, monarch &/or country. Seeing as Mary Stuart was Scottish and just imprisoned in England, it was an absurd charge! Seeing as she was left fatherless at 6 months Was sent to France at 5 Married at 15 Widowed at 17 Returned to Scotland as Queen, but being a catholic in a fervent protestant country where sermons were preached against her & she had no real power as the protestant scottish lords were hostile to her. Where her second husband murdered her friend, fellow catholic, secretary in front of her when she was 7 months pregnant, etc etc Being imprisoned and suffering a miscarriage of the twins she was expecting, fleeing to England being imprisoned from age 24 until her death 19 years later. I think she deserves a break. I hope you read a little more about Mary Stuart & try to put yourself in her shoes.

Mary was only 6 days old when her father(James V of Scotland) died & she became Queen. At 5 years old she was sent to France. She married Francis the french Dauphin at aged 15, one year later she became Queen of France when Francis II became king, only to be widowed just over a year later. Returning to Scotland(a catholic in a protestant country) she eventually married Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley he turned out to have a drinking problem which allied to his mean & violent tendencies & jealousy lead him to butcher to death Mary's private secretary(David Rzzio) in front of Mary who was 7 months pregnant. Henry(who had alienated most of the Scots nobles) himself was murdered and suspicion centred on the Earl of Bothwell & Mary. The Earl is claimed to have raped & abducted her & forced her to marry him. Mary was imprisoned & made to abdicate. After a failed attempt to regain her throne she fled to England & sought sanctuary from Elizabeth I. Elizabeth refused to met her & she was imprisioned from 1568 until her death in 1587. It is true that she was involved in plots against Elizabeth but that was after many years of imprisionment and it was obvious that she would never be released. The catholic/protestant problems in Scotland & England were no help to Mary nor her upbringing in France where she was encouraged to claim the English throne.