ccg

Excellent - thank for confirming the weight and origin. In turn, I'll confirm that they do appear, in my opinion, to be Type I and Type II blanks. (before and after rimming, but before striking) A neat pair to have together. Value is hard to assess since in many countries, there are relatively few collectors for error coins. If I saw them at a coin show and I hadn't already bought something else I liked, I might consider them at about $100 or so for a trio (the two errors plus a regular one) even though they don't exactly fit in with what I normally collect. Of course, what they're worth to me may not be the same as what they're worth to someone else, which could be more or less. As noted, this is not particularly my area of expertise.

I think that's the first time I've seen non-latin characters on a PCGS slab

Thanks for sharing! :-)

Hello and welcome! It does look a bit funny there, though I'm not quite sure if I'd call it a "6". Do you have access to a copy of the relevant edition of the Zoell variety catalogues?

It's a bit hard to tell from the pictures presented alone, but these could be Type I and Type II blank planchets. Additional photos and weights (to the 0.1g) would be helpful in attempting to make a further determination. :-)

Welcome! As Art noted, pictures would greatly assist us with helping you

I'd say extremely confident. *Slightly* (e.g. 1mm or so) oversize and undersized notes are not much of a concern since they do happen. Since a note can easily be cut / trimmed to make it undersize at any point in time after printing, it could just as easily be a trimmed note. In general, though, I find that inflationary era notes generally due to their nature (need to have lots of new notes put into circulation) tend to have lower QC and larger variations in shades, etc.

That would be a clipped planchet. A chopped quarter would be something very different indeed.

I regret I cannot offer any advice, though it is quite nice

Welcome. As with Art, I am likewise not familiar with it and cannot offer an opinion as such.

Hurray!

I'll join the filled crowd

I can't comment on the first question, but on the second question - the lines on this piece are from cleaning, though it seems light enough that it's not too bad. I would generally avoid any piece where you are unable to fully examine it (in this case, the edge), especially for more expensive pieces.

Other things to consider for notes in general besides those four already noted: 5. paper type 6. embedded metal strips 7. Planchettes and fibers 8. Ink type 9. Printing type 10. Serial number font / style in regards to TPG companies, the larger TPGs have specialists on their rosters who perform the evaluations, though most generalists can get a pretty good feel for things. Similarly, anyone working in a bank cage quickly learns to recognize various types of currencies, traveller's cheques, banker's checks/drafts and the multitudes of personal and commercial checks from around the world that it can become almost second nature, even when encountering an item they haven't seen before.

Interesting die cracks on the obverse. A lot hinges on the lusture and the braid details, which as tdp noted is difficult to assess from the photo / scan provided. It does appear to be very heavily cleaned, in any case.

The details on your piece are rather soft - it looks like it may be a cast copy in pewter or other white metal.

A search of recent ebay auctions shows two sets with opening bids of $4750 and $4895, neither of which sold (no bids), suggesting that the value is less than $4750, though the market for the larger quintuple sovereign is always tough.

Welcome!

Thanks for sharing! :-)

Depending on the size it could be a sovereign or a half sovereign. However, the soft reverse details suggests that this may be a copy. (There were full weight copies in gold made in the Middle East for use in the bullion market there until the Royal Mint started striking sovereigns again in 1957)

Welcome! Unfortunately this is not a mint error. It's a regular loonie, where sometime after leaving the mint, someone had machined it. (i.e. mechanically ground off a portion of the coin)

Modern counterfeit. Style and metal are incorrect.

The first one is a Roman piece c. 320 AD or so, depicting someone from the Constantinian dynasty and a "campgate" If you have a closer direct picture of the area below the campgate, I can probably try to identify the mint.

You said it. Epic! on great work!

Very intriguing! on the completion