coinsandmedals

Nice coins, I particularly like the look of the 1909 S/S. I’ve tried my hand at a few coins with similar toning and haven’t been very successful.

@Coinbuf I will do my best to update the thread with new additions. I have a few other related pieces to post, but I haven’t photographed them yet. Time is always such a commodity. 

Thanks, @Just Bob and @James_OldeTowne! I appreciate the feedback. It’s nice to know others enjoyed reading my posts. 

Congratulations! 

8 minutes ago, RWB said:

Nice post.

I originally thought you were going to talk about a new girlfriend.

Thanks! Haha I am fairly confident my wife would have something to say about that. 

I have been a coin collector for most of my relatively short life (I am 28), and although my interests have changed over the years, I have remained mainly interested in coins. At times I have been intrigued by other related material (e.g., tokens and medals), but never enough to pursue them. I figured this would remain the case for the rest of my collecting years. Let it suffice to say that I was entirely incorrect!

My fascination with Matthew Boulton’s Soho Mint has led me down a path I never thought I would pursue, collecting medals. In talking with several other “Soho fanatics”, I quickly realized that I was selling my exploration of the Soho Mint short by only focusing on the coins. I set a few parameters for myself and let the hunt begin. I successfully added a few examples to my collection, and this post is in part to show them off. More importantly, I wanted to get some feedback on the blurb below, which I intend to add as a new section of my expanding custom set. The set provides the historical background to the Soho Mint but does so focusing on the coins. I made no mention of the medals, and this new blurb is an attempt to correct that omission. I have a lot to learn, and I know there are several experienced medal collectors, so if I have left something out, please let me know.

The “other” products of the Soho Mint

There is little doubt that Matthew Boulton’s crowning achievement for his Soho Mint was striking English regal copper coinage. After all, it was this ambition that gave rise to the mint and sealed its legacy. As crucial as this feat may be, it only addresses a portion of the Soho Mint’s history. Throughout the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd Soho Mints, a wide range of pieces were struck. These included coins, tokens, and medals. Within coin collecting circles, at least the ones that I have typically encountered in the past, the last two categories I just mentioned seem to be largely ignored in favor of the first. Although the tokens and medals are often discarded as “other” products, they nonetheless provide historical detail about the Soho Mint and, at the very least, complements the history surrounding the coinage. The following sections are designed to provide the basic historical background of the tokens and medals produced at the Soho Mint and provide insight into what role they played at Soho.

Medals:

Although I wish I could provide a comprehensive overview of the medals produced at the Soho Mint, the fact of the matter is that I just started collecting them. I have a ton to learn, but what I can share with you is how they broadly fit within the context of the Soho Mint products. In other words, in this section, I aim to explore how Matthew Boulton and his successors, approached the business of striking medals. To do so, I have opted to focus on the principal engraver of the Medals produced at Soho, Conrad Heinrich Küchler. Although the medals themselves are rather impressive, I have decided to forgo any discussion of them here in favor of providing more detailed information in the listing for each piece. The majority of the information I will present in this section can be traced back to work done by Pollard (1970). In his article, Pollard reproduced a fair amount of the correspondence between Boulton and Küchler, and it is this material that has proven so invaluable to the topic at hand. Küchler’s role in Soho history began in the early part of 1793, and during his 17-year career under the employment of Boulton, he produced a total of 33 medals.

In a letter dated March 13^th, 1793, Boulton sets the terms of Küchler’s employment, which provides us our first glimpse into how Boulton approached the medal business. In this letter, Boulton gives Küchler the option of being paid per die produced or an even portion of the profit gained from the sale of each medal Küchler engraved. Küchler agreed to the former, and he remained in London for two more years, engraving several dies for Boulton. How Küchler is compensated suggests, at least to me, that Boulton may have been less enthusiastic about producing medals than gaining coin contracts. Although his offer to Küchler is generous, it pales in comparison to the concessions Boulton made to bring Droz on board. It nearly seems as if Boulton secured the help of Küchler for no other reason than to have a second skilled engraver should anything happen to Ponthon. Most of this is speculation on my behalf, but there is more to the story. In the same letter, Boulton makes it clear that he has neither the time nor inclination to oversee “the minutiae of such a minute business as making medals”. To this effect, Boulton makes it evident that he views producing medals as a “lesser” task in comparison to striking coins.

It seems so uncharacteristic of the overly ambitious Matthew Boulton to essentially look down on the opportunity to produce yet another exceptional Soho product. So what is the deal here? To answer this question, we must first consider what was going at the Soho Mint at the time. As a recap, Boulton had endured great expense to build his mint, pay his employees (think of all the money he spent appeasing Droz), and secure material for an English coinage contract that he was convinced was right around the corner. Boulton was feeling the financial weight of operating a mint that was yet to produce a coinage contract that allowed him to recoup the money he invested. This could, in part, explain the terms Boulton offered to Küchler. Both options would ensure that Küchler had to produce something to get paid, which is a painful lesson he learned from Droz. The second option would have further reduced Boulton’s financial burden by offsetting some of the initial production costs to both men. Either way, the options presented to Küchler were likely due to the financial hardships Boulton was experiencing at the time. The excerpts from the archived correspondence between Küchler and Boulton provided by Pollard (1970) supports this notion. In the summer of 1795, Küchler moves to Birmingham and continues to work for Boulton while still petitioning for the money owed to him. This seems to escalate in a letter by Küchler dated January 21^st, 1796, which details the work he has done and the amount he has been paid. On this date, Küchler had completed over £250 worth of work but had barely received over £130 in compensation. The debt was eventually addressed, but it appears this was a reoccurring pattern that eventually changed how Küchler was compensated for his work.

Shortly after, the terms of Küchler’s employment were slightly altered in a way that seems to benefit both parties mutually. According to Pollard (1970), the new terms still afforded Küchler payment for each die he engraved, but it also provided him with a portion of the profits from the sale of specific medals. These terms, of course, came with some caveats. First, it distinguished between medals that were commissioned to be struck by but not sold by the Soho Mint (i.e., private accounts) and medals that were struck and subsequently sold by the Soho Mint (i.e., joint accounts). Under the new terms, Küchler would be compensated for the dies he produced for both classifications, but for the latter category, he would also be granted a portion of the profits. Second, the portion of profits was not guaranteed until the total expense of production was paid for. In fact, under the new terms, Küchler could end up owing Boulton money if the sales for the joint accounts were lackluster. The excerpt provided by Pollard (1970) provides a contemporary example of how this would work. This is an important fact to note because it underscores Boulton’s desire to protect himself, the Soho Mint, and Küchler.

Although Boulton was a generous man, he was also in the business to make money (no pun intended), so it makes sense that he would want to protect himself as much as possible. The new terms allowed him to do so but also allowed him to remain generous with Küchler should their work be successful. The new terms set forth suggest that perhaps the business of striking and selling medals was not as lucrative as Boulton would have liked. There is evidence to suggest that this may be the case, as a large number of medals were in surplus at the Soho Mint up until its final demise in 1850. There over 300 medals in the 1850 sale alone and at least another couple hundred sold in 1912 from the Matthew Piers Watt Boulton collection. This, of course, also does not include the numerous pieces that were part of the James Watt Jr. Collection or the Boulton family holdings (independent of the M. P. W. Boulton collection). All of this suggests, generally speaking, that there was no shortage of supply when it came to several of the medals produced. This is even more obvious when considering that some of these medals come up for sale very frequently. For example, the 1793 Execution of Louis XVI “final farewell” medal has had over a dozen auction appearances this year alone. This is notable because it was the first medal that Küchler produced for the Soho Mint (Pollard, 1970). The fact that Küchler renegotiated his terms of employment to a salaried position after a brief leave of absence in 1802 further suggests that the business of producing medals was not the most lucrative. This may seem like a familiar argument for those of you who read my previous post about the Soho Mint’s original packaging (i.e., the silver-lined brass shells). The information provided above is a more in-depth look at one of the main arguments of that post and provides additional support for my theory about their origin.

In summary, there is little doubt that the medals produced at the Soho Mint are an essential part of its history and, to some extent, account for its success. For instance, the medal celebrating the King’s recovery engraved by Droz undoubtedly left a lasting impression on the committee of coin. At the very least, this strong impression kept other competitors at bay, which allowed Boulton to secure a contract to strike regal copper. Oddly enough, there were times were the production of medal dies was the only project in progress at the mint, and without it, Boulton would have been paying his workers to do nothing essentially. Beyond these factors, I imagine the craftsmanship so boldly displayed on these pieces served to bolster further Matthew Boulton’s reputation of providing nothing short of the best. No matter how you choose to look at it, the fact that the medals played an integral part in the history of the Soho Mint is undeniable.

Wow, you like to make the most ridiculous claims on these boards. The coin you picture is most likely a Brazilian 100 Réis. 

@RWB Thank you for the link to the Boulton papers. It will take some time to decipher the handwriting, but I am very excited to see what new tidbits of information I can learn from the documents. 

For now, I plan to edit this article and send it to the Numismatist for their consideration.  

1 hour ago, kbbpll said:

Very interesting. Have you considered publishing this as an article somewhere? I remembered your thread on getting some of these encapsulated, here:

I had not given that much thought, to be honest. I am not even sure how to approach publishing in numismatics, but I will look into it.  

1 hour ago, RWB said:

Interesting. Have you gone through the Boulton correspondence in the National Archives near Philadelphia?

I have not, but that is something I would like to do. I would also love to spend some time going through the Soho papers, but they are not digitized, and the time and money needed to examine them in person are well beyond my means. 

I am a big fan of Matthew Boulton and the Soho Mint. I might even go as far as to say that he and, to a slightly lesser extent James Watt are my numismatic heroes. I am enamored with the scientific ingenuity, ambition, and artistic ability so boldly on display by the products of the Soho mint. In my opinion, Boulton’s application of steam-powered presses paved the path for an era of artistic expansion and increased quality of the numerous tokens, medals, and coins he produced. Take, for instance, his regal English copper. These high-quality coins were mass produced with a standard weight, diameter, and thickness. Boulton’s copper coinage was far superior in terms of both strike and design than the contemporary copper products of the Royal Mint. At the time, the Royal Mint rarely produced copper coinage, which in part was due to the slow production rate using hand-operated presses. When they did manage to produce copper coinage, they were of considerably lesser quality, often poorly struck, and widely counterfeited in comparison to the products of the Soho Mint. This is not to say that English copper produced by the Soho Mint was immune to the evils of counterfeiting. Still, the increased quality certainly made it more challenging to engage in such activity. Despite this, Boulton eventually provided something absent in England for centuries – a sufficient supply of high-quality regal copper coinage (Brooke, 1932).

The story of how Boulton found his way into the minting business is rather interesting, but that is a different story for another day. Instead, the point of this post is to walk you through the mystery surrounding the little metal shells that, at times, can be found alongside a coin, token, or medal produced at the Soho Mint. The title probably had some of you wondering what I meant by “silver-lined brass shells”. This term refers to a case made of two “shells” that fit firmly around the edge of the piece, rather it is a coin, token, or medal, and provided some protection. These little shells were made of brass, but the inner portion was silver lined hence the term “silver-lined brass shells”. Pieces that have retained their original shells are incredibly scarce, so much so that the vast majority of the collectors have never seen them beyond an auction catalog or on a website. The purpose and origin of the shells was a mystery to me for years, but not for lack of trying to locate information. There is just little to no reliable information openly available, at least none that I have found so far.

I found the lack of available information to be both frustrating and intriguing. The more I thought about it, the more questions that came to mind. Who created the shells? Why did they create them? Were they only used in particular circumstances? None of the numerous books I read about either Matthew Boulton or the Soho Mint provided any more detail. At best, they might include a picture of a beautiful coin with the caption “1806 Irish ½ Penny with original silver-lined brass shells” and nothing more. I was starved for more information but was at a loss as to where to find it. Given what I gathered over the years, I started to make a few assumptions to help address some of the questions I had. 

My first assumption was that Matthew Boulton came up with the idea for the shells. It is no secret that Matthew Boulton was a perfectionist and that his unwillingness to settle for anything less than perfect nearly cost him everything several times during the early days of his career (Doty, 1998; Selgin, 2011; Gale & Hist, 1966). Although I have not had the pleasure of personally inspecting the Soho papers, I have read excerpts provided by either Doty (1998) or, to a lesser degree Dickinson (1936), and they speak volumes to just how meticulous Boulton was. Even Fist and Hist (1966), who cover the Soho Manufactory more broadly, point to the same conclusion: Matthew Boulton was dedicated to providing only the best quality pieces regardless of what the item was. Could it be that simple? Did Matthew Boulton come up with the idea for the silver-lined brass shells? There seemed to be enough circumstantial evidence to suggest so, but I recently learned that this assumption might be incorrect.

I recently become acquainted with a very knowledgeable gentleman named William McKivor (A.K.A. Bill), who made me think critically about the first assumption I made. His experience is unique in that he purchased a bulk of the James Watt Jr. Collection and almost the entire Boutlon Family collection. This is significant because the majority of the pieces that have retained their shells were directly part of either the Boulton or Watt collections. Excluding the Boulton and Watt families, there is likely no one more familiar with the shells than Bill. He pointed out to me that most of the pieces he had handled with the shells were what Peck (1964) classified as “late Soho”. For those of you unfamiliar with this term, let me explain. Peck uses three classifications to broadly group the numerous English copper coins associated with the Soho Mint (i.e., early Soho, late Soho, and restrike). Early Soho is used to denote coins struck close to the date indicated on the coin; late Soho refers to coins struck at Soho at later date than indicated on the coin; restrike denotes coins struck in the mid-19th century by Taylor using salvaged Soho dies.

The fact that the coins typically contained in the shells are “late Soho” pieces provides important information, perhaps the shells too are a later Soho product. Boulton passed away on August 17th, 1809, at 81 years old. Peck makes no mention of when these “late Soho” pieces were struck, so it could have been well after Boulton’s death. Boulton’s son, Matthew Robinson Boulton (hereunto referred to as Matt), had been running the day to day operations of the Soho Mint for some time leading up to 1809. Perhaps maybe it was Matt and not Boulton who came up with the idea for the shells. This is a point that Bill made during one of our conversations. He also made another interesting point about James Watt Jr. and how he had become a partner with Matt shortly after Boulton’s passing. Watt Jr. would later become the Soho Mint master in 1815 and would secure a significant number of contracts for the Mint during his partnership with Matt (Doty, 1998). Watt Jr. may have come up with the idea for the shells, or as Bill suggested, it could have been Matt’s idea that Watt Jr. ran with. The story does not end here though. Bill also pointed out that neither of the Boulton’s were coin collectors, but Watt Jr. was. Watt Jr. likely understood the importance of preserving the specimens in his collection, and it seems likely that he would apply this same level of care to the pieces he produced at Soho. Perhaps Bill is correct, maybe Matt had the idea, and Watt Jr. implemented it. We may never truly know, but for now, it seems that my initial assumption about Boulton’s involvement is less likely. Boulton may not have had anything to with the silver-lined brass shells at all.

With a firmer grasp on the “who” question, we can now focus on the “why” question. I already hinted at it, but my second assumption was that the shells were mostly used to house and protect the specimens within the Watt Jr. and Boulton family collections. It makes sense that two families tied to the Soho Mint would want to save a few pieces for themselves. As Bill suggested, Watt Jr. likely took advantage of the fact that the Soho Mint was a private business and struck a few coins he needed for his collection. This would certainly help make sense of all the “late Soho” strikes that Peck (1964) details in his book. Perhaps maybe he then made the shells to keep the coins “as struck” for his collection. Like my first assumption, there is some evidence to support this conclusion. For starters, almost all of the coins that have come up for sale with the shells are traced back to either the Watt Jr. or Boulton family collections. This is also a point that Bill was able to reassure me on given his unique tie to both family collections. Bill’s reassurance would have been enough, but even the few publications with photographs of coins with their shells have provenance back to either of the original collections (Clay & Tungate, 2009; Tungate, 2011). I should, however, note that several coins exist with their shells that are not tied to either the James Watt Jr. or Boulton family collections. I have two such pieces in my collection (pictured above), suggesting that Matt or James Watt Jr. may have sold/gifted a small number of coins in their shells at some point. It could also be the case that the original owner purchased these two examples from the family in the mid-1930s, and the documentation was lost somewhere along the way. I cannot say with any degree of certainty, but for now, it seems as though the pieces I have in my collection likely did not originate from either the Watt Jr. or Boulton family collections. 

For the sake of clarity, Bill also mentioned that several coins from the Boulton collection did not have shells when he purchased them from the family. A potential example of this is a coin in my collection with a provenance to the Boulton family but without shells. Of course, it could also be the case that the shells were separated from the coin when it was sent in for grading and subsequently have been lost. This is also a mystery that may never be solved.

My second assumption seems to be partially correct as nearly all of the coins with their shells are tied back to the two families; however, this assumption is not correct whatsoever when considering the medals struck at Soho. I am not a medal collector, at least not in the way typically encountered within numismatic circles, so this point was lost to me until Bill pointed it out. Bill, however, is a seasoned medal collector, so this was a pattern that he discovered while handling the Boulton family collection. He suggested that perhaps the shells were a way of remarketing otherwise stale inventory. Now it may seem surprising, but not all of the medals produced at Soho were quick to sell. There is evidence to suggest that Boulton was not a massive fan of making medals. Küchler worked at the Soho Mint until death in 1810 and was primarily charged with die-cutting and designing, but he also was the leading artist for the Soho medals (Pollard, 1970). There is some interesting correspondence between Küchler and Boulton, which suggests that Küchler was much more interested in engraving dies for medals than anything else, but Boulton did not realize the same profit on medals as he did with his coinage contracts. Put simply, the medals were difficult to sell and took time away from Kuchler’s efforts from other projects. As noted by Pollard (1970), this is very apparent in the way Küchler was compensated for his work on the medals. He was paid a flat fee for engraving the dies; however, additional money was gained by sharing the profit of any medals that were sold. As Boulton expected, the medals were difficult to sell, and it appears a small quantity of each type remained in stock at Soho well into Matt and James Watt Jr.’s Tenure at the helm. Pictured below is an example in my collection of such a medal that has retained its original shells but has no direct link to either the James Watt Jr. or Boulton family collections.

So what might account for the handful of coins and medals with shells and no provenance to either the Boulton family or Watt Jr. collection? My third assumption attempted to account for the coins, but before my conversation with Bill, I was unaware that medals also existed with shells and no provenance. I had assumed that the coins might have been a form of advertisement for the Soho Mint and that perhaps the shells were included to further impress potential clients interested in a coining contract. After all, the shells would have done an excellent job keeping the delicate proofs “as struck”. This still may be true, but the point that Bill made about the medals might suggest another reason for the shells. He suggested that the shells may have been a way of remarketing otherwise stale inventory and thus making them easier to sell. This point seems logical, and there is some evidence to support it. In doing a little research, I found that the medals are encountered more frequently with shells and typically lack provenance to either collection. All of this suggests that maybe the shells were a way for Watt Jr. and Matt to reinvigorate interest in the leftover inventory.

Perhaps, in this case, the straight forward answer is the most likely to be true. Given the information I presented, it seems plausible that Matt and/or Watt Jr. are the ones we have to thank for the shells. In my opinion, it also seems plausible the shells were made for several reasons, to protect their collections, to secure future contracts, and to remarket otherwise stale inventory. On any note, I am thankful that Watt Jr. was a coin collector and took such pride in his collection. From what I have gathered, a good deal of his Soho coins came in shells. I find it awe inspiring that at one point each coin was encased within custom made shells and placed in a small piece of parchment with a description of the contents in his handwriting. The 1804 India Pice pictured below is a piece from my collection that has retained its shells and hand-inscribed parchment initially from the James Watt Jr. Collection.

This leads me to my most recent purchase, a 1799 proof farthing. This particular example has retained the original silver-lined brass shells and is remarkably well struck with very strong cameo contrast. As you may have already guessed, it is classified as a “late Soho” piece by Peck (1964), which hints at the possibility that James Watt Jr. had this piece struck to fill an empty hole in his collection and subsequently passed an example along to Matt. Or perhaps maybe, a small batch of these coins were struck as specimen examples to gain another coining contract for Soho. We may never truly know why this coin came about, but I take great pride in knowing that I can play some small part in preserving a piece of Soho history that has been passed down through the generations of the Boulton family.

Some of you may be wondering why the shells matter so much, and I suppose that is a fair question. The answer, I think, really depends on why you collect coins. I find myself captivated by the history of the pieces and how they relate to contemporary society. As Doty (1998) so eloquently explains, the Soho Mint marked a turning point in the industrialization of money that can still be felt over two centuries later. The silver-lined brass shells, as insignificant as they may be in the larger picture, were likely, in some part, used to preserve that legacy for future generations. I find it essential to preserve the coins, medals, and tokens of the Soho Mint alongside their “original packaging” as @Conder101 so thoughtfully put in one of my earlier posts about the same topic. To me, the little shells are a unique piece of Soho history that is all too often lost in the bigger picture.

Please feel free to share any Soho pieces in your collection that have retained their original shells!

References

Brooke, G. C. (1932). English Coins from the Seventh Century to the Present Day. London: Methien & Co. LTD.

Clay, R., & Tungate, S. (2009). Matthew Boulton and the Art of Making Money. Warwickshire: The Barber Institute of Fine Arts.

Dickerson, H. W. (1936). Matthew Boulton. Cambridge: Babcock and Wilcox, LTD. At the University Press.

Doty, R. (1998). The Soho Mint and the Industrialisation of Money. London: National Museum of American History Smithsonian Institution.

Gale, W. K. V., Hist, F. R. S. (1966). Boulton, Watt and the Soho Undertakings. Birmingham: Museum of Science and Industry.

Peck, C. W. (1964). English Copper, Tin, and Bronze Coins in the British Museum 1558-1958. London: The trustees of the British Museum.

Pollard, J. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-), 10, 259-318.

Selgin, G. (2011). Good Money Birmingham Button Makers, The Royal Mint, and the Beginnings of Modern Coinage, 1775-1821. Oakland, California: The Independent Institute.

Tungate, S. (2011) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.

Hmmm...that is odd. If I had to guess, the seller might have edited the image of the slab to remove the cert number. Although it seems silly to go through the effort to do so if you plan to leave the barcode as is. If you check out the font used in the picture for that specific area, it does not match the numerical font used by NGC. Do the seller's photos of the coin match the images that come up with the cert verification?

In short, yes, they did. If you post good quality closeup pictures of the obverse and reverse, we may be able to help you. 

I agree it is an extremely high asking price. I imagine their selling point is that it is “unique” whereas the Edward VIII patterns are not. I still do not think it justifies the extra juice. Other “unique” British pieces such as the 1808 Soho Penny only fetched £75,000 last year. If I had this kind of money to throw around, I would be more open to buying the 1808 Penny and dispersing the extra £100,000 to acquire other more exciting pieces. 

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

What is that? Just something to go into their museum to say "Hey, we made this."?

You’ve pretty much nailed it. Proofs of record are essentially coins struck to fulfill the needs of the mint. This was primarily done to archive the products produced. With the special handling of proof coins, it makes sense to strike a few to showcase your best work. Each mint location kept their own archives and would often send examples out to museums to be archived as well. These were not meant to satisfy collectors' needs and should not have found their way into private hands. They do tell an interesting story if you can afford to collect them. The seller is currently asking £175,000 for this coin. 

NGC used to add a “W” after the grade to designate a pure white coin (i.e., no toning). They discontinued this practice years ago. 

I received mine last week as well, and I am very impressed with the quality. The token of acknowledgment is very much appreciated and it makes a wonderful addition to my bookcase! 

Welcome to the forum! I think the toning could add a small premium (i.e., this coin selling for $100 as opposed to $35). One would only need to check completed eBay listings to confirm this. Looking over Heritage records, I found a 1958-D example with superior toning graded MS-68 (the highest grade achieved with only six at NGC) sold for $3737.50 with the BP. This coin likely caught the attention of color seekers and registry competitors because it is a top pop, which drove the price up. Your coin is pretty average in so far as grade and therefore would likely only capture the attention of color seekers. Your coin is attractive, but the $7,729.58 buy it now price you have this listed for is obnoxiously optimistic to put it politely. 

@Just Bob I didn’t have a chance to hunt down the main culprit but here are two sellers from Albania who seem to specialize in counterfeit world coins. The usernames are followed by an item number to make it easier for you to find them. 

meteovlora: 324062605810

numisvlora: 274019151975

BUMP- Less than 24 hours left and there are some really amazing deals to be had. 

I would be willing to bet these are on eBay. There are a few sellers out of Russia that have hundreds of counterfeits listed. 

This is also a counterfeit. Beyond the general discrepancies in the design, the ”teeth” on the border are incorrect. If you can, I would request a refund. Also, you may want to pick up a copy of Spink (Coins of England & The United Kingdom: ISBN: 978-1-907427-63-3) before you buy anything else. 

This is a counterfeit. The overall look is just incorrect, and the hair detail is laughable in comparison to a genuine example. If you can, I would request a refund. 

BUMP

There are some real bargains to be had so far! Everything ends on Sunday.