Leaderboard

My take on this is that removal of material, eg mud, grease, wax or varnish which is not integral with the structure of the coin should be considered as different from anything that affects the coin itself, ie patina, surface metal, integrated corrosion products. The former can usually be removed by judicious use of water, solvents, soft brush or cocktail stick and the actual coin will be unchanged, and more stable in the future. This could be seen as conservation, others might say surface cleaning. I consider this acceptable, sometime essential to the prevention of future corrosion. The latter will materially alter the appearance of the coin itself by chemical action or physical abrasion, and involves removal of some integral part of the coin. This could be seen as cleaning, and is generally undesirable. That is not to say that judicious removal of active corrosion eg bronze disease is not essential, otherwise the coin will simply not be around for future generations to enjoy. The removal of local corrosion in a controlled fashion while not treating the coin as a whole could be considered conservation. I find it unhelpful to take a dogmatic negative view with regard to conservation (as opposed to cleaning), as by definition conservation should enhance the longevity and survivability and ideally preserve as much as possible the original state of the coin. ‘Cleaning’ in most collectors minds is conditioned by images of wire wool and brasso, silver dip or a buff with a soft cloth, and understandably carries negative vibes. Conservation is not the same. Neither will be required for most collector coins, though most will already have had the soap and water treatment in the past and we are none the wiser. Jerry

Issued between 1878-1881, the reverse reads: G.Y.L.ET.F.G.REX.S.UF.ST.DST.M. ET 1701 G (eorge) Y (orke) L (liffe) AND F (rederick) G (ardner) [ REX] SU F (folk) ST D (ie) S (inkers) T (ool) M (akers) AND 1701 George Yorke Lliffe AND Frederick Gardner Diesinkers etc 96 Suffolk Street Birmingham Available as a Guinea or half guinea, 1790 & 1791 can also be found.

I was speaking with an 88 year old coin dealer earlier today and the subject of 1951 crowns was discussed. This dealer told me that he got married during the Festival of Britain celebrations in London. He explained to me the reasons for the two different colour boxes that the Crowns were issued in, Green & Magenta. The Green boxes were sold only in the Festival Hall, The Magenta boxes were sold in the Festival Pleasure Gardens on the opposite bank of the Thames.

If a coin has been 'improved' by a careful act of cleaning, then I see nothing wrong with that, in fact I would applaud it. There are a mix of positive actions, such as gentle washing, extremely brief dipping to remove ugly tarnish, the application of surgical spirit to remove surface grime, acetone, or the long term soaking in olive oil to remove corrosion, etc. They are all cleaning, but can be done with care and attention. However, if a coin LOOKS cleaned - polished, unnaturally toned by dipping, or covered with hairlines - then that's a Bad Thing and will negatively affect the coin's value.

The reverse is (more or less) that of a late C18 guinea or half, and could not be 1701 , which is why I queried 1791 as the 9 and 0 are not dissimilar overall outline. But a better quality gaming token remains most likely, I think you would get what is shown. Jerry

Well it's definitely 1701. I can't help thinking that both the obverse and reverse look ok. Which would mean they're images from different coins. I suspect you'd be sent a gaming token that doesn't closely resemble either.

I don't know, I choose not to can't afford to collect 'em. But the monarch doesn't match the year...

As Zookeeperz will know, I frequently disagree with the varieties proposed, but this one looks good even to me. Nice spot, look forward to your own photos. Jerry

Chichester was only operating for around a year 1205/06. That's why coins of that mint are rare.

i have it down as john, 6b, confused by the mint moneyer, the mint starts with c, chichester ? thanks in advance

Newbie Birmingham Conder token with an early Monty Python shield

The cynic in me would say it's nothing whatsoever to do with keeping historical items in their own country, but seeing the opportunity to generate some cash. If they really wanted to keep it, you wouldn't be able to buy it (legitimately).

Pretty little farthing newbie courtesy of Colin Goode (aboutfarthings)

Newbie from @Peter's neck of the woods (Ipswich):

Red leatherette box and the cardboard original box plus COA Mint...1p 2p 5p 10p 20p 50p £1 and 2x £2 £15 including postage.