Leaderboard

Link to the Colin Cooke page if anyone's interested: https://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/halfcrowns/1952.html

I think, as has been hinted at in this post, that many place just too much on the slab grade. HOWEVER, when it comes time to sell (if and when that time comes) that the number is absolutely huge. That is really a shame but no matter how much we ramp and rave, this is just the new reality when it comes to pounds or dollars fetched. The other part of it is the "subjectivity" of grading which in itself has so many different facets ranging from accuracy or lack thereof to the questions behind influence of submitters to the grading process itself; how dare we question this. But as I see it, three positives in slabbing are: 1 - protecting the coin 2 - helping in resale value for marquee coins 3 - providing some rationalization in grading Overall back to the OP point (yet again): there are definitely price rises in coins like the Una and the Lion, Gothic Crown, etc. If you look at the Heritage ANA sale coming up next month, there are two Unas and more Gothic than I can count with huge estimates. On the other hand, true rarities like the sixpences of 1854 or the 1893 Jub head or the 1850 shilling or the 1854 & 1863 florins or the currency 1839 2/6 are not to be seen. These coins relatively languish and IMHO do not seem to have huge rise in value. And let's not go there with other coins that were once thought a little special like the 1932 florin, etc.

Yes - for a long time they seemed to slab many maundy threepences as rare currency strikes - and the market seemed to fall for it. NGC at least seems to have tightened up - I wonder if the market will too. Generally though, I see the opposite problem: the TPG are overly conservative and fail to capture certain proofs and variations in British coins. Perhaps if it is not obvious to them (based on a quick flick through the main reference works) they shy away. A confidence problem? Or it just does not pay for them to make the effort? This creates opportunities for the collector to arbitrage their mistakes.

I'd agree with all of the above. With regard to the influence of submitters, I'd venture to say that because NGC is an American company, generally (one would assume) employing mostly American staff, they are not so well up on English and other foreign coins, just as we would not be especially familiar with American coins. Hence they can probably get away with suggesting that a well preserved and sharply struck currency coin is a proof, or that a common coin is a rare variety etc.

What it does show is how its often hard to determin a coin variety / type from a picture ,sellers pictures which were lightened show the detail much better. The E in Penny is complete even though it appears not to be on my picture.

An examination of the collection at the British Museum revealed one very clear example of "onc": the 1857. This is catalogued as "possibly a proof ? according to D. Fealy" and it undoubtedly has proof-like fields and is in FDC condition. I regard this as further evidence in favour of an error in die preparation (and against the theory of simple die-fill - proofs are not made from worn dies...). As always, any thoughts welcome - and does anyone know anything about "D. Fealy"? Postscript: it is perhaps natural that the opportunity to handle and examine such splendid coins in museum collections initially evokes feelings of envy in the collector. But it soon gives way to the more rational analysis that such specimens are really best off in a public collection that is accessible to all - and not, thank goodness, encapsulated in plastic.

Yes, I had put a starter bid on it…..always annoyed to receive a bid cancellation, but not too worried as I have two better. I did check carefully that it wasn’t obverse 3 though, that would have upset me! Jerry

Is there a link? I don't know your Ebay ID and I am struggling to find what you have listed. Thanks

No worries Mike. I had already started on 1858, whilst counting the large roses. Year 1 for 1858's has just over 400 coins, of which about 10% are No WW, and of those 2 are missing serifs. I haven't counted the other 4 years yet. I believe the missing serifs on the first I of BRITANNIAR only occurs when paired with a single obverse 'No WW' die (most examples have the same flaw after T of GRATIA). Several years ago, I tested several B26a coins, which I had accumulated over the years, against the wording found on Page 108 of Bramah, as follows:- "Another prolific source of minor variation is provided by the colons on the rev. Probably every die creates a colon variant and the only really satisfactory way of describing the position identifiably is by measurement and by the rather delicate indication afforded by projecting the line of each colon and so cutting the inscription opposite". Below is a picture of one of my B26a coins, with the projected lines as per Bramah. I tried to find the best pixel to identify the centre of each colon dot, and then drew a straight line through these centres to the opposite side of the coin. The teeth where the projected lines meet the opposite side are numbered (larger figures). Numbering starts from the tooth where the stem of the rose hits the border, and then works clockwise. The smaller numbers measure the distance between each pair of colon dots. I found that all my pieces had very similar sets of numbers i.e. within a range of 3 border beads, so I think Bramah's theory does work quite well at identifying individual reverse dies.....if one has the time to do this!!! Just thought that may be of some interest; I have reduced image size to meet the predecimal limit.

Screenshot of image.