mint_mark

Exactly. I remember getting plastic toys in cereal packets that exhibited better workmanship than today's circulation 5ps and 1ps... ...which means nobody will collect them... which means they'll be the valuable ones... oh no!

Slabbing as a way to protect a nice coin is one thing... the modern lacquering perhaps What irritates me is the attempt to measure and model the "population" for that coin. They try and generate statistics to indicate how many coins exist in which states of preservation and then use this to support order of magnitude higher prices for progressively more marginal degrees of "perfection". This seems unsustainable to me... as a buying collector it is what I think of a coin that matters. I have my own interpretation of perfection which is likely different from Mr PGCS or Ms ANACS. It doesn't really matter how scarce it is... for a high value you need scarcity *and* demand... and that demand means people who want that coin for what it is. As Jennings said, even though the grading is professional (which just means you pay for it!) it is still subjective. The coins get cracked out of the slabs and regraded and over the years the grade for the same coin goes up (grade inflation). Of course, this makes a mockery of the population statictics as coins get counted several times and newer slabs have higher grades than older slabs. I appreciate the idea of developing a less subjective and more systematic grading system and I appreciate the idea of wanting to protect coins and store them safely. I don't appreciate the attempt to commodotise the entire market for investment purposes and I hope it never happens here. Maybe in the future we will see anti-slbbing vigilantes... "run free all you Morgan dollars!"

Whether the obverse or reverse is "up" when you read the edge is random for genuine pound coins, so not an indication of forgery. However, the edge lettering can give other clues... I have seen fakes with the wrong edge inscription for the design, with very weak or crude letters, and with the cross delimiter not midway between the two ends of the inscription.

Wrong...i have a few blank cd's which only music can be stored on them, it says that specificly on the back of the case! It doesn't really matter... Oli may want to record his own music (that he composed and played) onto the CD, which is enough to establish that they have a non-infringing use.

Hi Chris, I think if you avoid presenting the sentiment as a personal opinion then you would surely reduce the risk of anyone taking offence to the extent of suing you... just my opinion, not legal advice of course. Maybe both points in this thread could be combined, something like Are you going to list all the variations?

The problem with BU is it can be spoiled so easily... you can call it BU but it can still be marred by bagmarks, uneven lustre and weak striking. No coin is perfect. I'm usually happy with a nice toned EF, although I collect better if I can. A dealer once said to me "I like a nice bit of dirt... it makes grading easier"... and I think I am starting to agree with him, for silver at least.

Well, I suppose the general problem is that everyone grades a little (or a lot!) differently. Often it depends on whether a coin is yours or not and whether you are buying or selling Personally, I would like a coin in F to still have all the major parts of the design and writing there with none of it worn so flat that it merges together. Chris' 1816 is starting to flatten near the king's eye and on the right hand side of the garter belt on the reverse. So AF is spot on, for me. Now, the 1817 is obviously better for wear. The laurel wreath and ear are still distict and everything is present on the reverse. But, the obverse has some scratches (in the field in front of the eye, below the eye and bottom of the neck), plus an edge bruise between dei and gratia. So, even if it's a nice F for wear these features detract a little and that's why it has been downgraded. Some people would take F with a scratch and call it AF, others would call it F with a scratch and reduce the price. It depends on whther you consider grading as an overall shorthand for the condition and attractiveness of a coin, or as a technical measure of only circulation wear. In the end, you have to decide. Personally I'd be happier saving up for a VF.

Hi everyone, First of all, sorry for being away for so long. It's been so busy at work that I have hardly had time or energy to even look at coins, let alone do sorting out and keeping up to date here. Still, I'm trying to find some more time now. Chris, thanks for not deleting me So anyway, I did a topic search because I thought someone must have mentioned it... but maybe not. Colin Cooke issued a challenge on his forum for anyone to find farthing varieties between 1919 and 1952. There's a £50 voucher on offer... I thought you'd all be looking! Anybody found anything? The challenge is at the end of this message... http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc...958;article=294 Mark

Well, I don't normally pay attention to all the minor varieties... but I suppose you would have to start with an open mind and look out for any differences at all. With the other bronze of that time we do have varieties... calm sea halfpenny, a penny with an extra dot somewhere and a double exergue line. George Vs recessed ear (don't know what that one looks like) and some different sized border teeth. So, anything can change between dies... you never know, someone might find a 1953 with a decent strike Maybe I'll have a look... always got lots of duplicate farthings.

Wow, I spend a little time away and all this happens! This used to be my reference book of choice when I started collecting coins... I'm looking at my 1987 edition now. Going back to Kuhli's original message, here are my thoughts. "So what do you think?" - I think Chris has a fantastic spirit of entrepreneurship! I think it's great that he has asked us to contribute. "What do you like about the book?" - I like the small size and the cheaper price. It's pocketable and good value. I like the "home-made" feel of the book... it makes me feel like it's not just propaganda for the big dealers. Other books can easily have a vested interest I think, but this one always seems more independent. I like the attempt to be comprehensive... mintage figures and lots of varieties listed. "What do you dislike?" - The layout is haphazard... there are often references to notes on other pages and the only reason the note is there is because there was a tiny gap to put it in. The pictures are sometimes indistinct and often it is not clear which coins go with which pictures. Here are the things I would change (I realise many have been mentioned already) The patterns and proofs get in the way of the main listings. I agree with the suggestion to move them to another section. Same with the novelty issues like silver piedforts and presentation wallets. I agree with the suggestion to have clearer captions on the pictures. For each major type there should be no ambiguity as to which obverse and which reverse design it has, and these should refer to an illustration somewhere. For obverses the pictures need not be repeated everywhere... maybe a "heads" reference page could be referred to? My copy already has useful pictures for identifying varieties... more of these! Things like modified effigy, low tide, mint marks, tridents. Stuff that you pick up over the years but you wish was explicitly shown somewhere! I know this one is tricky, but examples of obverses in different grades. Spinks has a go, but not with common designs. If there was something like this readily available then maybe it could help control the overgrading that goes on, and the number of collectors feeling disappointment later. Finally, and maybe a bit off the wall... how about an online edition? You could have a more ambitious layout, better quality and colour pictures. You could sell an annual subscription to gain access to the current prices. It could be done as a web site or as a pdf booklet... the same software could help to generate both. OK, that's enough for now...

The best thing about Margaret Thatcher was when they put that statue of her in the guildhall in London and that bloke went in and knocked the head off it Seriously... privatisation was a big mistake. The profit motive doesn't work for service industries and nobody seems to have come up with a decent service motive. These companies are run by people from business and they are used to being rewarded for making more profit... which is fine... but a profit making company does not necessarily provide the best levels of service. We need people in charge who are motivated to provide good service... their rewards need to be tied to the service they provide and not the profit they make. Some people say bring back National Service... well, if you take that idea and then think of the civil service as well as the armed forces... what do you think? Or maybe graduates can work for the civil service as a way of repaying their debt. All you young Tories... you don't remember what it was like! I hope you've started your pension saving already...

The Scottish Bill of Rights coin says "Claim of Rights", so that's easy to distinguish

The sovereign coin at 20 shillings replaced the guinea coin at 21 shillings, but guineas as a unit of counting money survived right up to decimalisation. My father tells me that professional people were paid in guineas and tradesmen were paid in pounds... so lawyers fees, for example, were always quoted in guineas even 150 years after the coin disappeared. The face value of a sovereign has been 20 shillings, or one pound, since 1816. They stopped circulating during the first world war and finally stopped being made in 1932 when our currency was taken off the gold standard. At this point you couldn't take your money to a bank and exchange it for gold any more. Our currency was still linked to gold for a few decades, but this finally stopped in the 60s or 70s I think (... when the inflation started... hmmm). Anyway, a sovereign used to actually be a pound... people before WW1 spent them as one pound, buying a lot more of course! That's why today the face value of a sovereign is still one pound even though its intrinsic value is higher (about 50 pounds).

Chris will say that in those days they used a set of his white gloves... three pairs, one for each metal

Don't go harping on about the Irish coins I like modern Netherlands coins... I only noticed recently that they have a 90 degree rotation between the sides... either that or Queen Beatrix is lying down for her portrait. Innovative I say! Anyway, better than the Belgian pre-Euro coins and that modern portrait on Swedish Krona... it looks like the King's head is exploding!

Ummm, I don't really understand why nobody else has said this yet, but I would be very wary of investing in collectable coins at all! As mentioned in other threads, the collectable value of a coin is purely down to supply and demand, and with the modern coins at the top of the thread there are almost always plenty to go around. As for the demand side... buying old coins is a luxury. When things get tight non-essential hobbies are the first thing to get cut from the budget... you have to be sure you won't need the money if things get tight for you, because that won't be a good time to sell. Of course we can all point to some coins and see how much they have risen, but most things rise in a rising market... the whole lot can go down too. The experts always suggest buying something that is worth the money to you... it's hard if you feel ripped off at selling time becuase you can't get what you hoped for. By all means invest in gold, in coin form. You can always make it a collection of, say, George V mint marks, or a complete set of portraits. You don't have to pay more than 15% over bullion to get lovely gEF or unc examples. These guys talk about the big ticket items... I've never seen so many wreath crowns in one place before Chris listed them on this website.... and they're all still there.

I can see why you think it might be less than VF... the hair is pretty flattened, but still separated from the ear. Reverse looks pretty good too... I would say VF. I just got my 1837 out to have a look... mine is a touch more worn than yours, more obviously AVF. BTW, it looks like they both have weak border beads by GU... yours look less present than mine. Never noticed that before, thanks

I don't think it's a proof... no mirror like fields, even allowing for some circulation (it's around EF) I'm hoping someone else will look at their 1935 shilling and tell us whether it's the same or not...

Supply and demand isn't it.... we started using copper for coins before we needed it for electrical wires and heating pipes. Similarly, they used to make fake sovereigns out of platinum because it was worth less... how things change!

It's 1935, not magnetic. You made me look in Spink now... there it says they changed to closer milling for sixpences in 1931, so it's likely it happened with shillings too isn't it? My 1933 and earlier of that type are all coarser milling. I reckon it's normal... right, everybody get your George V shillings out and have a look!

William's list has reminded me of a couple more (can't remember the dates, sorry) A recessed ear on a George V penny A George VI penny with a dot after penny And, my very own discovery (ie I noticed it myself), a late George V shilling with finer than normal graining (milling / reeding). Whether that's a variety or a mistake or nobody cares I don't know. I should think for something to be a variety, the coin in question has to exist both with and without... so a dark farthing is a variety for 1918, but not for 1917, because they are all dark. Similary the IND IMP and BRITT OMN legend changes are not varieties, but different types. Of course, varieties are distinct from errors... I imagine you have to find many coins with an identical difference for it to be a variety. I found a QEII shilling with no graining, but I reckon that would be an error...

OK... I've never seen a good one so I was guessing to an extent I looked at the reverse and noticed there were still plenty of beads on the crown, but maybe that is not diagnostic for these... He does always have a nice, happy smile... surely that's worth half a grade?

Well, yes, but what surprises me is that something like stainless steel, with all the technology that goes into it, specially treated to make it non-magnetic, and then plated or clad with another metal, actually works out cheaper! I think it's Finland who have decided to not bother making 1 and 2 cent coins... maybe we should do the same. Or just have aluminium... it can be done tastefully

That's very tasteful Master JMD... perhaps you could offer us some guidelines to do with signatures? Something about the size in relation to the length of the message being posted might be useful...

Hi Bob, I'm sure Syvester will be along later with his early milled expertise... in the mean time I would say comfortably VF. Krause is most useful to me is as a list of what exists... the values in there can vary both ways, especially for me in the UK. Are they values in the US coin market? Are the grades US grades or "local" grades for each area? What was the dollar exchange rate when the book came out? Some countries have wildly different values in different books... like Ireland. UK prices seem to be higher than Krause at the moment, but Chris should be able to give a dealer's perspective. Other coins are more common than the values would suggest. Sometimes Krause is a valuing nightmare... I have a really nice coin, full lustre and barely a trace of wear. Krause says XF 0.75 and UNC 25.00... what am I supposed to do? *sigh*