mint_mark

OK, in Coin yearbook's glossary it says Lustre The sheen or bloom on the surface of an uncirculated coin resulting from the centrifugal flow of metal caused by striking. which I must say is a detail I hadn't appreciated.

Hi John, upside down is usual for those crowns. If you have to turn it top to bottom to see the other side correctly then that is called "coin" rotation (or up-down) and if you have to turn it left to right then that is called "medal" rotation (imagine a medal suspended from the top). Mostly some countries do it one way and some do it the other but occasionally they change their minds and sometimes you can get both orientations in one issue of coins, but it's only scarce or valuable if they were all supposed to be the same and a few were done the other way by mistake.

Isn't it difficult to describe? I think lustre has several properties and it depends on they way the coins are made too. Today's new coins are much more shiny (mirror-like, reflective) than they used to be, which I think must be due to the dies that they are struck from being more highly polished. Both shiny coins and matt coins can have lustre. So lustre isn't shininess... it's more of a glint or sparkle when you tilt the coin and look at the way the light is reflected. Also it should be uniform across the coin. Anything that is only on the high points or only in the large areas of the fields suggests polishing. Lustre isn't brightness either... chemicals can brighten up a coin but the result looks flat and there might still be wear. Lustre can survive some circulation, so you get EF coins with lustre in the protected areas of the design (usually between the letters of the legends). After time a patina can start to form (due to atmospheric conditions) over the lustre, leaving it a little subdued (more matt, less glinty) but still very attractive. Lustre can easily be spoiled by a fingerprint or a drop of water, especially with copper and bronze coins. A coin with full uniform lustre usually commands a price premium (unless it's a 1967 penny ), but the most important thing I ever learned is that full lustre still doesn't imply a perfect coin... check for bagmarks (digs, scratches and edge knocks) and weakly struck areas of the design.

I think I was the only one to mention a denomination... in those days an escudo was obviously a lot of money! The coins in my book go up to 8 escudos... and that is a 27g gold coin containing over three quarters of an ounce of pure gold! Over three sovereigns worth... The designs on the lower denominations seem to have the shield without the surrounding chain, and they're silver. It could be that there are imitations around, like the brass spade guineas... I don't know. One way to see might be if Bill could weigh the coin. Got any accurate scales?

OK Bill, my book doesn't go back to 1704, but in 1804 for Spain the coins read Carol . IIII . D . G . HISP . ET . IND . R . (obverse, head side) AUSPICE . DEO . IN . UTROQ . FELIX . (reverse, tails side) which is close enough, allowing for some unclear lettering and changes in 100 years. Good guess Oli!! As for denomination, my book has 2 escudos at 23mm and 1/2 escudo at 15mm but no picture of a 1 escudo! So, it could be a 1 escudo or it could be a 1/2 escudo and they were bigger 100 years before. The design with the crown and chain surrounding the shield is the same though. Now, we need someone with the proper book and willing to look up Spain 1704...

Well, I did a web search and this one came top of the list... it has an explanation of what it does. http://www.technika.com/Sper/s100005.htm So, very high frequency vibrations caused by exploding bubbles of all things! I imagine the vibrations literally "shake" the dirt from the object, which suggests that the object has to be much more solid than the dirt. A metal coin is (hopefully) pretty solid, so this explains how such a cleaner can remove the patina from a coin... after all, a patina is just a smooth layer of accumulated dirt I suppose. Learn something new every day...

I've only read about it and not tried it... I seem to remember the conclusion being that it can remove the dirt from coins but it can also remove any patina too. Here's a good link which always makes me think twice before trying anything!! http://www.ancient-times.com/info/cleaning.html

Cor, that is specialist... I don't think I could do that. You make it sound like a game a top trumps I mean, you actually have a chance of your collection becoming complete! I collect coins intended for circulation, so everything except commemoratives, proofs, precious metal strikes, maundy etc... from all around the world but I pay more attention to some geographical areas than others. More interested in types than dates, I like the coins to tell a story. Of course, I eventually do complete small series of coins... if I had to pick one British series to collect it would be the dark farthings 1897-1918. They look gorgeous and span three reigns. Only a couple of gaps to fill and a few that could be upgraded!

Just for my own peace of mind, I have found the bit I was thinking of! At the end of copper sections, Spink says "Copper coins graded in this catalogue as UNC have full mint lustre". It doesn't say the same for bronze though... maybe it is just assumed? Anyway, it goes part way to explain why their prices are higher than everyone elses It gets really subjective for the higher grades... one person's attractive toning is another person's ugly blemish...

In my copy of Spink, 2001, in the section about grading milled coins (about 2/3 of the way through) it says for UNC ... "retaining full lustre or brilliance"... and as you say there is no BU. I think for Spink, UNC implies BU and I'm sure there is an explicit note to this effect somewhere in the book, but I can't find it... or maybe it was another book!

Well, Chris' number 14 (Edinburgh 1791) is currently ebay auction 3903440563... similar grade too I imagine.

Sylvester you're right, gold probably is the most environmentally friendly I think we've been making most "coin metals" since the iron age (except for aluminium and steel), but most need a lot of processing before you get to make the coins, and of course gold is least destructive after it it made. Slightly related... on the radio the other day (Material World, Radio 4) they said you can get 7 megawatts from a landfill site full of unsorted rubbish. The expert said if it was sorted appropriately that figure would be higher. All the putrescible (new word!) waste generates methane. Apparently you can kick start a new landfill site by adding material from an older one and introducing a bit of sewage :/

The penny you found is an example of the earlier type of penny... before 1860 the pennies were larger, made of copper and show the young head portrait of Victoria (hair up with ribbons, truncated neck). After 1860 the pennies were smaller, made of bronze and show the bun head portrait (hair in a bun with laurel wreath, shoulders and dress). The right hand coin in your picture is an even later design... the size and metal didn't change but it has the old head portrait of Victoria (wearing a veil and tiara) and Britannia has an oval shield instead of a round shield. So basically you have a new type for your collection. Fanstastic... I'm really happy when I get a new type Oh yeah, bit of icing on the cake... my book says 1851 is one of the scarcer dates in the series! Well done!

Looks like the Greek letter Pi to me... or it would from the other side. Pi is the symbol for the mathematical constant of course, but it probably means something else here... I also thought it might be a symbol for one of the signs of the Zodiac, but it doesn't look like any of those.

Which do you think are the greenest coins? And no, I'm not talking verdigris I mean, which coins use least energy to make, leave fewest nasty chemicals in the ground or water and take the least amount of energy to recycle? Anybody know? After several new recycling initiatives by my city council I still have nowhere to recycle old batteries or old carrier bags. And apparently you're not supposed to throw away low energy light bulbs... nasty stuff inside :/

That's basically it. What I forgot to say before was that I could recognise many of the designs in your descriptions just from what I have picked up from David Stuart's ebay listings over a couple of years. For example, your number 4 is the arms and motto of Liverpool (a cormorant with seaweed in its beak). I bought one of these for a friend once. The milled edge might be a variety... usually it is inscribed with "payable at... somewhere I can't remember". Your number 7 is a common type, but the Anglesey mines issued the first Conder tokens that kicked the whole thing off. Whether this is that first type or not I don't know... they issued more later. 1788 is early... Conder btw was a contemporary collector of these and wrote the first reference book... but he also issued his own tokens too... there's one for sale on that site. Number 10 I recognise... I think he's a cotton porter. Nos 14 and 15 is in fact supposed to be St Andrew on his cross! This one also comes with a Neptune sea god reverse. Anyway, that's just from memory... if you watch the site and listings enough you should see them all go past in due course! I look forward to the tokens section on predecimal.com!

George and the dragon is a classic design, but I have a soft spot for heraldry. There are so many coats of arms on British coins... but I have always thought the 1937 crown is very impressive.

For me, Wyon's young head portrait of Victoria is the last word!! Simple, modest, elegant, unassuming.... it's just practically purfect. Consider a young head penny... now consider a young head Jersey 1/13th shilling. She has a patterned ribbon in her hair instead of a plain one... just that extra fussy detail spoils it for me! There's a web site out there all about Wyon... apparently Victoria herself said to him "You always represent me favourably." What a compliment!

Chris, When I want to find out about Conders I go to http://www.abccoinsandtokens.com/ (click on Coin Index) I know it's another dealer, but he takes good pictures and includes lots of extra information in the descriptions. I have learned loads just by looking at his ebay aucitons. Apologies if it's bad taste to refer to a competitor, but it is a good reference source and should be a pricing guide for you too! Hope it helps...

Yeah Chris... that should go down a treat in Germany :/

what variations do you have in mind Sylvester? ... like we've got nothing better to do than stare at loads of identical coins looking for minute differences all evening!! Oh, wait a minute... we love doing that don't we?

This looks like an interesting site... http://www.bmag.org.uk/soho_house/

A bit more info on modern coins from sets versus circulating coins... this extract is quoted from Coin Yearbook 2004, page 219... I goes on to explain that in this context Unc and BU refer to an advertising description or production standard rather than the grade of a coin... very confusing!! Anyway, it answers my earlier questions... yes, the coins in sets are now specially made and yes, apparently you can tell the difference. They also mention the 1992 20p "Enhanced effigy"... anyone seen this? Is it obvious?

I have considered it, but I bought it from Amazon about two years ago and didn't discover the fault for ages. The hassle and postage involved in getting it exchanged would be more than the thing is worth to me! However, noramlly I would complain... in fact the reason I was in the bookshop at the weekend was to look for a non-grubby copy of Spinks! Might as well wait for 2005 edition of that now though...

Well, they were busy moving the mint from London to Wales weren't they. I wonder if it's true that all the new coins were made in Wales and all the old coins were made in London? Just curious really...