TomGoodheart

Um .. that seems to be a sixpence of 1572. Whether it's a contemporary fake isn't too clear. Certainly some Charles I fakes are very good, suggesting that some (?ex) mint workers turned their hand to counterfeiting. If it wasn't for the fact that that issue (fourth) was in decent silver I'd say it has the look of a 'base' issue coin. Anyone else any strong feelings about it?

Haven't a clue. But this one looks early milled, not hammered. Appears to be a coin of Cleve; an important dutchy in medieval Germany. Possibly a stuber. See here: 1 Stüber 1670, Cleve And no, I don't know anything about them. I just googled the legend!

I picked up what I presume is the 'presentation' Brunel bridge coin in change. The bridge part on the reverse and Queen's head on obverse are frosted which I don't think is the case for 'regular' issue coins. I wonder if someone wasn't desperate for a Kitkat one day and cracked open a RM set for the change? I suspect a few coins get into circulation that way. Edit. Possibly it's a coin from the proof set. Odd someone would split a set. But clearly it's been in circulation.

I'm not sure I've ever had a bargain. But I'm reasonably pleased with this. A shilling of Charles I of course. Sharp D1/1. Spink 2789. This portcullis mint mark only normally occurs with the later busts of this group (D3(rare), D4, D5 and D6). I only know of one other example of a D1 with this mark and none were listed by Brooker or Sharp. D1/1 coins are quite tricky to find anyway, so I was happy enough to pay £50 for it.

I collect from change too. Not just £2s. Though I have to say that for those I tend to concentrate on the different designs rather than just aiming for a year run. I don't keep a specific record of what I have really, just when I receive a coin in decent condition I slip it into an envelope (I have a load of those little white ones from Colin Cooke). When I get home I compare to what I already have and if it's nicer or I don't have an example I add it. If it's a duplicate or the one I have already is better it goes back into circulation. It's easy, 'costs' only the face value of the coin and it's a traditional method of collecting. All good fun!

Browsing through my records earlier I came across these three coins struck from the same dies and was interested to see the differences in price. I bought mine (bottom) in 2005. The middle one was sold in 2007 and the top one 2008. I'm not sure what point I'm making here. I just found it interesting!

Yes, it's definitely the nicer coin. But to be honest I would struggle to persuade myself that the improvement on my current example is really worth the difference in price to me. Since it wasn't difficult to find these three coins once I started looking, I might just see if I can find a few more and keep a track of them. It must have been a much used die combination or possibly a few examples were found in a hoard; my records don't show that. What a shame nobody has come up with a time machine. What fun it would be to drop into the mint and pick out the best example of a coin to compare all the others to. That's what's often missing I find in hammered coins; a really decent example I can find pictures of to use as a benchmark.

My coin 'in the hand' Shows how a photo can make a difference.

I'm not sure about peterrose's nail polish remover. Toned CuNi coins aren't really my thing and I don't know if it would work on silver. I was told a few 'theories' about toning; from it being due to the effect of cigar smoke as gentlemen passed their collections around for their peers to admire after dinner, to the small amount of sulphur in old manila envelopes the coins used to be stored in. I was taught a technique using an egg. It works but you risk getting a slightly brownish grey at the light end to some of that rather artifical rainbow colouring the Americans seem keen on if you overdo it. I've not found a way to replicate that nice steel grey silver seems to go naturally and have given up fussing over the things. Yes, I have a couple of coins from hoards that have been cleaned and are still bright and I'd like to tone them down a bit. But until I find a more realistic way to do it I'm going to try to just put up with it. Some toning is nice. But when it screams artificial! I'm not so sure.

While I admire your initiative Mikey, I'm not certain this is the best way to go about finding employment. Most of us members come here just to discuss our interests and to socialise. Yes, there are some members who sell coins as well as collect. And they often have their own website. But I'm not entirely clear how you might see this tie in with your skills. Are you offering to write articles about coins? In which case it might help if you tell us more about your hobby. What interests you and what do you know about? What do you collect? Or do you have web skills? Can you design a website for someone? What was you employment before? These are the things that might help someone here think 'Oh, I could use a bloke who can do that!' Maybe. Oh, and good luck.

Mmm ... I'm afraid the photos don't do your coin justice. Could you try again to get a sharper image? And .. just checking .. it does say 1998, not 1989 (or 1990), yes? And when you say 'big', that means 24.5mm? Thanks!

Well, if it is genuine, I agree; it's a tremendous coin! No obvious bag knocks and pretty much as it would have been fresh from the mint.

Boom boom!

Hmmm ... this is the problems with buying on the basis of a photo. As we all know, changing the angle of the light can make a significant difference to a coin's appearance. And there's just nothing like seeing something 'in the hand'. But as for this coin, well, I'm no expert on such coins and their 'mint' appearance. My only concern is the rim. Particularly near VICTORIA D: G: when you view the enlarged pic. See how there's a raised edge that catches the light? It reminds me of one of the signs I use to identify good quality counterfeit £1 coins. Odd rims and an unusual appearance to the metal which I can best describe as 'glittery'. Rather like when you mix up metallic paint (or nail polish), the coins seem to have a lustre made up of particles. Difficult to describe but maybe you can see it in this pic. The coin itself is not (I believe) 'grainy; it's a characteristic of the metal alloy it's made from. Of course, this could just be a very nice genuine coin!

Well, you nearly scared me off. Well! After a telling off like that I definitely need to lie down in a darkened room with a medicinal bottle of whiskey. And perhaps a nurse too. Just in case I take a funny turn.

Did we scare him off?

The difficulty with advising you is that the value of a coin depends almost entirely on its condition. Yes, there are rarities, but let's for the minute assume that you don't have any of those and look at what state these coins are in. It would help if you could post a photo of a couple. A digital camera or a flatbed scanner should give us a better idea. The other thing that might help is an idea of where the coins came from. There are many people, like my Dad, who pick up 'nice' coins from their change or travels and make a collection of them. Unfortunately for the most part these collections have minimal value. Certainly the recent stuff (from 1970 on) will probably have little value unless in excellent condition. Even the older coins (1920s and before) will need to be in decent nick. Here for example is an 1862 halfpenny that sold on eBay for £28 Vicky 1 And here, one that didn't sell for £2.99 (probably because it looks like someone cleaned it with brasso! NEVER clean coins!) Vicky 2 If your coins all resemble the first one, maybe they will be worth valuing and insuring.

Even in hammered coins it's not clear cut I'm afraid. I was taught there are firstly, coin types. These are where the bust design or reverse changes significantly. You just can't mistake a Vicky bun portrait for that stupid muffin-wearing Jubilee bust. They are different types. Then there are varieties. Here the changes are more subtle and require a bit of inspection. Such as the third bust of William III. (To be honest I'd class most of the bust changes of say William III or Anne as varieties myself as they are substantially the same. Or at least less different than some of the different varieties in hammered coins.) Then there are the oddities. A letter is missing; BRIT is shortened to BRI. Someone has had a bad day and stamped the die carelessly and oops, the Scottish lion is upside down. Back from lunch at the inn and 'AVSPICE' becomes 'AVSSPCE'. What of these? Are they really varieties, when there is only one die, created in error? And if not, then quite how do they differ from that handful of coins for which a new portrait was created but then apparently withdrawn, leaving as few as five or six coins in existence? I suppose what I'm getting at is that, like beauty, varieties are (partly) in the eye of the beholder. And to me, a line has to be drawn somewhere. So while I find a coin where contraction stops have been used instead of dots, or where five dots have been used to break up the legend instead of one, interesting, I'm not going to go out of my way to search for an example. Whereas some people do. If you want to chase a coin where the dies have corroded or filled to make a slightly different legend, fine. But for myself I have enough problems just finding an example of each of the major portrait changes. And unless (or until) I win the lottery, that's unlikely to change!

Looks genuine to me too. I'd only really grade it Fine. Price-wise I'd expect it could fetch £30. That particular type seems quite difficult to find with a nicely struck up portrait and so yours is fairly typical. Adding to the fact that the toning appears quite pleasing from the original listing (and assuming it really does have that steel blue colour) you might find you'd get more. But probably £50 would be the ceiling. In case it helps the Spink reference is S 2797, and for specialist collectors of Charles I shillings, it's Sharp F5/1. The anchor mint mark dates it to between May 1638 and July 1639.

Mmm .. would that mean I could get an NHS precription for additional cash to treat my "sickness"??

Mmm .. despite the lack of appeal of this particular coin to me, I kinda agree with Red. Last (only, really) time I bought a really expensive coin, I'd have paid quite a bit more (I freed up as much as I could and would have spent it all). Getting my money back was the last of my considerations at the time. There were four known examples, two more were found, I knew none of the existing four were likely to come on the market for many years, and I wanted one. Would I do it again? .. probably .. chances to fill a gap with a true rarity don't come up very often. My only cause for hesitation is the knowledge that coins eventually do come up for sale, and sometimes in rather better condition. If one did and if it was nicer .. well, I might regret being rash and leaving myself with no funds for several very tempting coins that have come on the market since then. But that's collecting I guess; balancing the 'if's with desire and common sense. And despite now seeing quite clearly the times I've been carried away and paid well over the odds with little hope of recouping my money, I can't honestly say that I'd never do it again!

Mmm .. I think this is one of the reasons I'm just not as excited by milled coinage as hammered. With the latter, you have 20 dies and you have 20 potential 'varieties' because they will all be subtly different. And so you are (generally) forced to consider only the grossest changes significant. The subtler variations in positioning of legend, changes to the coat of arms and so on usually only come into play when you're guestimating how many dies might have existed. Or checking if your coin is that illustrated in an auction catalogue. Yes, I guess someone, somewhere, might be collecting each and every different castle mint mark or harp in the Royal arms, but most of us just have to ignore those. Whereas (a few) milled collectors seem to get all aerated about a worn out dot, a slightly different tooth alignment or a 10th of a mm between date numerals. Really it's no different from sovereign die numbers to me. And about as interesting. Sorry.

I posted this before on the 'previous' site and still find it useful (though they have reduced the information available for free). CoinArchives.com lists recent auction information which you can search. If you need more than one term, link with 'and' (for example '1933 and penny') and see what comes up. I use it to check prices of coins and find pictures of things I might be interested in.

I find it frustrating that people list 30 Charles de Gaule 2€ pieces or Charles & Di wedding crowns individually! For goodness sake! Do they not realise that they can list them all in one listing, save themselves ££ and me time and irritation at having to skip past their bloody listings! Yes, 30 listings stand out more than one, but they can highlight one just as easily and probably cheaper. Having pages of the things just seems closer to spamming than selling.

Oh, sure. It's fine for picking up stuff. So long as you know what you're doing. And getting rid of things you don't want that are easy enough to post or can be collected. But to sell, I'm beginning to wonder. Once I've included the listing fees (about £3.50) and commission (9%) and PayPal fees (3.5%) it really cuts into the selling price. And because I can't put in a reserve price below £50 I currently have one item (a coin) that, if I get no more bids, I'm facing a £25 loss on. The irony is that I'm not looking for a huge profit (though that would be nice!), just to recoup what I paid ... so I can then put the money back into buying more coins! It shouldn't be too difficult for coins I bought around six years ago, but it is. I think for all the coins I've sold perhaps a third have brought in money. Which means I've made a loss in over 60% of sales. I suppost it's OK for selling stuff a dealer doesn't generally want. And certainly cheaper than the auction houses 20%+. But somehow I lack the knack of getting my money back. [/grumble]