E Dawson

Hussolo - sorry have not forgotten you but been out of town for a moment or two. Will try to get this ASAP for you .

Interesting about the edge lettering bit: it seems that the 1935, 1951 and 1953 all had some issues with this, even in proof format. Sometimes the combinations are really quite garbled and "overprinted" and others have malpositioning of the collar bits. I would certainly hate to put much value in minor variations and would advise American buyers to not get too excited over recent edge concerns with those god-awful presidential dollars, the first featuring none other than a positively Halloween version of George Washington.

This coin is a tough call. The crown does not overlay the shield so will check Davies on that but I think it is the second type. As to the veracity of the piece, very difficult to determine with these lead bits as has been alluded to above. Will do some checking tonight though.

How is Ken's a REVERSE brockage as clearly the Vicky bust marks the obverse? Wonderful 1853 brockage florin!

Maybe there is a new ebay "Ebaypedia" as there is where I got the alternative and incorrect bit about English versions, but I do seem to recall seeing a printed auction with the same; you would think it easier to say "clip"...

Yes, Rob is quite correct. It should be noted that on the British side of "the Pond", brockage generally refers to breakage of flan whereas on the American side a brockage would be as Hussolo's coin. I might add that I have an essentially identical piece. Sure would like to have an obverse brockage of this florin! This does broach the subject of Internet derived information, as some of it is very good and it ranges to rather poor. So reader beware!

Ah yes, but the Gothic Florin is available as well....Also, Pistrucci not too shabby an engraver!

Ken46, hope you also got a good price on that! One author over here who harps on "cherrypicking", that is finding rare coins/varieties for the same as common when a series is treated generically pricewise, is Q. David Bowers. He has written many columns and even books about it and the interest for those of us who collect British coins is developing the philosophy of figuring out those bits to cherrypick. I was doing it before ever reading his commentaries, and try to run away from the series that everybody else wants. I know that is one reason that I have stayed away from Gothic Crowns - a large supply but everybody thinks they want one so run up the price; I think this may be true for the other currency young head Vicky crowns to an extent despite their relatively low mintages... Good work on getting your '95L! I find it interesting that Marsh et al seem to have not really considered presentation/wear in writing their books and so many condition rarities seem to be out there.

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZj_k71QQhtZ-1 OK, I am bad at the links, but this seller is using the same pictures for all of his copper and calling them proofs to boot! I know Chris does not like to "call out " dealers but these are very poor examples of "bay" material.

Chris, what I was thinking was that these sovs may be so-called condition rarities. This has not particularly caught on in the UK, but is big stuff over here in the States. As an example I have an 1894 London sov that is prooflike with the most minimal of bagmarks and have not seen one so nice. It was cheap in price but scarce in presentation. This may be a thought for discussion, that of preservation and value with regards to many issues, though I must admit the third party graders have perhaps spurred this on a bit too aggressively with the US example.

Quite. I do think that some of the so-called "commom" sovs are actually much scarcer if one can manage to find them without hairlines, rub, cleaning or bagmarks....

This is a subject I have pondered for some time: how is it that so much attention is paid to all the sub-varietals of pennies (ie by Freeman and Peck types), complete with excitement over die control letters or nose shape or even in the case of the earliest bunheads the "LC WYON", with big monies being paid out for even worn specimens when the 1882 London mint issue is neglected in terms of value. The London minted coin is extraordiarily rare, and I have never seen one in mint or even GEF; I would think this coin would absolutely smash the varietals in terms of price at auction. In the US, an equivalent to such a coin would likely bring 10k USD or even much more for a VF specimen, and I noticed that the Bamford specimen which was only F or so brought barely 1k pounds. This seems to truly be an odd anomaly for a coin in a series that is so avidly collected. Can anybody explain this phenomenon or hazard a guess to whether it may be undervalued? PS Does anybody have the SNC's which were referred to in the DNW Bamford sale so that I might at least third hand see pictures of better preserved specimens?

No, there is no "easy" way to tell. I have Freeman and think I understand the difference but could not swear to it as per RBC above.

No doubt about the availability of the '82 H and varieties, but still I would think of this as not being just a rare variety but a distinct issue from the mother mint - just check to see (and the comparison is NOT fair) what a red uncirculated full lustre 1909 S VDB cent would go for in comparison to an ordinary 1909 cent! Also, the 1918 and 1919 KN, and to a lesser extent the "H" issues command very high premiums in the better grades when compared to their Royal mint issues of those years. I guess it just seems illogical.

Very shallow relief on these coins as the dies not deeply engraved with decreased strike pressure = cheaply made! I am just not sure of these broad rim varieties and a good find but just do not excite me overly.

Yes, that would make it a bit simpler, but I would imagine that you get bits from the ground via metal detecting and the like.

I think the area of cleaning is much broader than has been alluded to. There is dirt of many different types that may adhere, there is corrosion on the surface (and sometimes into the coin metal), there is PVC, there are other surface contaminants both water and oil soluable. Many other sub- categories as well. While I agree that wiping should generally not be done, there are many other options. If it is dirt or other adherents, even including PVC in many circumstances, a bath in warm water with mild detergent is a good start, followed by water rinse and tamp dry with a clean white towel (tamping is just touching the surface but not abrading it with a terry type cotton nap towel). Next, acetone and or rubbing (do not rub it though) alcohol. These are different types of solvents with the aceton best for hydorcarbons and PVC, the alcohol for some intermediate substances. Dips are more controversial as they consist of several types of acidic compounds. These can be helpful for stripping off oxidants but generally always result in loss of mint lustre that may be underlying. They work with rapidity and so are somewhat hard to control. These must be neutralised with the above mentioned water and mild soap with a tamp dry. Copper and bronze is very problematic as the patina present is itself naturally oxidation and removing it destabilizes the surface which then can reoxidize with variable "new" surfaces, some not attractive as has been pointed out. Well, I am running on but suffice it to say that there are other methods as well, including electrolysis which can be effective but that require practice. I may be able to help with some problems if people ask.

I realise this is sidetracking the discussion a little bit, but I wonder how many of the 1933 pennies were actually struck. The Royal Mint seem to have not always kept the best track of things & I wonder if there might be any 1933 pennies or 1862/1864 halfcrowns lurking under foundation stones anywhere. Speaking of which, we generally see the figure of 7 for mintage of the '33 pennies but not given the mintages of the two halfcrowns which we know to come in milled and plain edge configuration. I quite doubt the R2 rating listed by ESC for the plain edge scarcity rating as this seems far two liberal & that maybe they should be classified as at least R4.