wybrit

It's a Maria Theresa Thaler restrike. They are extremely common and worth roughly silver bullion value.

More bizarrely, I'm not sure why so many people are willing to accept the apology in an attempt to rehabilitate as any offenders tend to be serial ones, and leopards don't change their spots. (Sound of nail being hit on the head).

You hit the nail on the head there. What really irks me is two things; 1) Know it all collectors that can distinguish between NT (Natural toning) and AT (Artificial toning). The question is, the difference is very shady indeed. Point in case, a coin that was in a collection say 80 years ago was stored in a sulphur envelope. It has developed colourful toning, this would be regarded as natural. I can see why, it was not intended. But yet modern day collectors purposely putting coins into these envelopes now to get the desired effect and it's still considered natural! I would say that's Artificial because they know what the results will be if they store them in Sulphur containing envelopes and they're doing it on purpose. It doesn't matter how long it takes! In my mind it's the 'motive' of doing something, toning to increase value/eye appeal, that is the benchmark between NT and AT, not 'length of time taken' as everyone else seems to measure it by, which frankly is ludicrous. How anyone can tell the difference between AT and NT is therefore a mystery to me. It would have to have a provence of over 50 years in that toned condition before i would class it as natural. Still makes it ugly in my opinion though. 2) The thing that really annoys the hell out of me is the hypocrisy of it all. There seems to be an implicit understanding that 'toning' a coin or putting it somewhere where it will tone 'naturally' like in a high sulphur envelope in a warm attic for ten years is instantly preferable and completely 'natural' and yet different from 'cleaning' a coin which people should be shot for. Unless of course they are only dipping it to remove unwanted unattractive tones and dirt which is undesirable and is affecting the eye appeal, so they can then retone it to more current tastes. And yet these people are the same people that often bash newbies for cleaning coins saying "coins should never be altered! Originality is paramount!" Now this seems like a very flawed ideology to me, is that not Orwellian doublethink in action there? It's against something (cleaning/AT), for something similar (dipping/'NT') and yet not standing for either at the same time (retaining originality at all costs). And they wonder why i have a problem with it, there's just no logic in it. And they say i'm mad! You're not mad (at least in this case!! ). I agree with this. Both artificial toning/ugly "natural" toning and cleaning are bad. I recently got a PCGS MS66 sixpence from a well known US seller that was not at all attractive, sight unseen with full return privileges. To my utter disappointment, it was very ugly in spite of the technically high grade. Initially I sought to return it, but since postage/insurance was so bloomin' expensive I decided to sell it on ebay. That turned out to be the right decision.

I received one retaliatory negative from niclet. He won one of my pieces and told me that he would be sending payment later due to computer problems. 4 weeks later I saw him furiously bidding on coins left and right. Hmm, no computer? So I reinvoiced him. No payment. I left him a negative 34 days after he won the piece for nonpayment. Immediately, he retailated, with a gem of a comment "With no computer to receive e-mails...what can I do?...what a moron!" He couldn't even bother to open his invoice in MyEbay. I also received a neutral from a seller who realized his mistake and sent me an apology coin. Negatives suck, especially when unwarranted, but there is life after them.

Toning a coin to sell is no different than cleaning a coin to sell. It's an altered coin and thus of no interest to collectors. (Except Americans) Not to this American. I like subtle toning only - rim can be nice. AT coins are truly awful.

Footnote: £275 plus £3.50 p/p is an obscene amount of money to pay for that set.

I don't know since there have been several years where maundy money have been included in proof sets (1902, 1911, 1937, 2000?? for instance), but the 2006 issue could be one of the least valuable in EIIR's reign.

Sorry about England's loss.

England were dismal again today. This was one of the most poorly played matches I have ever seen. Luckily, they still won. I hope they can step it up a notch when Portugal takes the field. Even with two suspended players, the Portuguese will be very dangerous. The match between the Netherlands and Portugal was hard to watch as well. 16 yellow and red cards!!! Come on England!

I wish the matches weren't on during my work time. Sad to see the US crash out but they deserved not to advance - in fact their poor fortune can be traced back to their final game in qualifying, losing 3-0 to Costa Rica and losing a chance at a #1 seed. The Aussies have been fun to watch. They aren't apt to go much further now. England needs to quit sleepwalking through their matches - Ecuador will be no pushover. After living in the country for 10 years, I still finding myself cheering them on. Stupid question on ESPN Soccernet: "Can England win the World Cup without Michael Owen?" Well, how many did they win with him? Northern Ireland never won any World Cups with Georgie Best.

Given the marks on the piece as noted before, it is probably electroplated. It could just be for jewelry or it could be for the purpose of trying to convince someone that it is made of Cu-Ni. The true value of the coin has already been posted IMO.

The Bun Head farthings are reaching some astronomical levels. The 1869 in particular, one I have no doubt a lot of folks had their eye on, has reached the price of the 1869 halfpenny, and the bidding still goes on!

Ah yes, ebay. The clearing house for all 1933 pennies everywhere.

Here is a Churchill crown that the seller thinks is MS64. Only $70.00

Wow! Words fail me. That must fetch a premium at auction.

Yes, there is a lot of that going on, even being sold by coin "experts" claiming that pieces are currency strikes. I recently received such a coin, which was a "rare" currency portrait variety. It was cleaned to look like a currency piece (hairlines were present), but it had the signature prooflike mirror finish still intact. It turns out that the maundy issue of that year used the same portrait, according to Davies.

Genuine or fake, that one has a rubbish price.

I agree with Peter. Top grade may be dodgy to find, but YH 1895 pieces aren't that rare. I've seen a lot of them just in the US.

Or a nice uncirculated 1889 halfcrown with a lovely rich tone?

How about a 1916 penny graded MS60?

The Gillick portrait is weak. The Machin portrait has some class, even if it only went on decimal coinage. The Maklouf portrait is pretty good as well, close second. Rank-Broadley, no comment.

Thanks!

A picture would be helpful.

Welcome. Pricing for the coin is £75 EF and £110 to £160 in UNC depending on surface quality. Spink 2005 has a price of £200 for UNC, but it would have to possess few contact marks to be worth that much.