Sylvester

Well that's the reason i'm not too keen on it, it's just too plain for my liking (the big gold coins in matt proof are something to behold indeed!), but i prefer coins with extremely intricate detail in as higher relief as is realistically possible. For me there is nothing better than a high grade hammered gold sovereign of Henry VII or Queen Mary, detailed tressels and arches, a grandness in the monarch enthroned, a stunning rose on the reverse. The power the majesty and the glory of a new dynasty and a break away from the medieval past. Plus hardly a blank space in sight, some might class it as cluttered, but i don't like plain fields on coins anyhow cos i think it's a waste, (hence why i like shield reverse sovereigns there's hardly any blank space on the reverse), also the reverses of the bare head Geo IV stuff, the ornamentally garnished shield is fantastic... that reverse is my kinda coin, now if that was with a very detailed obverse a la George II i'd be very happy! I think that's another reason why sixpences appeal to me more than the crowns, sixpences have less unused blank field! Also why Early milled appeals more to me, it a relief thing. Incuse coins are my worst nightmare!

I'm not fussed on it, but strangely my hair do is much the same.

Yes damn stupid slabbing, free them all, a chisel and a hamer to the corners of the slab may work, but i hear G-Clamps are the best way to crack the slab. I must try it one day!

i particularly dislike the Gillick and the Edward VII obverses.

I don't find any George IV Sovereign reverse as appealing as say a Victorian Shield rev! Admittedly when it comes to late milled coin i prefer William IV obverse over everything save the Gothic stuff. Geo IV bare and Vicky bun and young come close behind with jubilee just behind that...i don't like any of the other obverses for the late milled coinage though save for the Machin obverse.

And reverse

This actually reminds me of something whilst i think on. This beauty had me practically flood the keyboard with drool, my hair is still standing on end... (This is to me absolutely gorgeous, i'd sell all my coins for this... every last one!);

i've seen that before, they are in incredibly good condition! Now when they are in that condition that's when i might let you say they are 'Good for their age!' (And for copper coins having lustre like that they are!)

I have a copy of CC2004 but that's no good cos my collection finishes at 1758 and CC doesn't begin till 1820!

Or in my case if the coin is available in any condition!

exactly, you all collectcopper i collect anything but copper... never fails!

Doesn't mean you have to give in though and follow like sheep! I probably still wouldn't get it slabbed even if slabbing was the in thing because i have a natural tendency to just do the opposite of what everyone else does, i always have done. If no one slabbed their coins i'd have all mine slabbed, if everyone slabbed them i'd have them all raw. It doesn't just stop with coins either... e.g if everyone writes with ball point pens i write with fountain, everyone writes with fountain i use the quill, just call me Harry...

i put 1825 for a minute there Oli! Reason why we is getting confused is because the bare head first appeared on some denominations in 1825 (i think!)

i'd quite happily take that bagmarked one off of your hands... And if you did buy it you couldn't put it in your coin cabinet... never put proofs in a coin cabinet the pristine shiny surfaces will get hairlines. But i don't collect proofs or mirror-like UNC coins so i'm alright!

I agree i'd prefer the 1826 too...

you're welcome!

You only need to post it once we will deal with your question as we get the time... (i would delete the others but i can't cos i don't moderate that bit!) In absolutely tip top condition with no wear, no scratches, no impediments whatsoever, no alterations, no discolouration and full lustre the most you could honestly expect for a 1967 halfcrown would be £1 as they were minted in the millions and millions. Seriously there's more than alot of them out there. Coins that are altered are of no interest to collectors i'm afraid, coloured coins, mounted coins, holed coins are usually in the realms of jewelry and thus no coin collector would buy it. Luckily for you it was only a low value coin to start with before it was destroyed, so you haven't really lost anything. Now if it was a much rarer coin say an 1830s halfcrown in decent condition like that and it had been mounted and coloured you would have lost quite a bit of value off of it.

And doesn't Maundy money still have the Gillick portrait of Her Majesty?

Where do you think i got that 1693 sixpence from? And where am i getting my king John penny from?

Ah you see you've just got to know where to look Here knock yourself out... (Cgheck out Charles II, James II and George III) http://www.bottles.freeserve.co.uk/fsp.html (not really in competition with Chris cos this guy concentrates on the pre George III stuff, specialising mostly in early hammered, such as Saxon, Norman and upto Richard III the periods after are covered in depth upto George III but not as extensively and then it kind of fizzles out [usually lower grade stuff], nothing beyond Victoria).

I'm hearing yer! Increasingly i'm finding myself drawn towards the hammered coins purely because of the history. I don't usually buy coins on attractiveness as such but usually on their history connection. I mean i don't particularly find Henry III pennies attractive as such, what with the portrait being made up of dots more or less and quite often very crude, but the history from them is something else!

Half guineas really! cool i might have to buy this months then. Next months is a def!

Wow guinea fractions... when are they gonna do full guineas and half guineas? (You know something useful!)

I think Maundy money is an oft over looked area... infact i've just had an idea... I always intended (but have wisely decided not to) to make one date set of coins for every monarch from Charles II to George V (Minus the copper)... the early gold hjust prooved too elusive and expensive. But i am seeing alot of early milled Maundy stuff cropping up here and there and the later Milled stuff is available. Just an idea i thought of throwing your way... how about one complete maundy set for each monarch from Chas II to Eliz II, (Actually Elizabeth II is probably going to be the tricky one!). Four Charles coins, 4 James (and for once you have James coins that aren't too difficult to find), 4 WM, 4W3, 4 Annabels, 4 Geo I, 8 Geo II (Young & old... Did they ever use old?), 8 Geo III (early/late)... etc. It would be quite something when you've done, and i do think it's achievable!

Hmm my advice here is a mixed one... Firstly new gold proof coins will always have their gold value and some limited collector value, but you'd have to buy it at a good price to make anything on it. But the low mintage is a very good thing, look at 1989 gold coins those things are probably the best modern gold coin to go for, if you can get a 1989 gold sovereign with Queen enthroned you can be sure it will go up in value sooner or later, many people buy them cos it was a one of design, many more buy them because it's the cheap alternative to a hammered gold sovereign. But i would advise that older gold is better because it keeps it's gold value the same but as well as this it will hold it's collector value whereas modern stuff is mostly on the whim of gold (in the current market) in 60 or so years who knows people may view them the same as we view 1930s stuff now. If you think about older gold i would suggest the 1937 proof gold sovereign... that my friend is one coin that i think it's safe to say will at the very least hold it's value and quite probably increase given time too.