Rob

I think the obverse struggles to make fine, but the reverse retains the detail better. Obviously the key date for the issue, so based on Spink's price of 1100 in Fine say £500-600? It really depends on the demand as there aren't that many guinea collectors, though many will have an example or two. I have no idea about the numbers known which will have a huge bearing on the price.

If CGS have slabbed either a Cromwell crown or shilling, then flaws are acceptable. If they have slabbed any of the above Soho patterns, then rusted dies are acceptable. The 1799 proof halfpenny (KH16) has a rust spot under Britannia's right armpit and is common enough to have at least one example slabbed in whatever metal finish.

It's crap. There must be crossed wires somewhere as the idea beggars belief.

For those of you who do get things slabbed, it would be worth getting a list of those coins which will be automatically rejected as it will save you money in the long term. I suspect they will say that all are considered, but fail to mention at your expense. Guidance would also be useful on how much wear a die can have before it is rejected as this is also die damage. Coins struck from flawed dies ought to be similarly excluded. It can't be they are saying that only coins struck from fresh dies are graded because they will accept coins with recut legend. If anyone can get a list of (CGS) banned varieties as a result of being struck from rusted dies, posting it would be helpful to all concerned. Failure to supply such a list would be a tad disingenuous. Here are a few images of things that fall foul of such a policy.

I'm frequently asked for the N. Ireland 2002, but very few others. Claim of Rights coins always sell easily.

Will someone who has access to the CGS lists give an indication of which Soho pieces they have slabbed and by extension accepted irrespective of rust marks. With the exception of the first strikes at Soho and the later pieces by Taylor, the various states are effectively categorised by the degree of rust spots present, or their removal by die polishing. Any Peck numbers between 930 and 1400 will do. If CGS are consistent, the numbers should be minute. Thanks.

It has to be on the basis of surface corrosion rather than rusted dies. If the latter, then, as I said, some varieties are unable to be slabbed, which sort of negates the rationale for doing so. It would mean any raised rust spot would mean rejection. Most of the Soho patterns would be rejected.

Elizabeth 1st milled groat. The date is not 1670, but 1560-1. These were the earliest issues alongside the halfgroat and shilling. c.f The Milled Coinage of Elizabeth I by Borden and Brown, BNJ vol.53 (1983)

That's stupid. Rusted dies has nothing to do with the authenticity, wear, handling damage or any other reason for rejection. On that basis it will be impossible to slab a P1161 for example because it was one of Taylor's earliest products struck from completely rusted dies prior to their polishing and refurbishment. That also means in their eyes I've got a mint state but worthless piece of sh*te that I paid good money for. They would probably end up suffering cardiac arrest if they got this angel for slabbing. Apologies for the reduced flan to keep it under 500k.

Virtually all collecting is done from an historical perspective, whether it's coins, medals, Dinky toys etc.

You are not alone, but the tendency for people to collect anything that isn't nailed down should not be underestimated. You only have to see Have I Got News For You's guest publications to appreciate that. Barbed Wire Weekly anyone?

People do miss rare things on eBay, but usually it is a trade-off between rarity and quality. An awful lot of eBay listings are painful to view. Buying them would be a tad masochistic as you would then have to look at them for years to come. eBay has changed with the number of items listed up 10-fold in the past decade, but the days of rarities in a decent grade and selling for bargain prices are generally a thing of the past. People have obviously got too much time on their hands.

Horribly mushy.

The piece you linked to is one of the best examples available and was always going to fly. The wear to the portrait is minimal in comparison to yours and it doesn't have a hole.

It doesn't really matter whether you leave it alone or plug it. If you do decide to plug it, get somebody who knows what they are doing as you still have the potential to reduce its value by doing a bad job. With or without hole, it is still impaired however rare. It's a pity it was holed as the reverse is quite good.

Charles I rose farthing

It is the intermittent nature of the second line that makes me think a bit of remedial work has been undertaken. If a double exergue line was a required feature, you would expect the engraver to be careful not to obliterate it. I am inclined to believe that dies were recut as a matter of course, meaning that recut overdated dies exist for most years and that only the quality of the work stops you seeing the overdate. It was much more cost effective to change the last digit or two of the date rather than make a new die. There are a few differences between your 1739 reverse and the others, The curved line above the shield is notably uniform in width on your 39 compared to my 38 and 39 and is a full arc whereas the other arcs are only half as long. This is seen throughout the issue, so is probably irrelevant. The foot is also very narrow on your 39, but I am not convinced yet that it is a different punch to the 38 because there is a distinctive notch to the shin on the left which is present on all coins from 1730 onwards. The 1729 proofs and Nicholson 201 show no evidence of this notch. If the Britannia punch is the same on all coins and the exergue line is part of the same punch, any wear to the punch of uneven depth of punching to the die could inadvertently make for a single exergue line. To check if the exergue line was an integral part of the punch, coin no. 1675 in the RM museum is a 1730 1/2d whilst item no. 400 is a reverse punch for Britannia for the same issue. Whilst it doesn't guarantee that the same punch was used in 1738-9, the presence of a double or single exergue line on the punch would at least confirm that the two things were entered simultaneously on the die and that the single line is probably due to a weak strike or has been polished away. It might be worth asking the RM museum the question, but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

That looks like a distinct trace of 2nd line on the LHS? Yes, a very faint mark.... I don't know what happened to the rest of the line.... I have just edited an earlier post and put down a possible idea as to why it is so - see 5 posts earlier.

That looks like a distinct trace of 2nd line on the LHS?

The question of the number of exergue lines raises a few points for debate. Firstly that it was supposed to be two lines and that the 1 or 3 line reverses are errors. It is also possible that most were cut by one person, so the two lines are an identifier for an individual. Reverses were traditionally the responsibility of the under-engraver. If 2 lines were the norm, it begs the question as to why so many dates impinge on the exergue, and also why they obliterate sections of the lower line when this happens? The later would be compatible with a reworked die. Attached is the reverse of my 1738 V/S which has a possible 8/7 on the last digit. If a digit is filled and the surface smoothed, then loss of exergue line in the vicinity of the repair is a possibility. If this is valid reason for parts of the line missing, then it must be equally valid for a completely missing 2nd line. Bear in mind the lower one is always(?) in lower relief to the top one, so would be polished away earlier in the case of a reworked date and subsequent smoothing.

Here's the one I mentioned earlier. It won't win a beauty contest but is well struck, so weakness of strike is not a valid reason for the missing bits of the second line.

I don't have an image immediately to hand as it isn't one for the collection. The R on yours looks to be possibly double cut given the similarity to the foot of the upright. Triple cut? You are in the best position to say.

I have one with one and a bit lines. The date is set high and so impinges on the bottom line, but the line isn't continuous immediately to the left or right of each of the digits, only at the extremes to both sides with just a trace between the 3 & 9.

I have a spare vol.58 if anyone wants one.

Dodgy seller, looks a funny colour, looks modern to me. This person often lists modern fakes that have apparently been in his collection for the past 40 odd years. He is one to avoid at all costs.