Rob

Neither cannot be an answer because there are more than 2 TPGs. CGS do a better job than the US companies for British, just as you would expect the American ones to be better at their own. All make some fairly fundamental mistakes. NGC have produced a greater number of inconsistencies than PCGS, but have also slabbed a larger number of coins. I would still go PCGS in preference to NGC if that is the question you are asking. They could all do themselves a favour if they graded on the coin in question rather than pandering to celebrity status and being lenient when it comes to a hyped up collection. (That's consistency in grading for those who can't follow the above).

I'm not prepared to play ball at current levels. I bid on the one cent pattern in the Spink sale at estimate + 10% and was beaten by $400 on the hammer price. Had I won it would have been just under £1700 delivered including extras which I considered a bit OTT, as last year I picked up the 1857 2 cents for £1K less despite the identical slab grade (and that went unsold in London Coins). The Heritage marketing machine has much to do with this increase IMO. Not everything is priced by Heritage, or for that matter Spink. I believe that there may well be a correction in the near future because the curve is ever steepening and that is unsustainable because it is divorced from both inflation and money supply. Prices are being driven by egos. The early 80s saw a drop of around 30-40% in prices when the recession hit. A similar drop in values would not go amiss.

You have the advantage that they are still legal tender. Things from the Channel Islands, Falklands, Gib etc are occasionally found, but differ only in design from the regular coins. Our old coins in circulation are all demonetised, not to mention the numerous foreign examples that have been passed off as British which never should have entered the system anyway. They can and do come from anywhere.

It's a difficult thing to say what the demand is for anything esoteric. An off metal strike will appeal to many denomination collectors as would a coin struck on the wrong flan (an so possibly off-metal) for an error collector. My collection is built around diversity, so any off-metal strike is potentially collectable if only to avoid repetition. eg. if I needed to tick a box with an example of a unique 50p and also needed an example designed by someone that only appeared on that 50p, then an off metal strike would enable me to avoid two different examples of nominally the same design. If you collect Soho mint pieces, then there are many examples struck in different metals. Similarly with the Taylor restrikes. Ticking the 'Double Florin' box enables me to acquire the gold 1868 piece as the example, leaving the currency piece as a type example. There are many reasons why one might want want to include the oddballs if your collection isn't restricted to currency only.

You certainly get recurring garbage from the Indian subcontinent. The nonsense below appeared two days ago: Good Morning Sir, This is mail, informing you regarding "Rice Pulling Coin"This coin contain Copper Iridium. It is useful mostly in satellites ,and nuclear fussion.100% Genuine, (no fake) found in tribes of Odissa State.I have attached some videos, Have a look. Its is good deal. Cost of coin in Crores and profit also in Crores.Are you interested. Looking for genuine buyer. Test method are1. Coin to Rice 3 inches with in 3 min.2. Colour:- Brown Dust Clour.3. Rice to Rice 1.5inches or less than.4. Torch Bulb get fused, near to coin.5. A candle flame bends towards this coin6. Second Hand stop of Wrist hand watch, kept near of Coin. Any Enquiry, Feel free to call. Awaiting for positive feed back. RegardsPrasanta+91 7569693286 I have not looked at or appended the video so haven't a clue what it is about, but have left his contact details so that any bot can record them for posterity. Moderators please take note.

I had to get one example of the design, because it is the only one done by Bernard Sindall to date. I ended up with a half sovereign because that was the first example I saw, but any denomination would have done. It ticks a few different boxes for people, not least is that it is different.

But it's overgraded, unless GF means generally flat.

The P1087 was way overpriced. Keep your eyes open for the Selig/Adams coin.

My wife switches the TV off when Eastenders comes on. She's wonderful and has a healthy selective taste in programs. My youngest daughter delights in watching lowest common denominator TV just to spite me. She regularly watches these stupid TV celebrity singing competitions and the like. I retire to my coins, but on the plus side, there is sufficient crap broadcast that I can devote many hours to them.

That's quick off the mark. Happy birthdays to all.

Bugger. Only two lots I was interested in tonight were 30667 and 30670. Missed 'em because I was discussing something with the wife. First one I've never seen an example before, nor do I know of any other than the Peck example now in Birmingham Museum. The second was obviously too cheap and the low grade assigned made it a no-brainer. Well done anyway. It's gone to a good home.

It was ever the case. 90% of my slabbed purchases have been on the basis of what it wasn't! Well, maybe a slight exaggeration, but you get my drift.

ok

Good chance. Looks like two spots to me. It certainly isn't the Adams coin which was ex-Stacks 1997. You're lucky. I was on the verge of bidding on this out of boredom as it was definitely the best of the G5 proofs. I'm also glad the hi-res images gave a chance to look at the KN, which had a diagonal mark across the knee and a small verd spot at 7pm. That was a simple decision. Still looking for a decent example.

No catalogues were sent to UK customers, as I understand. It was ncessary to phone up a couple hours before the sale and with 2 hours to go to kick-off, hatch a plan to receive some hi-res images. Full credit to the guy who resolved it by getting the English lots into a pdf, but we weren't able to see them in any useful form until 20 minutes before the sale started. Given the second lot had an estimate of $25-30K and wasn't the only pricey item, you would have thought that they would go to the expense of a decent image.

The 1869 was quite a sharp strike, but I didn't like the quality of image which showed something that I wouldn't have been surprised to find had been cleaned. It was probably just the image processing, but I found it off-putting. I think they were 3250 and 2500(?) hammer. Talking of images, what did people use. The saleroom only had the obverses and the on-line catalogue on Spink's site was crap. In the end they supplied a hi res pdf file an hour before the sale started, but it was touch and go. It also made eliminating potential lots pretty simple. Another gripe is that Spink didn't give out advance notice of the sale to those that receive normal notifications. During the past few day there have been adverts in emails from Spink for share and bond certificates, or a wine evening celebrating China on the 17th - but nothing about coin auctions which I may just have been interested in. I only found out from GC yesterday who stumbled across it by accident on the saleroom. How did everyone else find out? Somebody needs to be shot for an appalling exhibition of coprorate negligence.

I was able to get on all day. In the end I made a post to check if the forum was down, but as you can see was able to do this. What stops working? Access point = login name and password?

I stopped at 2200 on the 1c pattern (1088). It wouldn't have helped that the coin is slabbed as ex-Norweb, when it is not, as this will have increased the appeal to US buyers. The coin is as the provenance in Norweb, but is not that of the Norweb coin.

I'm bored. P1258 Taylor restrike.

You could always buy it and then claim a refund on the grounds it was mis-described. It wasn't struck in 1806, that much is clear. Anyway, 1806 + 207 is 2013, so the maths is still faulty.

Is this another of those 'must have' apple features?

No idea, but suspect not given it is normally a London die and not an Australian one. We are talking about the conversion of unused dies dated 187, with the last digit to be entered as required. The problem was the end of the decade requiring a change in the third digit. Even if the same situation existed in another mint, you are reliant on the workmanship being sufficiently poor to see the remains of the previous number. Your best bet is to get a reasonable number of 1880 S & M sovereigns and put them under an EM. That would expose the filled underlying third digit

No idea. I don't follow them as they aren't rare. Many things arrive at odd numbers following a tranatlantic journey, so it could be. Defective 1 and 0 are characteristics of the Peck type, so means nothing. Minor field imperfections are found on many patterns and proofs, some post mint, some as originally struck.

Herein lies a large part of the problems associated with the TPGs. All of them live in an isolated world where they are the only TPG. Consequently, pop1 is a frequently encountered term meaning they have only slabbed one coin. So what? Others almost certainly will have done so given that it is a P1325, which Peck only rated scarce, and I know of several collectors of Soho material who wouldn't be seen dead putting their coins into plastic, myself included. POP1, finest known is therefore complete and utter b*****ks in the overall scheme of things and should be treated only as marketing hype, which it is. Ignore the plastic and ask yourself if it is a good example of the type in comparison to the others available and is the price fair? NB. I'll give you a clue. It isn't unique. In fact, the point that they have only slabbed one example shows how limited their experience is with many foreign coins. Another bonus is that the seller doesn't ship to the UK. Phew. That saves us Brits wasting our hard earned cash on an overpriced piece of plastic. Doubles all round.

The seller has pointed this out. Maybe they can't read or just don't care. I suspect they will accumulate a large amount of dross over time.