Rob

Maybe it was a misprunt(sic). The grader intended to put down MS46, but got it wrong. He/she(?) is only human(?) after all.

Presumably it won't be long before purchases have to be a minimum value too. Obviously doing too well and feel the need to discourage business. Go elsewhere chaps.

ouch

absolutely sand where you thrown out black, in something infinity. I am as you say. not that is, not there in something. up the down sea. Declan's reply is comprehensible. Would the other two please elucidate for those of us who don't do random word analysis. Ta.

For me the clincher is in the tail detail. Compare with my 1918I for example. It simply doesn't have the right amount of detail.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that much of what is written on Wikipedia is factually correct and I agree that it has been a major contributor to the explosion in accessible material. It is just that a reference needs to be properly subjected to peer review by a competent person, which if implemented would stop (or at least severely reduce) errors such as this creeping into general knowledge.

I consider Wikipedia a take it or leave it site. I remember a few years ago checking three numismatic terms and finding that two of the three were wrong. Brockage was one thing that was wrong then and is still wrong. Read the first line which clarifies what a brockage is - not. I can't remember what the second was now, but given that success rate, Wikipedia is certainly not a reference source that I would want to rely on.

Hobson's Choice is well..... no option. Take it or leave it. But there is a small window where say only a handful are known and you find an example only to discover it has been cleaned/mounted/AT etc. The first is simple if you are a completist, you have it. The second situation is not so clear cut. I suspect the decision will also be influenced by your knowledge of the alternatives available.

Oh dear Not for me either, but it would be interesting to hear members' viewshow they would treat the situation where a must-have coin was an AT coin

Doesn't do anything for me I afraid Rob. Just looks like a battered 5 to me. With the dirt fully removed, I concur. Forget this one.

Sky blue? It is uniform and overall. It may be a cleaning agent residue rather than deliberately AT, but it dosn't look very natural in hand.The blue is highlighted because of the change in relief on the design, but is in the fields too.

There aren't many options (0, 6, 8 or 9) so I'm going for 5 over 6, but if anyone has a better example to confirm it would be appreciated. I'll also clean the muck off it and try again.

reverse

If you want an example of AT copper, here's one slabbed MS63 by NGC. I left the sticker on the slab (seen on the rev) as I assumed this was the colour ordered.

On a more serious note though, does he really need 6 images to show off a corroded 2p? Little wonder he started it at $6.99 as his fees for the extra images must come to nearly that. I notice the postage costs are even higher than that. I assume that's because he has to send such a valuable piece by the American version of Special Delivery? Like this? http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?start=150&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=914&tbm=isch&tbnid=t9I0sS7kfPvQfM:&imgrefurl=http://www.raleighscrapmetalrecycling.com/&docid=dc4iAls5kkKftM&imgurl=http://www.raleighscrapmetalrecycling.com/images/slider/slide-5.jpg&w=964&h=340&ei=zDNoUs_LAcTX0QW_ioGwCA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:53,s:100,i:163&iact=rc&page=5&tbnh=133&tbnw=348&ndsp=39&tx=164&ty=92

On a more serious note though, does he really need 6 images to show off a corroded 2p? Little wonder he started it at $6.99 as his fees for the extra images must come to nearly that.

1811 Frome Selwood shilling token

Cromwell shilling

Cnut quatrefoil from Crewkerne

Oxford 1643 K28 halfcrown

York 2F halfcrown

1807 silver proof halfpenny

If you like shillings, here's another.

This is crap then. Colours are all over the place. The sky is blue with a big patch of yellow - whatever next? And the sea really is the Red Sea. Naughty old Peck and the dirty vicar from Tewkesbury for doctoring this coin long before it became fashionable.

Am I the only one to think that that is ridiculous? What is the argument that it should be other than 50-50? I'm amazed the coin contributes as much as 20% of the score, let alone the reverse only. I thought it was all to do with marks out of 10 in the Warhol-esque abstract art section. It certainly has bu**er all to do with the contents of the slab on too many occasions.