Rob

Comparing Paulus' with one that predates the Chinese pieces, the most striking thing is the porosity seen on the modern copy. Another consistent factor is 'bulkiness' of the characters, crown jewels and pearls and the lack of any 3D relief on the tops of letter. The border teeth are usually a bit indistinct on the copies too. http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l530/paul_whittingham/1763_Shilling_Rev03_zpsed292dc0.png

Interestingly the 85 bank token was noted by Steve Lockett in passing as 'Ooh, the finest known', but as a coin was in worse grade than the quite heavily toned ANACS slabbed 64 that I also had listed at one point and about which disparaging remarks were made by him. On balance I don't think that one had AT and certainly had less wear than the 85, but it did have a 2mm mark hidden in the legend, so sadly also had to go. One day I'll get a mark and wear free example to fill the 3/- denomination spot.

Correct. This is a thread where I acquired an 1839/41 proof halfpenny. 39 over 43 is also known. Both must post-date 1839 by definition. Clearly a third head sixpence would potentially be much later than a recut 1841 or 1843 halfpenny, but there is no indication as to when the latter was recut - i.e it could have been 1880 or later.

I would agree that the 39 sets were in production up until the 1887 sets and even after 1887 would they still have been available via the mint? It is conceivable that the dies could have been used up until the death of Victoria as the sets were "made to order" for want of a better term and the Una £5 would probably have been as desirable then as it is now. Which explains the number of varieties of the Una £5, whereby a new die would be engraved as there were no corresponding currency dies to recut. Have we just reinvented the wheel or does anyone have documentary evidence from Mint Records etc to back this up?

Interesting. I just bought an 1839 proof sixpence in the London Auction: Sixpence 1839 Plain Edge Proof NGC PF64 I will have to look closely at it when it arrives. Unfortunately, unlike the halfpenny, the date is on the wrong side. Otherwise it would have been possible to give an earliest possible terminal date for the sets. I note that the die axis is upright on the 3rd head in Heritage which is unlike the early pieces. Similarly the 1839/41 proof halfpenny has an inverted die axis compared to the normal upright for the series. I wonder if they are contemporary?

"Victoria Proof Sixpence error 1839, Young Head, S-3912/3908 type, reeded edge, medal-rotation die alignment, "Mint Error PR65 Muled w/KM-757 Obverse" NGC, amber-gold iridescent toning over a silvery gray base. First one we have encountered, dated 1839 on reverse but struck from an obverse die used for the 3rd Head style (of 1880-87) with really crisply engraved hair. Very rare." This description of an error doesn't take into consideration the later production of 1839 proof sets. This coin has to parallel the 1839 set halfpenny where they are known as a straight 1839 and recut 1841 & 1843 dies. The use of a third head die would suggest that the 1839 sets may have been produced up to the introduction of the 1887, and interestingly therefore may have both preceded and succeeded the 1853 sets. I don't think it is an error.

The hair curl might be due to die polishing. The two that I have listed are 1812 and 1814. The first shows a full head, but the later coin shows a similar feature albeit not as accentuated. On the full head, the hair to the left of this curl is in lower relief. There are quite a lot of gren spots on your coin. Is it plated copper?

Rare coin. Most never saw the light of day.

Certainly not the same obverse die as the cross on top of the crown doesn't touch the inner circle at the same point on a bead, the Z of ELIZ is misaligned on one and not on the other and the A of REGINA is further/closer to the outer circle. I think it might be over portcullis too, but isn't as obvious in the hand as the reverse.

The first one might be unc or thereabouts, but it is difficult to say with the image provided which is too bright. Certainly no apparent wear on the rampant lion or the ear lobe. The second is a rarer date, but don't get carried away with the rarity values as these really only kick in in high grade. That one is best avoided as you should be able to find one in at least fine for a modest premium over melt.

Too difficult. Collections are assembled to provide a nice aesthetic mix where one coin complements the next. Much easier to say which coin you would remove to improve the collection, but that's just a reflection of the ease with which you can fill gaps as opposed to finding the right (nice) coin.

This should bring you back to earth. 1566 3d, i.m. Lion (over Portcullis rev)

Like most collections it has good bits and bad bits. It's a mixture of mostly EF or better milled with some barely legible gap fillers too where the ideal coin will not be available to buy. Hammered are similar, but with many VF or better. Again there are a few dogs, but we can't always get what we want.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion! The changing of EF75 to AU75 by CGS a few years back was no big deal. It is the same grade if the number is the same and the seller of an EF75 coin will be quick to point out it is the same as AU75. However, adding new numbers such as 58 and 59 will cause problems, as coins previously graded 55 might be the same as the new 59. I think it is very important to maintain consistency. And where do you stop? The same argument can be used for AVF 19 and 18, AFDC86,87 etc. Using a finer scale will probably also increase the time it take to grade accurately and consistently and hence cost. You'll progressively get more inconsistency the finer the divisions between grades. If you or I can look at a coin on several occasions and see or miss bits here and there depending on the lighting conditions, the state of your eyesight that day, or even if you had a skinful the night before; then I am certain that the same thing can happen to anyone employed as a grader. They are only human and subject to the same failings as anyone else.

Millions of bytes on their way to you now.

This is not for sale. It is the representative example of the acorn over ermine mark (seen on the rev. only) for the collection.

Testing, testing. It appears to copy but doesn't say so any more? I presume this means that everything is working as before, just nobody realises.

Rob, you can still easily paste the pics into the Forum ... with the coin selected, simply click in the IMG code field (it will say 'Copied' when you do this) then Ctrl+V in to your post It used to say copied, now it doesn't say anything - so presumably doesn't work any more or at least not with my computer.

I got confused when I tried the other day. You used to be able to copy the link and paste it in a reply on the forum, but now it doesn't copy any more if the lack of message is to be believed. Gave up and moved on. I might return to photobucket when I have a spare hour or two and try to work it out. Why take something that works and render it inoperative? What drives programmers to do this? If they must fiddle with the program, at least have the decency to pin some revised instructions to the login. Grrrr. Edited to say that I haven't a clue how to use Photobucket with ebay listings anyway. One problem is enough.

That should be in their shop for a while.

It depends on what you view as costly. If you are undecided what to specialise in, a good starting point is to go for a type set of anything and everything within your budget. You can worry about what to collect in depth once you decide what you like. Obviously the cheapest is the most modern and as a generalisation the further back you go in time the more expensive things become, but there are some issues even from a couple hundred years ago that are so common that they can be acquired cheaply. First thing is to learn how to grade a coin - it is very easy to overgrade until you know what to look for. Just about anything in the past hundred years should be collected in high grade and as a rule of thumb you should always buy the best you can afford. There is no right or wrong about a series or theme or denomination that you collect because it is each to their own.

It's less than Spink or DNW or St. James's or Baldwins, as all charge 20% + VAT - i.e.24%

I think we are probably running into the problem of what constitutes a significant variety again. Clearly this is a variety, but if the only difference is in the width of the date then it is not going to fire many people's imagination. The bronze date widths are associated with additional differences in Britannia and the lighthouse, not to mention the shield, so as a package the variety is relatively significant. I suppose it is obvious and therefore easier to justify. I assume it arose when the first 1 & 8 were engraved and the other two digits added with the same spacing.

Yes. Personally, I think the laurel looks a bit washed out, but that might just be the image quality. The unite looks polished and has been mounted - i.e. much value has been destroyed unless it is the only example or miles better than the alternatives. And I forgot to mention the scratches on the unite.

I don't think CGS will see them that way. I suspect that grades somewhere in the VF55-EF60 are more likely, but hope they rate a little higher. please advise where you have seen better. Here's one I purged from the collection in the great refocus 4 or 5 years ago. Around the EF mark.