Rob

The 9 or 19 was based on the original picture. The blown up one looks like a 39 to me too. Do we have a good image of a high grade die 39 anywhere? If we could see the WW on one coin, it would establish the exact position of the WW and make the argument a lot more clear cut.

I bit the bullet and got the lot the other day as there are 24 new designers covered by the 29 coins in the series. Bring back the resident artist, or at least employ previously used ones rather than inflicting this on me. I don't want a collection full of modern dross. Please. There are now nearly as many attributed designers in the decimal period as I am aware of in the 800 years leading up to it.

Correct. Rule 1. What I should be doing. Rule 2. What I should have done. Rule 3. What I am going to do. Rule 4. What I am not going to do. And most important of all. Rule 5. I will invariably make the wrong call regarding rules 1-4.

Hocking isn't very helpful as it doesn't list any florin matrix, die or anything else for this date, so unless they have something in their boxes that isn't listed, there is no RM museum option to corroborate the no WW.

Just noticed that you missed out Victoria but intend to collect Edward VII, in which case all the proofs are matt for this reign. There were no matt proofs made prior to this, so other than Ed. VII you can disregard them as it appears you wouldn't be interested in the later 20th century stuff which is when the sandblasted pieces were made.

What do you want to know? History? Value? Grade? Pictures would be necessary if either of the last two are required.

The second one with no WW isn't listed in Davies or ESC, hence the S3894 attribution. Stop after date is mentioned only.

I've got a couple more here which should help to muddy the water a bit. Two examples of an 1876H halfpenny. The first is a regular currency piece and the second is contentious. Freeman (whose coin this was) contends that the second coin is a proof, whilst others maintain it is a specimen striking. i.e. struck to a higher standard, but not to proof standard. This is a bone of contention. The letters are clearly better on the second coin having sharper sides to them whereas the obviously inferior currency piece has letters which have rounded angles due to die fill and general wear and tear. The fields on the second one are much better too, although the first coin does have prooflike fields in the hand which must not be confused with actual proof fields. The latter may well have parallel raised lines from polishing when viewed under a glass. The rims on the second are clearly sharper than the first, but overall, not so well centred. I also forgot to add in the first reply that proof rims are often slightly wider than those on currency coins. I'll see what else I can dig out to give you a bit more, but can't help with your chosen denominations as I haven't collected them as a series in the past. Others might be able to help here.

Welcome. You are not the first person to ask this question, but thank you for asking it rather than automatically assuming you have a proof which is the usual way things happen. (This forum is regularly visited by people who automatically assume they have a proof if their coin is in good condition). Proofs are special strikings and are usually from polished dies. There are a few usual features which once you are familiar with them makes a proof fairly easy to identify. The first thing to remember is that they were never intended for circulation, usually being struck as part of a presentation set. Therefore they are usually found in top grade, though may be impaired with scratches if not looked after. Some are relatively common when sets were made for the public, but others are extremely rare with only a handful known. The fields on a proof are typically mirrors, though there are some matt proofs which were sandblasted by the mint to make photographing them easier. Do not worry or assume that if a coin has a matt surface it is a sandblasted proof. As there were only ever a handful of these made for any issue, it is unlikely you will ever see one, let alone inadvertently acquire one. The rim quality is very good and so a proof will usually have sharp 90 degree rims/edges. The lettering on a proof will often be sharper, with near vertical sides to the characters as opposed to having more angled sides to the letters. The edge milling if present will be sharp or significantly more so than a currency piece of the same issue to the touch. Proofs are also struck sometimes with plain edges whereas the normal currency pieces would historically have a milled edge. Some years only exist as proofs with a different edge to the currency pieces. The detail on the portrait will be crisper. The design may also be frosted, but not necessarily so. This is done by sandblasting the die and then polishing the fields, which on the die are the highest point. This gives a cameo effect. Royal Mint sets which were produced in quantity had less care taken over them, so may not exhibit all qualities, particularly the frosted design. That is a quick list of typical features. Attached is a comparison of 3 shillings which although outside of your collecting period, demonstrate the above points quite well. It has been posted elsewhere on the forum in reply to earlier questions. As you can see from the attached scan, the left piece is a currency coin, the middle one is a 1953 proof set coin and the one on the right is a 1958 VIP proof shilling. The normal matt finish of a currency coin is what you would normally see. The 1953 is struck from overall polished dies whilst the VIP proof has a frosted bust with mirror fields. You may also be able to just make out the sharper milling. If you want to collect proofs, do not buy them unless they are in top grade. a badly impaired proof with certain exceptions will be worth only a small amount over the value of a currency piece.

First one. die 68, 42 arcs. S3895, ESC 848, D764. Second one. Die 9 or 19?, 48 arcs. Can't see a WW but you had better look again, so looks like S3894 as opposed to S3893. ESC -, D -.

What's all this then? How can you have a mule with an obverse and a reverse that should be paired. Same mintmarks both sides and the correct obverse and reverse. Sorry Mat, couldn't resist, i'm feeling mischievous. It's a straight S2668, S2669 has the plume over shield reverse. The portrait looks almost too strong though, as if it has been tooled, but that should be simple to verify under a glass.

I'm not sure how he will realise that he has changed from milled to hammered. Both types of offering were dire.

How about 100%??! Henry VI Groat ooooooh. loverly. I don't need one but, £100 less or a bit more and I'd start to get interested. It's a £300 coin, but worth paying a bit extra for. As common as the type is, that is a splendid example. If it is ex-RCB and has a Seaby ticket/envelope, it should be possible to establish wherever it was listed. It might even have a few more tickets because RCB noted provenances.

The date 1791 is a Taylor concoction. No Droz pattern with this date is known. The type is a Peck R66 which is struck from the reverse die of type R17 which in turn was derived from type R8. Due to Taylor having to remove the original date of 1790 in order to insert 1791, he also removed most of the signature below the date. Originally this read DROZ.INV.. There was also an F in the top right of the exergue of which only the top bar remains.

Herein lies the moral dilemma. If you are going to set up a business that purports to be a standard bearer for genuineness and general fidelity, then it is incompatible to accept any coin for slabbing that has been modified or otherwise "improved". I'm not criticising the workmanship, but if you are going to have rules, then they have to be uniformly applied. You can't have a system that everyone swears by based on a confidence that a coin is untampered with only to throw out the rule book because something looks nice. Otherwise, what is the problem with someone sneaking modern counterfeits past the graders having removed the identifying features? After all, the metal could be right, the design could be right, the method of manufacture could be right and with a bit of judicious modification, they could all be made to look different. People would complain if this happened and was discovered. You can't have selective application of any set of rules if the system's integrity depends on those rules. Coins routinely get rejected by the TPGs for environmental damage, or cleaning that nobody else can see; I can't see how this can be considered acceptable if their standards are to have any credibility.

No it doesn't imply that Stephen Fenton did, or had the work done - that is just one possibility and would require him to be registered outside the EU for tax purposes if the first sentence was to apply. Having a shop in London is incompatible with that tax status as he would fall foul of the 90 day rule. The coin was in the sale with 5% import VAT which means the vendor was resident for tax purposes outside the EU. Odds on it was consigned by someone from the US as it was slabbed by a US company, but that doesn't mean impropriety can be assigned to SF or any other named individual as they could equally have been Australian, Canadian or Japanese for example. All three countries have a healthy collecting base for British material, but the limited period available to get the work done between end of March 2010 and when the catalogue was produced - say July, means there was little opportunity to trade the coin by the time it had been "improved" and slabbed and consigned. PCGS don't "improve" coins, but there are companies that do using lasers. Hus put a link up to some examples on the PCGS forum of coins that had been improved to make them unrecognisable from their original state. The scuff would have failed a grade test, but small hairlines are allowed. That is why it would be done in the first place. A Genuine label on a slab will not attract the same kudos (or dollars) as a Proof 64 ultra cameo label. It is done simply for money, but the way in which it gets there leaves a big question mark hanging over it, the slabbing company and the consignor assuming he/she and the "improver" are one and the same person. Like Azda, I don't like myself or other people being taken for a ride.

St. James's Catalogue obv. Catalogue rev. Anyone care to disagree with me?

My scan

How can they tell, do you think? What do they know that you lot don't? Sadly, you can't rely on them. One of the gold pattern halfpennies I bought at Plymouth in 2008 with a large scratch/scuff on the cheek and subsequently sold resurfaced in last September's St.James's sale with the mark removed and now resides in an NGC PF64 ultra cameo slab instead of whatever code they give for damage or altered. Someone paid over US$30K for a tooled coin, which I can almost guarantee was done unknowingly. Having said that, when I posted the info on a US forum, the silence was deafening, so I guess they didn't care too much that it had slipped through and assume the guarantee of genuineness was more important. Shite, isn't it? Rob Who did you sell it to and for how much? I'm horrified that this could happen with a £20k coin. How have NGC taken the news?....something like this could cause serious damage to slabbing companies. But hey a slabber isn't an expert in some of our specialised fields. I sold it to Steven Fenton at the Harrogate fair in March 2010 for a sum between what I paid for it and what it sold for in the Sept. sale where it resurfaced in the slab. It had a 5% import surcharge for EU bidders, so had obviously been exported outside the EU in the interim. I assume that it went across the pond. The hammer price was £17K (or about £20K with the premium) and was sold to an American dealer, so it is reasonable to assume it is now Stateside again. I did a thread on the PCGS forum called slab images as I was trying to get an NGC archived image to see what they had and compare it with the Plymouth sale CD images together with my own and the Mitchell-David and other properties patterns and proofs. NGC may or may not know about it as this would require them to monitor the PCGS forum. Clearly they aren't going to wave a big flag saying we can't tell a tooled coin when we see one. This incidentally goes full circle back to the question of provenance. A unique gold coin will always be imaged in modern times, so modifying it to remove blemishes is crass because someone is going to point it out. Having owned the coin for a couple years, I know I'm not wrong and so I raised the issue. For a forum filled with people extolling the virtues and benefits of slabbing, the minimal response was very surprising. So...if you hadn't owned the coin could you tell if it had been tooled? Would a gold coin with a blemish assist with its authenticity? Several years ago I was looking to invest in some hammered gold...alas I didn't.I was warned by CC. I would have bought VF nicely struck examples. Yes, but only as a consequence of my recording sales data for rare and/or high grade examples because I would have compared it with the images from the Plymouth sale. Authenticity is greatly assisted by being able to tie a coin to a previous image. Provenances can be confirmed by having known buyers of specific lots even if the coin isn't illustrated, but a picture tells a thousand words. Here are a few images. sorry for many posts but I can't put them in the same frame. Plymouth sale CD image obverse. Reverse

How can they tell, do you think? What do they know that you lot don't? Sadly, you can't rely on them. One of the gold pattern halfpennies I bought at Plymouth in 2008 with a large scratch/scuff on the cheek and subsequently sold resurfaced in last September's St.James's sale with the mark removed and now resides in an NGC PF64 ultra cameo slab instead of whatever code they give for damage or altered. Someone paid over US$30K for a tooled coin, which I can almost guarantee was done unknowingly. Having said that, when I posted the info on a US forum, the silence was deafening, so I guess they didn't care too much that it had slipped through and assume the guarantee of genuineness was more important. Shite, isn't it? Rob Who did you sell it to and for how much? I'm horrified that this could happen with a £20k coin. How have NGC taken the news?....something like this could cause serious damage to slabbing companies. But hey a slabber isn't an expert in some of our specialised fields. I sold it to Steven Fenton at the Harrogate fair in March 2010 for a sum between what I paid for it and what it sold for in the Sept. sale where it resurfaced in the slab. It had a 5% import surcharge for EU bidders, so had obviously been exported outside the EU in the interim. I assume that it went across the pond. The hammer price was £17K (or about £20K with the premium) and was sold to an American dealer, so it is reasonable to assume it is now Stateside again. I did a thread on the PCGS forum called slab images as I was trying to get an NGC archived image to see what they had and compare it with the Plymouth sale CD images together with my own and the Mitchell-David and other properties patterns and proofs. NGC may or may not know about it as this would require them to monitor the PCGS forum. Clearly they aren't going to wave a big flag saying we can't tell a tooled coin when we see one. This incidentally goes full circle back to the question of provenance. A unique gold coin will always be imaged in modern times, so modifying it to remove blemishes is crass because someone is going to point it out. Having owned the coin for a couple years, I know I'm not wrong and so I raised the issue. For a forum filled with people extolling the virtues and benefits of slabbing, the minimal response was very surprising.

A reasonable suggestion would be that a provenance might add say 0-50% to an unprovenanced example in comparable grade. But these coins typically turn up in proper auctions and not on places like eBay which means that you are more likely to be an experienced collector in the first place. I believe it is unquestionably money well spent and will always choose a provenanced coin over a comparable unprovenanced one. That is why it is also important to keep any tickets that may come with a coin. You might not know who wrote them now, but in the future they might be identified. Ebay on the whole is not a good source of provenanced coins - the number I have bought over the past 8-10 years off ebay is only a dozen at the most. Actually, make that two thinking about it.

How can they tell, do you think? What do they know that you lot don't? Sadly, you can't rely on them. One of the gold pattern halfpennies I bought at Plymouth in 2008 with a large scratch/scuff on the cheek and subsequently sold resurfaced in last September's St.James's sale with the mark removed and now resides in an NGC PF64 ultra cameo slab instead of whatever code they give for damage or altered. Someone paid over US$30K for a tooled coin, which I can almost guarantee was done unknowingly. Having said that, when I posted the info on a US forum, the silence was deafening, so I guess they didn't care too much that it had slipped through and assume the guarantee of genuineness was more important. Shite, isn't it?

I think the real problems will be with debased silver issues, where the quality of the silver combined with the fact that many things appearing on ebay have been dug will lead to copies slipping through. The easiest things to pass on are going to be less than pristine pieces where give away identifiers could be rubbed down without suspicion. At the moment we are reasonably well armed in so far that the number of pieces appears to be manageable in any one field, and the very nature of copies is that they get churned out in volume, which helps in identifying the dodgy pieces because collectively we have a very good memory for past sales. I notice that there has only been one copy of the coin I wrote about in the May Circular since then, and that had the image taken so that the identifying mark was off the bottom. Dodgy copy sellers also put them on 1 day sales, with anonymous private bidder ids and they always seem to claim they don't know what they are selling. So any of these characteristics in the description of listing details should act as a warning bell. The best indicator will always be multiple appearances of the same item. Flood the market and everyone would know of their existence, don't sell them and there isn't a problem. I think there are enough suspicious people to police the net (i.e.ebay), but a lot of novice collectors are going to get stung along the way when they try to recoup their "investment". Tomgoodhart lists all the forgeries he encounters on the Forgery Network. It would pay people to take a regular look at this site, and a permanent link in a prominent place on this forum would help jog forgetful memories.

Keep it meagre as long as you can Derek. I have had to register for VAT and it's a right pain in the arse! VAT isn't that big a problem. I've been VAT registered for the past 25 years and have had no hassle from HMRC whatsoever. In the case of the margin scheme it is very simple to operate as long as you keep tidy accounts. Presumably they are held on a computer and you use an accounting package. I use Sage, but any package worth its salt would offer the same accounting tools. Keep your margin purchases in one nominal code and your margin sales in another, subtract one from the other and you have your gross profit which is 120% of your net profit. So 1/6 to the VAT man and 5/6 you retain. Couldn't be simpler apart from having no VAT whatsoever. As with all systems, care taking in setting up the accounts package structure with pay itself back manyfold over the years. The people who complain most are those who work in a cash environment, where no records are kept and so transaction losses are facilitated by inadequate memories (conveniently so in some instances I'm sure), but if you are careful enough with documentation then the computer does all the work for you. To be honest, I would have thought that with any item over £500 (or less), you would want to account for it for personal rather than tax reasons. No records means you might sell it below cost (uh.... I don't think so).

Couldn't agree more. My news supplier of choice is the FT which I have read for the past 30 years. A good mixture of left and right leaning journalists resulting in opinions from both sides of the political divide which is unavailable to readers of the tabloids or the majority of broadsheets who have (unwisely IMO) nailed their colours to a particular political mast. By contrast, the FT will happily criticise or support both left and right in the same issue, so not such a good paper for sheep.