Rob

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.

Let's have another reply then - we're on a roll. I would like to place on record my thanks for Marvin's contribution to my Weyl pattern article which has been accepted for the next BNJ. Fingers crossed the printers or the editor don't screw up.

Knock it back a grade and you will be in the right ballpark if it is otherwise desirable.

I'm a natural contrarian. If all the posts were about farthings, I would be calling for pennies. You just need a bit of variety, that's all. Gold, silver, copper, bronze, off-metal strikes, proofs, patterns, currency, ancient, modern, hammered, milled, british, foreign, genuine, counterfeit, errors, pieces with a historical connection, other numismatic related topic - the list is pretty long. Points worth discussing, even if you don't know anything about the item in question. You don't have to live in a monoculture.

The 1863 die 4 and open 3 both have the same sized numerals as the standard date. For die 2 and 3 others will have to help (bernie/gary schindler) Thank you. Obviously an optical illusion then.

The SSC shilling is second bust, so more desirable as it is relatively difficult to get hold of when compared to the out and out common 1st bust. Book prices do not reflect the comparative abundances.

I concur. The first farthings were pennies cut into quarters. Clearly not a chicken and egg situation.

I haven't measured it but the die 4 I posted on here last year looks to have standard sized numerals. I can get the old man to measure it tomorrow if you wish? Could do. Freeman isn't too helpful because the different images in the book aren't to the same scale, but even allowing for that the die number numerals look markedly smaller than the open 3 numerals. I suppose it could be an optical illusion, but I don't think so as all three above are reverse G which should have the same sized exergue.

A question for all you penny people. Do all the pennies with a die number under the date have halfpenny sized numerals or something intermediate or full size characters? The die number 4 penny illustrated in Freeman has a 4mm high 1863 compared to the adjacent 5mm high slender 3 date and the 3mm high halfpenny numerals.

A worn die number penny would find a person with a cheque book to fit the value so that I could fill a hole in the tray with something aesthetically pleasing. Notwithstanding that, I can see that if it is the only example available then needs must if you are trying to complete a series. It would be hypocritical to suggest otherwise as I possess a few unique fuglies.

This thread contains the literary preferences of most of the regular poster on the forum. Without knowing what you collect it is impossible to suggest the right mix of books, but you should be able to get some idea from the comments. This is a commonly asked question.

Double post.

Just a bit confused here.... can you tell me what edition the 1980 figures come from? I have 1972 being edition 12 and I have 1989 being edition 24. It appears there weren't publications every year. Cheers The 1970 volume is given as the 9th edition, but the copyright date is 1969, so there could be a slight mismatch here as to whether we are talking cover date or copyright date, otherwise if 1970 was the 9th, then it would be difficult to reconcile 1972 with being the 12th.

Yes, because the plastic gets stretched a little every time you put your fingers in it. Depending on the type of plastic used in the album, there may also be a long term problem with plasticiser contamination. You might like to consider storing them in a cabinet, lighthouse trays (or similar) or 2x2 flips with mylar windows (these are inert and would fit in an album with large enough compartments).

In that case it is a sixpence. Worn with some missing legend, it would usually not be worth over its bullion value. The nominal weight is 2.8g, so a few $s at best unless it was a rare variety such as I over S in HONI, an inverted 1 in the date or no colons in the obverse legend when some tens of $s would apply. It is unlikely to be a rare variety for the obvious reason that most people wouldn't have the rare ones by definition.

Welcome to the forum. If you have a shilling it should look like this 1820 is a common date and certainly won't be unique. The value is likely to be melt or a little over if as you say the coin is worn, though a picture would be helpful to confirmm this. The diameter should be about 23mm if a shilling, but the sixpence which shares the design is only 19mm approx.

Maundy money was only really issued as sets following the recoinage of 1816. Prior to that it was customary to use normal currency, but you will notice that not all denominations are found for all the years where small change was struck and so this presumably means that minting was as required to satisfy demand. However, the entire series of small change from Charles II onwards uses the term Maundy money despite appearing to be used as regular currency. There are no appreciably proof-like issues prior to 1816 compared to the later Victorian issues where you get both proof-like and dull field examples which in theory should distinguish between Maundy and currency. Treat pre 1816 as one type of issue.