Rob

That's got to be a dodgy one. The date doesn't look right. The top of the 6 is too angular. Compare it with this in the gallery. Or alternatively this one.

Go for it and try for a complete run. The VIP proofs are easily affordable; the run is a short one and mostly cheap to acquire in top grade. The only expensive pieces are the Edward VIII's, but you are unlikely to lose or gain a great deal when it is time to sell, so it would not be much of a gamble.

Its not split horizontally as such, its split down the centre so in effect, I have two separate coins. Like this you mean?

I think it is more a case of people being wary of spending a relatively large sum of money without being sure they are going to receive a proof. eBay frequently has "proofs" listed and there have been posts on this forum too where someone thinks they have a proof simply because it is in better condition than anything they are used to. The proofs for the years where sets were produced ensure a regular supply of cheap material, so unsure punters don't worry too much about a few quid, but a few hundred is a different matter. VIP proofs are not difficult to obtain as an example unless you are looking for a specific year, in which case there can be some really difficult ones.

It isn't a problem with them in the hand. I've got most of the KGV proof halfpennies and they are obviously not regular currency pieces.

I've had a couple like this over the years as well. The common theme is that they are all pitted and corroded, so I think the answer lies there. I have a theory that puts it down to a weakness in the metal at points where there has been relatively significant metal flow when struck. When metal sheet or whatever form is made, it has a crystalline structure. When a coin is struck there is metal flow, particularly at the points of varying relief in the design. The use of a collar means that flan spread is minimal and the radial metal flow lines particularly associated with the legend (such as tails emanating from the serifs) as seen on old coins is not present. This flow must by definition destroy the original lattice structure resulting in weakness at that point which can be more easily attacked by a corrosive substance. I think it is this we are observing as the effect is usually associated with a change in relief. Corrosion of a homogenous material would result in an even layer of metal being removed from the surface, but if the lattice structure has faults the corrosive agent could penetrate under the surface and so you would see greater pitting at this point. In extremis, this could result in metal being attacked from all sides to the point where a small detail feature could be detached. This may not be the complete or even the correct answer, but I think is a good starting point. I also think this explains the frequently sold 'thin flan' pieces on ebay which have probably been left in acidic solution for a period of time. 1/4mm or more of metal removal all round leaves a coin which is not appreciably smaller in diameter, blindingly obviously thinner, and also has thinner legend even though everything else looks ok. The slight diminution in the bust size would not be obvious as it would be the same as the change in diameter. I have never seen a coin with this effect without corrosion.

You may also be interested in this link, especially the entry for 1974 !!! That is an advert in a newspaper by a retailer, so doesn't necessarily reflect the date of issue. It is the first time the advertiser had offered the product.

I had a problem with the US postal service once. A shipment from Heritage was requested insured, tracked and signed for, but when it went missing according to Heritage it could only be tracked once in the UK. Clearly this was not being tracked at all. Thankfully it returned to the US 7 months later. Of the two coins in the packet, the one with a few known examples could eventually be replaced, but the unique one caused me a bit of a headache, not to mention the need for clean underwear.

CGF

Mmmm. Beer, Pizza, Donuts, scrap metal - shurely shome mishtake.

All the insurance companies I've dealt with in the past insist on whole of property insurance, so you can't for example just cover the living room and a bedroom contents. Therefore, if you insured the general household contents but didn't declare the 'valuables' then they would consider it as underinsured if it came to a claim and you provided a list of missing items to the police. I think this would cause a problem when the claim was entered. For anyone in this position it is probably worth checking with your insurer. To only insure a few specific high value items is also a bit of a grey area as the same would probably apply. You can rest assured that a burglar is unlikely to spend hours sifting through the trays in order to weed out the most desirable items and leave the crap, so a total loss is more likely. The whole collection being treated as a single item has its advantages, as you then don't need to flood the postal system with revised insurance details every time you make a major purchase assuming the overall level of cover is adequate.

I tried several insurers and the results were quite interesting. The cheapest general household contents insured had the most expensive valuables cover and conversely the most expensive contents had the cheapest valuables premium. All the various combined totals were not dissimilar. What cartel? I ended up taking the most expensive contents as it had the added benefit of blanket coverage up to a fixed amount which was well in excess of the actual, so it wasn't necessary to worry about underinsuring when advising of the sum you wanted to insure.

I don't have any. I only have 10 bronze pennies in total.

The people I've just gone with would charge about £42 for £7000 cover That's pretty reasonable for peace of mind, and only represents 0.6% of the total value, per annum. I shall have to look into it. Do they need an inventory/photographs, Gary ? 1/2% of the insured sum is a fairly consistent premium across all insurers. My insurer requires a valuation every 3 years which by definition requires an inventory and so reflects changes to the collection. You would be foolish not to keep original receipts and sales info though as the loss adjuster will use any means possible to reduce the claim. Images of the coins insured will always be helpful when it comes to proving the stolen coin or coins are yours.

Yes, possibly. Maybe an object lesson on how easy it is to be taken in by a forgery, due to over enthusiasm. Not that I would have bid for it anyway. I must admit on closer inspection, it doesn't look right, although you couldn't definitively say it's a fake. I hadn't seen your post in the e bay thread. There's something a bit strange about the lion's mane, compared to other coins of the same ilk. It looks slightly too detailed. I don't think there is anything wrong with the underlying basic coin, it's just the vertical mark to the left of the 5 and the slight misplacement that raise suspicions. It's probably a 1903 or 1904 with the number changed, most likely the latter given the angle of the gouge. Attached is a picture of one acquired on ebay a few years ago, or at least I was going to but the page refused to load fully so that I could add one.

It is when the best known Charles II 3rd issue shilling sold for £56 in Lockett II (1956) compared to a complete denomination run of the issue for £17 in around the EF mark. Particularly as the 1/- needed an A4 sized ticket to write out the provenance!

Think AT. You can work wonders with a chemistry set.

It's a difficult one. There is possibly some porosity on one side opposite the split, but quite a lot of it is well struck. Grading hammered is always a bit hit and miss if not in the hand. The detail on the crown and elsewhere is quite good. £200 50 years ago is too much though.

First of all it started life as a 30s ryal, but was revalued in 1578 to 36s.9d (that's what the countermark means). Prices on Scottish coinage are not particularly well documented and so the best indicator would be to have a look at past auction prices. The last Scottish price book from Spink came out in 2003 and priced this coin at £235 in fine and £525 in very fine. I would grade your coin at better than VF and closer to gVF, but the striking split is a slight problem. Recent strength in prices means it should be worth more than the VF price. Perhaps Scottishmoney can help as that is more his scene. As an indicator the 1984 Seaby price guide gave £85 in fine and £400 in very fine. However, looking at a 50 year old auction catalogue - Glendining 18/6/1959, a job lot of three Scottish ryals comprising 1566, 1567 and 1571 (the last two countermarked with a thistle) and all in very fine grade sold for £16 hammer. This is wildly different to £200, so it might be worth checking the acquisition dates as the sums don't add up.

I've heard one theory that it is due to grease blocking the die detail. This will not compress when the die is used if an airtight seal is formed and so the design is either non-existent or only weakly struck up. I have a few pieces like this.

That's quite a difficult one. Usually you need to look for a specific area of collecting and then find the books to suit. There have been a wide range of books over the years which have covered the topic generally, but it is difficult to say what you need. Clearly you need to identify coins, but if this encompasses the whole world you need something like Krause which would be overkill and prohibitively expensive for beginners. If restricting yourself to British coins post 1797 then Chris' CCGB would be ok, but any earlier and you need to go onto something like Spink's Coinage of England which is produced annually. Both of these have a glossary of terms which is useful if you want to understand what is written about coins. Most books tend to cover a restricted field but then go into some depth. You can look in the gallery to see the sort of coins people have in their collections. There is everything from Roman to the present day. Obviously the easiest to collect are those from circulation, but for older things you would have to do some research regarding what is available and who can supply.

Edward IV second reign

It depends on which part of the market you are talking about. The choice coins rarely find their way onto ebay for the simple reason that your avarage punter doesn't have the ability to recognise true quality for a given type of coin. It has kept the middle market up remarkably well with the assistance of photography sometimes showing what isn't there. The bottom end of the market has been stratospheric with most coins deserving to be melted achieving prices wildly in excess of this value. Agreed on that last point. The only problem is that more than 95% of what's on offer is dross. Finding quality is well nigh impossible and most people simply don't have the time to trawl through the lists. So you are going to end up with a welcome expansion of collectors, but whose grading experience is in the main derived from ebay listings and won't look at a coin described as gVF or nEF despite it being a grade or so higher than the UNCs in their collection.

her ya go obviously ive had to turn the coin so its the right way up I think we may be talking with our wires crossed here. When you say you had to turn the coin, do you mean the date is behind the top of the head, or is it behind the cut-off line on the neck? the date is behind the top of his head im guessing this is normal.lol That's normal. Until the Jubilee Head sixpences of 1887, almost all machine made coins were struck with an inverted die axis. There were a few exceptions to the rule such as the 1787 issues and some inadvertent errors. This inverted die axis is known as en-coin. The term en-medaille you mentioned at the start of this thread refers to coins where the two sides are the same way up. i.e. if you turn over a coin on the vertical axis from left to right it will still be the same way up. An inverted or en-coin die axis will be correct if you turn it over on the horizontal axis i.e. from top to bottom. I had assumed that the phrase "and noticed that my 1831 had been minted in medal alignment. is this the same for all sixpences minus pre 1787" was an accurate description of what you wanted to say. As all pre 1787 sixpences have an inverted die axis, by logical extension you were talking about a normal die axis otherwise known as in medal alignment.

her ya go obviously ive had to turn the coin so its the right way up I think we may be talking with our wires crossed here. When you say you had to turn the coin, do you mean the date is behind the top of the head, or is it behind the cut-off line on the neck?