Rob

If slabbing existing coins doesn't take off, what's the betting we see attempts to create an artificial market (in that one doesn't exist in the UK, unlike in the US) for 'perfect' modern coins? If they can create a demand for something only they can provide maybe they might just make money after all!. You can already make money with the perfect coin as the "best known piece" market bears out. It has always been the case. The only difference is that you can personally verify it is the perfect coin when it isn't encased in plastic, because there ain't no way I'm going to trust any grading company which by default has a vested interest in keeping it's customers happy. These by definition are the people supplying the coins for slabbing and not the buyers of slabbed coins.

I think the seal is supposed to be Canada

A pattern penny attributed to Adolf Weyl at the end of the 1800's. Struck in Tin, this metal wasn't recorded by either Peck or Freeman. Ex-Adams lot 192 with a milled edge, this was described as being in aluminium but the weight being over x3 too heavy for this metal led me to analyse the content. Interestingly, there is no added zinc to act as a scavenger thus preventing oxidation as s normally the case with tin. These pieces were made in sets of three; penny, halfpenny and farthing and the other two piece I can confirm exist because I have them. This piece illustrated was pictured, erroneously stated in Wilson & Rasmussen to be aluminium and is illustrated there on page 445. The only known P2141 is in the BM and confirmed from the same dies. The following lot in the Adams sale (193) was the plain edge version also in tin and confirmed by analysis. The 1887 dated pieces by Weyl also exist in tin in both milled and plain edge varieties. The two Nicholson "aluminium" examples (lots 388 & 389) are the halfpennies from these sets. The Colin Cooke sale lot 173 was the milled edge 1860 farthing. Thus there are a total of 15 confirmed new varieties including the 3 date 1887 pieces struck in lead. The other 6 pieces not confirmed by me and making up the corresponding sets can be presumed to exist. The obverse: And reverse:

But I've just listed over 200 items you could buy

You could have pictures of higher grade coins in many instances as most of the coins types I've listed I have in mint state or at least EF because the coins I've put on so far are duplicates together with a few pieces where I've thinned the ranks a bit. On the second point I'll have a think about it when I'm closer to being finished, but everything is certainly listed and numbered because Mr VATman requires records to be kept and this is being done as a serious venture rather than a sideline.

No problem. Get a list together of what you are looking for and I'll see what else I've got. Regards whether they are all 300dpi - god knows but they were all taken with the same camera settings, although the auto focus falls down on some darker pieces. So the answer is probably yes. I'm having to wrestle with a new camera, not to mention the monotony of entering lines of programming; neither of which I am particularly adept at.

Well spotted. When I put the descriptions in order I forgot to move the price too. There's a few obvious copy and paste errors, but on the whole not too bad. The main thing was to get something on every page and worry about padding it out later.

Just ask for the pictures you need and add courtesy of Rob Pearce with a link to my website www.rpcoins.co.uk. It's up and running, but not finished yet. It will be by the time you need them.

There are a number of 1901 1/2ds in this condition.

The fields have clearly been polished but the rims are not to proof standard which is usually wider, flat and has a sharp right angle with the edge. The legend doesn't look crisp enough either. The lettering on proofs is quite angular with flat surfaces and straight edges are sharp where the relief changes height, whereas on currency pieces these sharp angles soon get rounded and you tend to get surface imperfections. Both are features you should look for. The Ls in the picture below demonstates this. Still a nice coin though.

I think you could be right Chris. I personally don't like to draw or make notes in any of my books. I can see the point if it is a new collector wishing to collect a certain type or a date run, but still I'm sure they could just as easily jot their info down on a note book or something. Signed copies are a good Idea I know I'd buy one. How much for a signed copy of Collectors' Coins Great Britain 2007 edition as I haven’t got it yet? I find it imperative to make notes in a reference book because there are so many varieties for the same date that you need to know which ones you have. Having said that, it can get a bit confusing when the book is second hand and there are two collections listed. But at least that saves defacing two books.

A few images of coins with arrows showing where the high points are and consequently the first points to show wear would help a lot of people. e.g. 2/6ds from 1902-27 always lose the I & P of the garter legend first along with hair detail or the best indicator of wear to George III shillings from 1816 is the harp breast. It should be conical to a point if mint state and always wears flat, so the wear is proportional to the size of flat surface. Much better than the lions which can suffer from die blockage or wear due to their irregular surface shape and fine detail.

I often wondered whether some sort of interactive grading website would be good... maybe like a game or quiz. It could show you a coin, you select what grade you think it is, it tells you how you fit in with opinion so far (or expert opinion, or whatever). There could be a link to somewhere to write comments where people could discuss the grading. In fact, what I have described could probably be done with the voting mechanism on the forum, although it would get a bit cumbersome with a thread for each type of coin in each grade. Still, it could provide a useful resource for us all (especially for less common types) and it would be interesting to see the things that different people look for when grading. I like this idea and think there could be some mileage in it. Have a feeling though all graders should be anonymous, as there could be a tendency to undergrade out of sheer machismo! I don't think undergrading is likely to be a problem. All people have to do is be honest with themselves, look at the coin objectively and properly scrutinise it for wear, then take an ego-free path and give an accurate assessment. It will of course help them if they have seen both high and low grade examples previously.

Good to see your spelling is as correct as the grades offered by the slabbing companies. Very well put.

Looking at your image of the date, it looks as if there could possibly be a trace of the outside edge of a flat topped 4 above and slightly left of the top left corner of the 5. This would tie in to the vertical of the 4 which would agree with the slightly left inclined blockage in the top gap of the 5 and the vertical displacement would be about right too. My perception of the underlying bit is that the 4 if it is that, is slightly rotated acw.

I'm not aware of any references to this as an overstrike, that's why I asked if anyone had a mint state example on an earlier thread. Preferably an early strike too so that there is less chance of die wear.

Is the 1835 a 5/4? I don't know Rob here's a pic. What do you think? I know what is realy obvious is that it has a large die crack running from the last l to the s in gulielmus. Totally inconclusive. I think they are both struck from the same obv. die as my piece has a thin flaw from the top right serif of the U to the border bead only following the same path as yours as well as the very faint flaw joining the base of the M & U that is slightly arched. So mine is just an earlier strike. Also, your 3 is slightly defective on the right hand side of the lower loop to a greater extent than on mine. The features of what appears to be an underlying 4 on mine is best seen with the light coming from 12 o'clock, which highlights what would be the angled bar just outside the 5 vertical but doesn't follow the 5 shape where it changes direction and enters the tail of the 5 in the middle of the end. Also, the cross bar rises slightly from left to right. The little spur which joins the tail of the 5 to the angle perfectly bisects the angle of the possible 4. There are traces of what would be the serifs on the foot of the 4 in the loop and as a very small protrusion on the outside of the loop. Picture added to show what I mean, the right hand of the foot is not as prominent as the drawing suggests.

Is the 1835 a 5/4?

I wish I had even the slightest artistic ability. Strangely, all four children have much better than average artistic talent, so either Mr Milkman has been very busy or else I must live closer to Sellafield than I thought! This is all very worrying.

Perhaps he is trying to make a point. The proof it is a penny is in the picture.

The above seems to fall down when applied to the previous reign where for example you get fine work shillings with mm. Tun which is neither at the beginning nor the end of a design type. I don't know if this is significant to the postulated reasoning for their production.

As the above complaint is obviously aimed at me - I apologise, no offence intended

It's not that rare.

Some things never change. A good example of one of our regular ebay shill bidders. 1694 halfpenny

It's a very poor example of a 1797 penny. The first N is there, but corroded away. It's value is negligible.