Rob

Specific coins have always been referenced to previous sales where there was a comprehensive collection even though it wasn't a documented reference volume. So crown for example have been referenced to the Lingford sale as the pre-eminent collection of that denomination, Similarly Nicholson halfpennies, Adams halfcrowns, Cooke farthings, Quartermaster/Bentley sovereigns, Norweb anythings etc. It isn't fake news, just another reference point.

Themed collections are an aesthetically pleasing move away from the serried ranks of sameness associated with denomination collecting. Although a themed collection still confers boundaries, the almost inevitably eclectic result obtained on completion will provide interest for many collecting areas. Multiple areas of interest is a diversity that many collectors could benefit from.

A little number from two of the most accomplished performers I've ever seen. The support isn't bad either.

1794 guinea, EF or possibly a bit better. Looks nicer in hand without the flash.

That's good. It is unlikely we will ever be in competition. You take the c**p, I'll go for something nicer.

The coin. Look at the reflections off the angled surfaces facing the light source. That is what the coin would look like if illuminated using a flash on the camera. There is no texture to the surface tone which is a good indication of having been cleaned or dipped at some point. The obverse hairlines betray a bit of abrasive cleaning by someone. Any coin in circulation will develop hairlines, but that goes hand in hand with accumulating dirt. Clean coin and hairlines says cleaned.

Your assessment and grading looks about right on the one you posted, but it is horribly bright.

and the reverse.

The only unc one is the no hearts. Here it is in a larger picture.

To grade any coin you need to know what a mint state example looks like. Failure by the uninitiated to do this is why so many things on ebay are listed as extremely fine or unc. A washer is a washer, so anything with half decent detail appears to automatically deserve extremely fine. Sadly this is not how it works. That's why you should avoid ebay if you don't feel confident to grade a coin. Here are a few in varying grades.

It could be a proof. Pictures of both sides would help.

The Pembroke sale may well be the first instance when this was included in a catalogue, as it wasn't printed in say Thomas Thomas, Durrant or the Devonshire collection which were all important sales of that decade, nor any other earlier catalogues I possess. The scale was subsequently included more often than not in Sotheby's catalogues up to the mid 1920s. The Bruun sale in 1925 and Middleton (1926) both had the scale, but Huth in 1927 had a scale in inches as did all the catalogues here subsequent to that. I don't know why they dropped it.

It doesn't say in the product specification, so you have to assume the worst. Amazon will sell anything that people pay to list. PVC sleeves might be a no-no, but plasticisers of any type will leach out and leave a sticky residue. The key is to have an inert material with no added plasticiser. Go to a proper coin dealer with your requirements and ask questions before spending money.

Any movement whereby one surface rubs against another must cause wear of the softer surface, though initially will likely be imperceptibly light. In time this will cumulatively add up to visible flattening of the highest points. As most materials are not homogenous, you could still get wear to the coin from contact with say microscopic dust particles even if the felt is nominally softer. Eventually this will be significant enough to impact on the grade. The fibrous nature of felt ensures that the inevitable 3 point contact with two rigid surfaces is alleviated. Rub is rub, irrespective of how it came about.

Looks around the EF mark with some wear to the high points, but nothing excesive, and a couple of small contact marks. The grainy surface could be due to chemical etching, or could just be a crap photo. It may have been dipped at some point given the uniformity of colour. I would eliminate rusted dies, because both sides look the same.

I'm not sure how to add arrows and circles, so here's a lower grade example than the last one, this time with hearts in the Hanoverian shield. On the two top crowns, the orb at the centre point of the crown arches show distinct signs of a flat surface, this feature not seen on the previous example. Also note, the Garter Star at the centre of the reverse has been entered unevenly on the die with the top left quarter less deeply cut. Because this area is weak, it is not possible to say whether the missing rays are due to a failure to enter the design, filled detail, or a combination of both. Given the lack of die fill elsewhere, a weak entry seems more likely but isn't conclusive.

Here is an example that is essentially unc with a midge's of cabinet rub to the top left crown orb and the rampant lion where the toning has been removed. The lis closest to the centre is frequently not as well struck up as the other two, suggesting the problem was with the punch. You do see varying amounts of die fill on the finer detail. There were many 1787 shilling and sixpence dies, so no need to worry unduly about small differences.

I assume that was just a normal 1936 crown. George V died on 20th January, so the vast majority of coins dated 1936 will technically be Ed.8 even though they used the G5 effigy. If a 1932 crown in FDC is £1/10/-, then 5 shillings more for a 1936 is neither here nor there.

Suppliers could go a long way to retaining customers by not taking the p**s. Not for the first time I had a call from EE today. Despite my protestation that they must have the wrong number, the only practical step I was able to take was a promise that I would consider any proposal that reduced my monthly outgoings. Upon quoting the sum paid per month, his response was to put the phone down. Mission accomplished. None of them seem capable of realising that I don't aspire to spend as much as possible for a service I don't need and won't use.

OK, thanks. I still can't see what they get out of it though. 12 months at a reduced price is reduced income in my eyes. Any projected figures 12 months down the line are immaterial, as in February they said they weren't going to increase prices - yeh, right. Probably worth staying put in case they only have contracts at double the going rate in a year's time. My steam powered phone is more than adequate for my needs.

Mobile phone query for a change - not a pressing issue. Virgin in their wisdom have decided to increase my rolling monthly contract by 7% from £5.84 to £6.25 a month for the first time in years. I moaned about it as I never use the internet and calls are rarely over a couple hours a month which is well within the included time. They said I could go back to the previous cost only if I went onto a 12 month contract with 150% more phone minutes and some larger internet allowance. As more isn't less unless there is a catch, the question is what is it? Do companies arbitrarily triple or whatever the cost at the end of the contract in the hope you are too lazy to move, or randomly increase it in the middle of the period. I'm assuming the idea behind getting me to change is to increase their revenues in some roundabout way, but can't see an obvious method. Clearly any reduction in costs is a plus, but not if the expense is future pain. Anyone with experience in this department, or any suggestions? Ta.

Maybe it is only specific species of oak that are a problem. Or maybe it depends on how well the wood is seasoned, as you will be losing volatiles from the minute the tree is cut down.

Well, part 6 is in September.