Gary D

Being a country bumpkin, I have a regular postie who has become a friend. I am quite happy for him to sign for my packages as a) I trust him and it saves me the 3 mile drive the following day to get it from the sorting office. Where did that bloody smiley come from? The emoticons are simply graphical replacements for sequences of text that look vaguely like smiley faces. Unfortunately, if you actually wanted to use a b followed by a closing round bracket - you can't. Most systems that use emoticons have a way to disable an emoticon (eg using a backslash to make the characters literal) but I haven't found one that works here. b ) Yeah, a space sort of works, but any programmer worth their salt would provide a mechanism to override an otherwise default behaviour. None of them are! I speak as an ex-programmer... It's a pity we don't have a better range available.

I think unusual rather than special

Think of it like this. The year x proof set costs £22.50. You are a Half Crown collector so it would cost you £22.50 to get the Half Crown. If you collected pennies again it would cost you £22.50 to get one. Would you not prefer to only pay £17.50 for a penny or Half Crown and save a fiver.

I've got a nice penny that had a spot of the green stuff. It's currently in olive oil which is working well. What is the normal procedure for removing the olive oil once the penny is removed from the dip.

Gulp! Guilty as charged - only on occasion though. The reason being that FDC demands perfection and the vast bulk of coins I have seen described this way just haven't been perfect. I am cursed with myopia which means my short range vision is extremely acute and as soon as I look at a coin I see scratches or minor damage of some sort. This can itself be a blessing or a curse, and let's face it nothing made by man is perfect. So where should we draw the line, perfect to the naked eye? with an eyeglass? or should we accept that everything however well-intentioned does contain some flaws? Personally, I think the problem lies in the description for FDC that Spink and others trot out. I would need some time to dream up a more appropriate description but frankly 'perfection' just doesn't wash. In addition to this, I think we do need a second tier for proof coins but don't think PAS is quite right, as it is already used by some dealers to describe the very best currency pieces (e.g. by Michael Gouby on base metal pieces exceeding 95% lustre). This is one area where I think the Sheldon scale has it over traditional grading descriptions, as without resorting to words it is quite possible to bring a coin down ever so slightly from Mount Olympus without damning it with faint praise. In a nutshell therefore I want a better way of describing proof coins without resorting to lies (nothing is 'perfect') or using a soul-less numerical method of grading (the Sheldon scale)! Surely proof is a process not a grade. Normal grading should apply but substitute FDC for UNC.

I started to write a message to this guy pointing out the error of his ways, but then I though that would being cruel. Sun grasses please

They did not "overstamp" existing coins but cut a new date into dies that were still good from previous years. In most cases the last digit of the date was altered as is the case of the 1865 over 3 penny, 1858 over 7 and so on. Dies were very costly to produce so this helped to keep costs down. Many Dies became damaged and letters and numbers were recut to increase the life of the Die. Another reason is a mistake when preparing a new Die ie the 1862 Penny where the 6 has been recut over an 8 which has been incorrectly cut during Die preparation.. I am sure there are other members on here who are more in the know when it comes to Die making. I think Debbie's point was, why bother, just mint some of the old date. At the end of the day does it really matter that the date changed every year.

Being on the cusp of all of this being born in June 1954 I am watching closely. Having paid SERPs and 2nd pension for many years I will be more than disappointed if I get less than what is currently due to me. Both SERPs and the 2nd pension are discretionary, I could have opted out, so I expect to see the benefits of it, not have it given to someone else.

I have had the Mascle for a number of years now and am very pleased with it. My only (retrospective) preference would be to have had the option of an additional simple drawer-like tray, in which to put the coin tickets (either too large or square) and dealers' envelopes that came with the coins, but that don't fit into the usual round recesses with the coins. Cabinets also come up in auctions fairly regularly, but the advantage of a tailor made one is that you can specify the size of hole you want for your coins rather than just make do with what's supplied (usually a range from small to large). I've got the Mascle as well, Tom ~ but, man, those prices have gone up significantly since I bought mine in January 2010 I'm very pleased with mine too. There's more than enough space for what I've already got, and what I intend to get. As you say though, another drawer for provenance and other purchase related documents would be a good idea. For anybody thinking of buying, it might be worth asking Peter about this, although I think I may have heard that he was retiring. The address has certainly changed from St Leonards (near Hastings) to somewhere near Nottingham. Yes Mike, I think he sold up last year or late 2011. I have a Coronet, and yes have prices gone up. What I've done a couple of times now is to have a couple trays made as my collection has changed shape and grown. I do have a couple of spare trays now plus a couple of the flat open trays where I've added extra coin trays.

Well here it is warts and all. I thought it had come up pretty well until I photographed it My one concern is that the oil will attract dust and fluff.

Uh, correction......it must be a PCGS Proof 67 CAMEO.....( and I must approve it in hand). Greeting gents and ladies allow me to introduce myself as 'Bidask'...! I am the one who posted the offer on the PCGS message board World and Ancients and it stands...... This all sounds rather intriguing, what was the link again? World and Ancient Coins Forum

What obverse do the the circulation coins have? Obverses 1 and 2 were used for currency threepences, along with two reverses A and B. Not sure whether all 4 combinations exist, Gary D will be able to confirm whether 1+B exists or not. I have the 1+A, 2+A and 2+B. I've never seen a 1+B.

I have 450g of 1920- 1947 coins so if I half the current 0.999 silver price of £206.60, to £103.30, and that what the coins are worth scrap? Also I got one 1918 shilling out of the whole lot. I have a load more somewhere but I can't remember where I put them. My God damn messy attic swallows all my good stuff. Only rare dates and those in the top grades, are worth more than scrap. And silver has gone up so much in recent times, that more and more coins now fall into the "scrap" category. All we want now is for the price of Cu-pro Nickle and Bronze to rise substantially and perhaps all that crap on ebay will start to disappear.

Something that occurred to me about these so called satin pieces. Due to the very low mintage of Maundy pieces would not the dies be carried over to the currency pieces as I believe sometimes happens to other denominations once the proof run is finished. This would result in a coin with all of the attributes of a proof coin but without the specially prepared flans. Hence the satin finish.

Also gets rid of a lot of expensive postage costs back and forth, notwithstanding the eradication of import/export issues! There would be no Import costs to PCGS in France. Is anyone actually Reading my posts correctly? PCGS have an office in Paris so there is no Tax duty to pay There's no import duty into the States either, It's just if you want to get it back into the UK again after slabbing.

I put a snipe on it, but came up way short. I would however consider something like that for a wide date. Agreed. For a wide date in that condition, it's the kind of end price one might reasonably expect ~ and be willing to pay, actually. Assuming the winning bid was genuine it's still within what the winning bidder was prepared to pay. Now the only way we could tell is if the under bidder gets a second offer.

Uhhhhh, and all the pointers you indicate give the coins a prooflike appearance, sharp rims, high definition strike etc. Your "satin" coins are virtually impossible to distinguish and come down to a matter of opinion, which to be brutal, quite often rests with the value in most peoples eyes. Just a point of interest, that's if anyone is interested The 1911 maundy 3d uses Obv2 I of BRITT to bead, whereas the proof 3d is Obv1 I to gap. But the maundy set I have from the proof set has the proof 3d not the maundy 3d. So I guess as there is only one 3d in the proof set you get the proof 3d.

Absolutely, Peck, I've always liked them, and they are a nice starter collection for the budding numismatist. Not too many years (31), no complex varieties, but sufficient mix of common and rare/scarce in high grade, to make assembling the collection interesting. Plus two attractive designs. Brass threepences seem especially vulnerable to verdigris. With four varieties of the 1937 currency plus two for the proof and a nickle flan. Three varieties for 1941 and two for both 1948 and 1949. Two varieties for 1953 plus proofs for 1950, 1951 and 1953, also 1970. Enough there to keep us variety hunter happy.

Which still leaves us wondering who'll pay £32 for a Churchill Crown? And where can I find these people? Billpuguk and it was actually £33.02 To continue the conspiracy theory.. Gill Lockett of London Coins puts a slabbed Churchill on the 'Bay. A "stooge" bids over £30 for it (and then gets their money refunded minus a bit of commission). Next thing we know, London Coins are rating/selling slabbed Churchills at £15 a pop, and point to the £30+ auction to show how "conservative" they are being. Then we see them going on eBay from sellers unconnected with London Coins, and wide-eyed punters willing to pay anything between £10 and £20 each.. How's anyone going to believe their hype if they have no sales to back it up.

It's a CGS slab, and the seller's name contains 'lockett'. Far be it from me to start a conspiracy theory, but ... Sellers address is Longfield Kent. Gill Lockett. Does Stink a little though I have noticed recently that a couple of the Lockett clan have been selling slabs on ebay. Just trying to get some exposure I guess.

Bugger, classic example, I forgot M Gouby (remind me of his numismatic status again?)! Happy New Year, Paul (I may have wished you that already)! Time for a sharp exit, me thinks! And Declan who often has plenty of very high grade 20th century pre-decimal on the bay

I agree that there is no point trying to describe some 1935 raised edge crowns as "cameo" and others as "deep cameo". I read in a review that there are also non cameo (no frosting) 1935 proof crowns but have never seen one myself. Has anyone seen one before? If so does anyone know why the different types exist? All the raised edge proofs I've seen are frosted but the incuse proof I have barely shows and frosting. Which brings me onto another pet hate, the TPGs don't differentiate between the raised edge pattern proof and the incuse proofs, so how can you tell the difference when you can't see the edges.

The frosted appearance is produced by sandblasting the sunk portions of a die. It's actually a particular minting technique, and should be distinguished from - e.g. - proofs produced in the 1970s, which are non-frosted mirror-like proofs. The particular difficulty is with George VI - some of the proofs have a very mild frosting appearance (which may or may not have been caused by treatment of dies), while others of the same year / denomination don't show any. I often wonder what the Edward VII matt proofs would have been like if the matt effect had been restricted to only the raised portions of the design. If you look at the edge lettering on the crown you will see that the faces of the letters are Matt and the rest of the edge shiny.

Cameo proofs mean that the design has a frosted appearance and the fields look mirrorlike. When it comes to American coins, the Franklin half dollar is apt to be the one that shows a huge difference between a non-cameo and cameo proof. . The first image shows a typical non-cameo proof. The coin is shiny, but the design isn't frosted. It is clearly a proof coin, but not a cameo. The second image shows a cameo proof (or if you believe American TPGers, a "Deep Cameo"). The fields are mirrorlike and the design is frosted. When held in hand it looks a bit like a carved cameo. If you believe TPGers there are several different classes of cameo proofs, ranging from Cameo, to Deep Cameo, to Ultra Cameo. Yes this is something I get annoyed about. Take the 1935 raised edge crown for instance. With a mintage of just 2500 and probably all minted at the same time how can you differentiate between them, the TPGs are just making it up for their own gains.