1949threepence

Blowing up pics of the coin always show up every imperfection, and even the slightest flaws, virtually invisible to the naked eye, are writ large. On a related level, I've said before that some sellers of coins don't always do themselves any favours with their photos, in which normal size pics are shown in a bad light (literally), or blurry, and the blow ups look dreadful. In hand the same coin looks, or can potentially look, very attractive. Lustre is interesting. I've got a couple of buns in which the vast majority of the lustre seems to have gone, yet the coin has that unmistakeable sheen of UNC when turned in the light. It appears that atmospheric or other factors have eliminated the actual lustre, although the coin remains uncirculated in all other respects.

Thanks David, on two counts. Firstly for the extra download of Peck's article, and secondly, for the 1918KN pics. Clearly very little difference, and equally split. Not that significant. My own example is of the closer variety. The bird's foot flaw is obviously a rarer and more interesting feature.

If I'd realised that, I'd have taken screenshots of the lot. I wanted to look at it again as well. Maybe Peck will be kind enough to upload again

You can see an example on my site. Ref the milled edge Pennies The Royal Mint themselves have stated, after electro-microscopic examination, that all examples are post production alterations. OK, thanks for that, John.

A fascinating read. Thanks Peck. Honing in on my own current speciality, there are one or two things there, which I was totally unaware of. Like the 1862 penny, with small figures in date, and the 1918KN ~ KN together, or K N spaced slightly apart. I also note that the author makes reference to the London mint 1882 penny, and a milled edge 1899 penny. I seem to remember that many have (since) cast doubt on the milled edge penny being a Royal Mint production. Noted that Freeman and Gouby got a mention !!!

post deleted

Nor me. I'm just trying to envisage how, precisely, it would operate. Logically, one might assume an increase in the number of grading points for each level, from 10 to 100. So instead of say MS63, you might have a further refinement to perhaps MS637 or 638. If that is the case, then surely it would stretch subjectivity to its absolute outer limits. I'm not convinced that any one person is actually capable of quantifying an essentially subjective assessment to such a level of accuracy. Maybe a panel of 10 + scorers, looking at the same item, and then scoring the coin with an average of their marks might be an option ?

For purely British coins, so would I.

Totally agree. In cases like the rare 1905 halfcrown, where fakes exist, CGS comes into its own.

£7000 hammer, but lot 275 was made up of the penny plus a proof set 1/4d - 2/6d and so no price is available for the penny as a stand alone item. OK, thanks Rob. I suppose it would be possible to roughly estimate by gauging what the proof set would have gone for on its own.

I suppose they lend an independent authenticity to grade, and a slabbing service if you like slabbing. But I personally wouldn't use them. Firstly because the grading is purely subjective and can vary from person to person, and day to day in the same person. I feel just as capable of arriving at an accurate grading. Secondly, I don't like slabbing.

So what happened to the one that was, according to the article, nicked from Leeds? Has it turned up since or is it squirrelled away in a collection only to come to light when the owner dies? I'd bet, the latter. Nearly 40 years ago now. Even so, the "owner" may still be going strong. For all we know he might have only been 18 or so at the time They suggested £3000 in the article ~ does anybody know what it did for for at auction ?

The top bar of the "5" looks palpably shorter on the second (lighter coloured) one.

I wonder if it's kind of an ironic name, like calling a tall guy "Tiny" ?

Well done. Presumably only in fair to fine, though ? Otherwise it would surely have been noticed.

Most of us can only admire a thing of beauty like that, from a long distance.

Yes, but not on bronze. There is/was an odd light greenish tinge on the reverse, in artificial light, to a 1923 a/UNC shilling I bought in August 2009. Leastways it was visible for a time. When I just looked a few minutes ago it wasn't there ~ or didn't appear to be. Definitely not verd, but a overall slight hue. Lord knows what causes it.

Superb bit of luck. Hopefully, we'll get a pic (I think I know who it is as well)

OK, thanks Rob. Good points taken on board.

...and did you ? If so, at the risk of sounding impertinently nosey, what happened ?

Totally agree with Rob & Peck. If it was a rare coin in that condition, and a stamp on it, I'd probably go for it at the reduced price. But with a common date, there'd be absolutely no point, when you could get a perfect one quite easily. With increasing rarity, you can forgive a lot. With abundance, you really can't.

Sorry to be pedantic, but the King died in February 1952, so earlier that same year, as opposed to the previous year

Literally just discovered this thread. Not sure how I previously managed to overlook it, so sorry Rob, if I was one of your forum regular absentees. I've not got that many books as, like Tom, my numismatic interest is perhaps rather restricted. I do have Derek's grading book as well as Dave Groome's 20th century silver book. I also have Freeman's 1985 version, Spinks coins of England (which I hardly ever look at) and a number of coin yearbooks. I did accumulate a few second hand coin books in the early to mid 1990's but when I left home in 2000, my Mother accidentally threw them out. Fortunately I had already taken my collection the previous day !!! I'm definitely going to purchase a Gouby on the bronze penny and Dave Groome's 20th century bronze. I'd also like to get a Peck, although they are horrendously expensive and I'm not sure just how useful they are these days, considering their cost. I do use the internet, but for detailed study I prefer reading from an actual page, rather than a screen.

The box is quite nice, but I wouldn't pay £75.00 for it.

I saw a 1954 last year which had to be a changed date or something else iffy about it, but I have to confess I couldn't see anything wrong with it and nor could the person (a dealer) who showed it to me. It could easily have been genuine. How do we know that is taken from the known coin other than to accept the vendor's word? Can we be certain the 'only genuine' 1954 is actually so? Actually, when it comes to tin foil impressions of coins, Lindt do a very nice SFr5 amongst other things. Yummy. Not sure about that. Whilst there are apparently accurate mintage records available for every other year and denomination, we only ever read that as far as 1954 is concerned, there is "only one known". Not even sure why that was produced or where it is now ~ can somebody enlighten ? Same applies to the 1952, of course.