Peckris

Pray tell, I have a fake 1905 half crown and wish I knew what points it out as a fake. From what I gleaned on this very forum, there's a small break in the R of EDWARDVS that is the prime giveaway on many of them. But there may be other flaws on those from other sources? Are you certain that this only appears on fakes? I have seen more 1905 halfcrowns with the defect on the R of EDWARDVS, than without. The EF example in the Andrew Scothern collection (being auctioned by DNW later this month) also has the defect. The only giveaway of fakes that I'm aware of is the wonky I of QVI on the reverse. As I say, I only heard about this on this forum, and only in connection with fakes. There may well be genuine examples with the same defect, but I hadn't heard of them here! I pointed out on here some time ago the broken R but it was pooh poohed at the time. My fake is 0.900 silver so not quite sterling. It's got the wonky I. Strangely, that part of it I didn't remember.

Pray tell, I have a fake 1905 half crown and wish I knew what points it out as a fake. From what I gleaned on this very forum, there's a small break in the R of EDWARDVS that is the prime giveaway on many of them. But there may be other flaws on those from other sources? Are you certain that this only appears on fakes? I have seen more 1905 halfcrowns with the defect on the R of EDWARDVS, than without. The EF example in the Andrew Scothern collection (being auctioned by DNW later this month) also has the defect. The only giveaway of fakes that I'm aware of is the wonky I of QVI on the reverse. As I say, I only heard about this on this forum, and only in connection with fakes. There may well be genuine examples with the same defect, but I hadn't heard of them here!

By definition this must be mutually exclusive. If there are say for example 1% of coins extant that are uncirculated (this is over-optimistic)then any online coin auction could only hope to get the same small percentage of people to use it because most things out there are crap and will always be so, but everyone wants to maximise their return and if this means calling something unc just to get eyeballs, then this is what will be done. It's a free country and not criminal to overgrade in the literal sense, but a combination of ignorance and a moral compass pointing south will ensure that an honest description will never be popular with the masses. I just wish a few more people would open an account with a scrap metal merchant. Oh, if ONLY coin grading could be brought within the Trades Description Act! (I do realise it couldn't be, but I can dream).

Pray tell, I have a fake 1905 half crown and wish I knew what points it out as a fake. From what I gleaned on this very forum, there's a small break in the R of EDWARDVS that is the prime giveaway on many of them. But there may be other flaws on those from other sources?

If the tragically poor oil cooler is replaced with a decent one early on, they should go on for years.

Have you read about the ghost of Matthew Boulton on it? Pffft. That's nothing. I saw Jesus in a Big Mac I AM John Lennon, and he was even better than Jesus...Oh, no, don't get the press going again! I AM Mark Chapman. Don't answer your doorbell, ok? I'd have to sign your album first, and I'm not going to fall for that old stunt again! But you went back to Yok - oh, stunt. You said stunt.

Which makes the whole grading thing a complete joke, as far as eBay sales are concerned - especially if honest and expert collector/dealers are having to use the same ridiculous methods to ensure their listing gets looked at. What we need is a specialist online coin auction with the popularity of eBay but the strict standards of London Coins.

Have you read about the ghost of Matthew Boulton on it? Pffft. That's nothing. I saw Jesus in a Big Mac I AM John Lennon, and he was even better than Jesus...Oh, no, don't get the press going again! I AM Mark Chapman. Don't answer your doorbell, ok?

Have you read about the ghost of Matthew Boulton on it? Pffft. That's nothing. I saw Jesus in a Big Mac

Yes, I clicked my Safari 'bookmarks bar' button for Predecimal, and got a page of gobbledygook! Good to see you back

That's entirely due to the new obverse die introduced in 1921 - the 'shallow portrait' version that we also see on halfcrowns, florins and shillings. Before it, Britannia was rarely fully struck up in any year from 1913 onwards, apart from the 'recessed ear' varieties of 1915 and 1916.

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier. I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin! Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that? Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF). I wonder how serious weak strucking is compared to the other "defects". For example, if you were keen to get a George VI or William VI halfcrown in unc condition and you have a choice of: 1) Nicely struck example with a trace of cabinet friction (but would still just grade as unc by modern day standards) 2) A weaker struck example with full lustre and no wear (but would only grade as EF or GEF if the loss of details is actually due to wear rather than stricking) 3) Nicely struck example with no wear but has some contact marks (and hence also just grade as unc) Hypothetically, which one would you prefer? I'm not sure who William VI is, but as far as George VI goes, his halfcrowns are common enough in perfect state without having to settle for one of those 3 options. However, if it was a 19thC halfcrown, I think I would go for option 1. No, DEFINITELY option 1! Option 3 might be ok, but it would depend on exactly how the contact marks look. I guess that's true of all coins though - how it looks in hand.

There's definitely a few penny heads in this forum!

Sure you weren't bidding on a 1797 gold proof twopence?

It would have helped if the RM hadn't changed the crown from a 5 shilling/25p denomination to £5. The listing says a £5 coin. Whether they realise or not, I don't know, but they are clearly expecting the buyer to think it's a £5 coin. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the illustration crudely copied from a Coincraft ad? (The best of all possible worlds )

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier. I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin! Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that? Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF).

The ones that bob?

I know that standards are slipping at the Royal Mint, but I don't think they would produce one quite so shoddy. Given that somewhere up to 5% of all one pound coins are fake, it's fair to assume that you have yourself a fake. 5 percent wow!! thanks The fact the planchet has different thickness or is tapered could that change the weight or explain it being over weight? Also the planchet if it wasnt rolled out correctly surely the result would be something like this? For example the extra weight comes from the thickness, The lack of detail and weak strike on the reverse could be becuase the round didnt sit square when it was struck etc etc Or its part of that 5 % So its effectively illegal to spend counterfeit money?? Planchets are normally stamped out from a sheet of rolled alloy, which is wide enough for several blanks across that width. Given the variation of planchet thickness you have within a single blank, the rolled sheet would have to be mm thin at one side and a few cm thick at the other. I'm pretty sure that the Royal Mint machinery is not even capable of producing such a sheet. It is illegal to spend counterfeit money, as it is fraud, although proving intent in the case of a single £1 coin would be difficult. Ah good point! Is it illegal to sell circulating coinage as counterfeit money.... not that I have any intention of doing so. Yes! It's the property of Customs and Excise I believe - and if known to be fake, should be handed in to a bank or police station. On the other hand, if you sold a non-counterfeit currency coin as a counterfeit, you could be done under Trades Description.. (Heads they win, tails you lose ) No joke! I once flicked a coin for heads or tails like you shouldnt do on a pool table it was a 20 pence peice and it landed on edge!!!!!! Il do my bit for England and hand it in! Il sleep easier that way Or do like the rest of us - keep the coin and keep schtum ("schtum" = "quiet")

The real bonus is the strict pricing applied in the US where a 61 is a non-coin and hence can be purchased cheaply. Number collectors will turn their noses up at excellent examples of coins simply on the grounds that another example has been graded higher. Again a perfect example of how difficult it is to see anything useful through a slab. It certainly doesn't stand out to me and my feeling is there are flat areas on the reverse (rims, tail, nose) where I'd expect more detail for an MSAnything. But I've come to the conclusion a lot of coin collecting in the US is just completely different from over here. From recent threads on CCF I've gathered that some collectors would replace a coin because it's in the wrong sort of slab to match the others and that once slabbed with a decent grade, people start to get .. expectations.. about value. I'd really hope nobody here would turn down a nice coin at a good price because it was graded by the 'wrong' TPGS. Not even the CGS enthusiasts! I'd agree 100%. It clearly suffers from the 'photo through a slab' thing, but has anyone noticed the scratch down the entire bust? There's some lovely blue lustre on the reverse, but it's a common date, and the fact there were 0 bids says it all really.

Cabinet friction? Let's not go there...

For the beginner there's two in particular (both available through this forum and no, I'm not on commission!) : 1. Collectors Coins GB (annual) - a price guide from 1797 onwards, but also with a wealth of detail about mintages, varieties, etc. 2. Guide to Grading British Coins Both published by Rotographic - see banner advert above. When you're more confident, there are specialist tomes we can recommend on whatever field you want to know more about.

Some ripe Stilton before you go to bed, with a Spink as your bedside read. That should do it! Ahhh, that'll be it, I've been drinking a bottle of port every night! Alchy lol. I only have penthouse at the side of my bed and an old sock So THAT's where you store your coin collection!

I know that standards are slipping at the Royal Mint, but I don't think they would produce one quite so shoddy. Given that somewhere up to 5% of all one pound coins are fake, it's fair to assume that you have yourself a fake. 5 percent wow!! thanks The fact the planchet has different thickness or is tapered could that change the weight or explain it being over weight? Also the planchet if it wasnt rolled out correctly surely the result would be something like this? For example the extra weight comes from the thickness, The lack of detail and weak strike on the reverse could be becuase the round didnt sit square when it was struck etc etc Or its part of that 5 % So its effectively illegal to spend counterfeit money?? Planchets are normally stamped out from a sheet of rolled alloy, which is wide enough for several blanks across that width. Given the variation of planchet thickness you have within a single blank, the rolled sheet would have to be mm thin at one side and a few cm thick at the other. I'm pretty sure that the Royal Mint machinery is not even capable of producing such a sheet. It is illegal to spend counterfeit money, as it is fraud, although proving intent in the case of a single £1 coin would be difficult. Ah good point! Is it illegal to sell circulating coinage as counterfeit money.... not that I have any intention of doing so. Yes! It's the property of Customs and Excise I believe - and if known to be fake, should be handed in to a bank or police station. On the other hand, if you sold a non-counterfeit currency coin as a counterfeit, you could be done under Trades Description.. (Heads they win, tails you lose )

Consider a coin that is less than fully struck up as always less desirable than a sharp, clear specimen. A strong and attractive EF might even fetch a higher price for example than an UNC that was a weak strike. But I remember in the old strict days of grading when Fine was described in the usual way then it said "or design weak through faulty striking". From UNC to Fine in one fell swoop! Bear in mind also that some designs are notoriously weak, but also some dates: 1917 sixpences being a case in point.

Some ripe Stilton before you go to bed, with a Spink as your bedside read. That should do it!