Peckris

It's a good spot. The difficulty might be getting significant interest in it, even if other examples came to light. Two other G6 penny varieties might illustrate the point better : 1. The 1940 'single/double exergue line' are deliberate die varieties, i.e. a slight change of design, with one type notably scarcer than the other, though still readily available, but quite rare in BU. Because it's a change of design, and because one of the two is 20x scarcer than the other, it raises quite a degree of interest. 2. The 1946 'die flaw' penny - the flaw is an obvious raised mark after the ONE on the reverse. It can be easily spotted as a separate feature, and again, it attracts a certain amount of interest, and is rare in high grades. Your flaw - while of interest to variety collectors - is not immediately noticeable in that it is a slight extension to the 'fussy' part of the reverse design, i.e. the waves immediately above the exergue line. Having said all that, it is a nice addition to the collection and is obviously high grade too.

So a 1961 slabbed 80 would be ... £100?

I remember the 3 Scottish shillings we schoolboys all looked out for in our change : 1959 - hardly ever turned up 1961 - turned up from time to time 1965 - turned up all the time, usually BU. With the same mintage as the 1961 we all thought "whoopee!" and saved them, which is probably why they're worth so little now!

...and most of yesterday's posts have vanished. Yes, mine have disappeared! Mine too - though I only realised when I saw that Dave's YEEHAAAAAAAA was only 3 posts up from the bottom. But I also note that the site name has reverted back to www.predecimal.com from www.british-coins.com - perhaps that is something to do with why yesterday's posts have disappeared?

Chris I couldn't get on to the site at all yesterday. Today I found I could get to the forums but I wasn't signed in, and Safari hadn't seemed to 'remember' my username and password (I normally don't need either - I'm straight in). So a long trawl through my emails later, I found them and signed in. I got a screen telling me my login was successful, and 'please wait while we transfer you'. But, having put me back in the forums list, I wasn't signed in!!! No matter how many times I tried, the same thing happened : I apparently logged in ok, but I wasn't. Refreshing the screen didn't change this weird behaviour. So I've logged in via Firefox which I don't normally use, but at least it signed me in. You have a problem with Safari it seems - can you have look and sort it out please? I really don't want to have to run 2 browsers at once.

I'm only logged in because I used Firefox. My regular button on Safari doesn't work - I'm told my login (which I don't normally have to do) was successful, but having returned me to the forums, the 'Sign in' button is still there, and I'm not actually logged in.

1. It is very shiny - it rather looks as though it may have been lacquered? 2. Yes - pre-1816 are totally different, and are referred to as 'early milled'. They were not (pre-1797 in the case of copper) coined by steam-powered automatic machinery, but using milling techniques that required a certain amount of manual input. As a result, the strikes are often off-centre, and not as perfectly round as they are in the machine age. The difference is all down to the automation of striking coin, and that changed in 1797 for copper, and 1816 for silver. One consequence of this is that varieties are more significant in the machine age, as they are all the result of deliberate activity (though not always intentional); with early milled you see many varieties that are simply the result of hand-punching dies, and many of these are not exciting. 3. Others will advise on storage.

It looks like it's 8 over something and a 6 is as good a candidate as any. I would rate it as being in the range of VF to GVF. The flaw is a strange one. It certainly looks like a striking flaw, but I would not say it disfigures the coin as badly as it would in a different location. As for impact on value, that's in the eye of the beholder - you could get every reaction from "I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole" to "I can live with that".

Tell you what - get Ridley Scott to direct, and you've got a deal

You can JUST make out the Apple logo if you squint hard then close your eyes

I tried your survey. These are the problems with "required fields": Q13 - not enough options to choose from. Q21 - not enough options to choose from. Q24 and Q25 - these should not be required fields. Q27 and Q28 - "IF you want to xxx please leave your email". If you don't want to xxx, and leave them blank, it says "This is a required field". So I put "No" in each field, and the message went away. Very poor design! I hope nevertheless that you get some useful responses

That 1820 is a clear VF I'd say - a nice coin. You could do a lot worse than major on halfcrowns - as long as you don't go in for date runs, they will be generally cheaper than crowns, but are still a good size for seeing detail. Re-marked for shillings : For types : going forward, there are Victorian Young Head where you should avoid anything before 1874 in a good grade as they will empty your wallet! One from 1874 - 1887 in GVF should be your target (unless you can afford to bump up to EF?) Vic Young Heads - minted right through from 1838 to 1887. Pick a date in the 1880s, but not 1887or 1882. Victoria Jubilee Head : 1887 in EF up to BU Victoria Old Head : 1893 or 97 in EF or better Edward VII (difficult reign) : 1902 is far and away the most affordable George V .925 silver : 1915, 16, or 18 minimum EF George V .500 silver : 1922, but minimum EF as the head flattens very quickly on that type George V M.E. : 1926 George V new reverse issue : 1928 or 36 in AUNC or better George VI .500 silver : 1944, 45, or 46 in BU (both English and Scottish) George VI CuNi : 1948 BU George VI last issue : 1949 is arguably the easiest Elizabeth II : 1953 BU Elizabeth II 2nd type : 1966 in "Gem BU"! George III : any date from 1816 AEF or better George IV : three types : 1821 1824 1826 in VF William IV : 1834 GVF Those are the main types to collect, and the easiest dates to find. Does the same apply to shillings?

It is potentially a concern but scams like this are not so easy to run. Firstly, there are 2 graders for each coin and you need at least a partner in crime. Also it might be difficult for the rouge grader to ensure that those coins get to him and not another grader not in the scam. You get people in all trades and professions worldwide committing fraud and abusing their positions and we can only hope they get caught sooner or later. Absolutely right that one should buy the coin and not the holder! They're all Reds, those Commie Chinese

I'd say - looking at very slight wear on the highest points on the reverse - that a grade of AUNC would be in order. You could dip it in surgical spirit to remove any film or grease, and dab it dry with very gentle wipes using a microfibre cloth (spectacles cleaning type) - any surface dirt would come off. Or, you could leave it to a buyer. From what I can see of it, I'd say a £200 offer is fair (assuming no damage e.g. verdigris and lots of lustre).

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place) The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around! In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing. I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production. FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production. So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production. However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins. London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago. You see, for me, "Choice UNC" implies virtually no visible damage or marks either during or post-production. If it's "choice" (which is a meaningless kind of label used by advertisers, but taking it at face value..) it should be superior to an 'ordinary' UNC. "aFDC" to me means there is the very slightest sign of handling - anything more, and you couldn't apply any kind of FDC to it. In that light, "aFDC" would be just slightly inferior in terms of handling, to a choice UNC. However, it would deserve its 11 point advantage simply through being a proof, with all the extra detail and care that implies. In other words, I'd take a genuinely "aFDC" over a "choice UNC", as it should still be a better coin. I didn't realise that your definition of "choice UNC" is so strict Peck. (Would be a very good thing if more auction houses are like thtat!) CGS's definition is less so if it is CGS80. There are quite a few currency coins for sale in the London Coins Website and even CGS 85 have obvious contact marks. I would grade a currency coin with virtually no visible damage much higher than 80. The problem is that the same scale is used for both proof coin and currency coin. If a proof coin is graded CGS91 aFDC, then how much damage does it have to sustain to drop 11 points? Probably a fair bit at least. That's confusing - I would therefore assume that a proof will always sit higher on the scale by virtue of being a better coin to begin with. So an FDC proof I would assume to be rated higher on the scale than a flawless UNC ("Choice" or "Gem" if you're a seller!), as in theory it will show more detail under magnification, have a better edge and rim, have been struck on a special blank using special dies, etc etc. I think where it gets even more complicated is where currency coins have been struck from left-over proof dies : they will exhibit superb strike detail but usually lack the mirrored fields and perfect rims as they have been struck on ordinary blanks. Also you get the 'first strike' examples from ordinary dies, which should rate much higher than UNCs from dies exhibiting weakness or wear. If London Coins are using "Choice" for less than flawless UNCs, then bang goes their strict grading, and bang goes their reputation.

That 1820 is a clear VF I'd say - a nice coin. You could do a lot worse than major on halfcrowns - as long as you don't go in for date runs, they will be generally cheaper than crowns, but are still a good size for seeing detail. For types : going forward, there are Victorian Young Head where you should avoid anything before 1874 in a good grade as they will empty your wallet! One from 1874 - 1887 in GVF should be your target (unless you can afford to bump up to EF?) Victoria Jubilee Head : 1887 in EF up to BU Victoria Old Head : 1893 in EF or better Edward VII (difficult reign) : 1902 is far and away the most affordable George V .925 silver : 1915, 16, or 18 minimum EF George V .500 silver : 1920 or 1923, but minimum EF as the head flattens very quickly on that type George V M.E. : 1927 George V new reverse issue : 1928, 29, or 36 in AUNC or better George VI .500 silver : 1944, 45, or 46 in BU George VI CuNi : 1948 BU George VI last issue : 1949 is arguably the easiest Elizabeth II : 1953 BU Elizabeth II 2nd type : 1966 or 1967 in "Gem BU"! Oh, I forgot to mention the other 'machine age' types you don't have: George III 'Bull Head' : minimum VF George III Small Head : ditto George IV 2nd type : 1823 VF or better George IV 3rd type : 1826 VF or better Those are the main types to collect, and the easiest dates to find.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place) The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around! In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing. I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production. FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production. So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production. However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins. London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago. You see, for me, "Choice UNC" implies virtually no visible damage or marks either during or post-production. If it's "choice" (which is a meaningless kind of label used by advertisers, but taking it at face value..) it should be superior to an 'ordinary' UNC. "aFDC" to me means there is the very slightest sign of handling - anything more, and you couldn't apply any kind of FDC to it. In that light, "aFDC" would be just slightly inferior in terms of handling, to a choice UNC. However, it would deserve its 11 point advantage simply through being a proof, with all the extra detail and care that implies. In other words, I'd take a genuinely "aFDC" over a "choice UNC", as it should still be a better coin.

I wouldn't rate your crown as better than Fine. The halfcrown is a bit better - GF I'd say. Both are good attractive coins for their grade, so no worries there.

I don't know this item or its type at all. One thing I would say, is that the lettering on the reverse (R & A) appears to be a non-serif style that you don't see before the 19th Century. Even the 1797 Matthew Boulton "cartwheels", which were modernist for their day, have serifs on the legend. So my guess - and that's all it is - is that it's not earlier than the 19th Century.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place) The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around! In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing.

Unless it's Unc, I'd say the 5% wins. It is almost impossible to spot, even on an Unc specimen. Probably why it was unrecorded/unspotted for so long.

He/she seems like an honest seller. Not many would include a close up photo of any damage, so credit where credit is due in my book. At least any prospective buyer can make an informed decision! Yep - sweaty mitts and fingerprints all over the coin

I was just thinking that those estimates were very reasonable indeed. Then I realised you had added the actual prices realised after each link

You're forgetting the principle of the "long tail" theory - online economics just don't follow the model of the high street. Since Spink have their own servers already (or need to rent them for their other online presence), then the fact that coins didn't sell would not have cost them anything, apart from the few minutes it would have cost for an employee to put them up on the website. All they'd need to do is circulate the coins every now and then, and it would have helped raise their profile and online presence, as well as giving collectors a few things to drool over. And who knows what seeds might have been sown in the long run, as collectors who start off drooling get more disposable income?

I am. I'm loaded. I've got nearly £60. I've got more monney than sense, I'm up to about 86p now. Let's see. 86p = 17/2 in old money. Er, 17 times 12 (rushes for his computer calculator) = 204, plus 2 equals 206 old pennies. That must cover just about every variety of bronze penny known - but how many are EF or better??