Peckris

1. As you type into the text box, you will notice under it a blue Attachments banner. Click 'Choose File' and navigate to where the picture is on your computer 2. Having selected it, click the dark blue 'Attach This File' button, and wait for it to be uploaded 3. Then click the 'Add to Post' button which appears when it's been uploaded. That puts the code into the text box for the attachment 4. Then just 'Add Reply' as per usual. Of course, your picture must not be greater than 150k but I've explained how to achieve that many many times and there's now a Sticky to that effect in the Beginners forum! ------ Incidentally, your analysis of dodgy 1905 halfcrowns won't apply to anything VF or less where the I of QVI has worn away.

I'm not familiar with the type, but looking at the legend lettering and lustre, my gut instinct tells me it is a lot better than VF. EF minimum would be my guess. The funny thing is the Dealer at the Brocanté was lauging at me, he made a joke saying what was I doing with all the coins i buy from him! "putting them in slot machines" whos lauging now :lol:

I'm not familiar with the type, but looking at the legend lettering and lustre, my gut instinct tells me it is a lot better than VF. EF minimum would be my guess.

When I said "not quite as common as the toothed border variety", I meant "beaded border" of course - yours is the toothed border.

There's very few 1970s cars that DOESN'T apply to! Datsuns and Italian cars arguably worse than even British. My 2nd car, in 1981, was a 70s Alfasud. The Alfa's and Lancia's of the time were total rust buckets. My 3rd car was an old 1968 Porsche 911, very solid and well rust-proofed. No room in the back, but I didn't have kids then! I currently have an Italian car, but that's mainly aluminium bodied I had a 944, so back seats of a sort. We've got a Smart now so no room for the 18 year old in the back of that either. Mind you it's hard enough to get him to sit in the front as well. Do they supply a free tin opener with it?

There's very few 1970s cars that DOESN'T apply to! Datsuns and Italian cars arguably worse than even British.

I'm sure you've told us before Dave, but how do you see the identities of 'private bidders'? Also, I can never quite understand things like this : £222 29-May-13 17:22:23 BST £25 29-May-13 18:27:39 BST How does a later bid of £25 even register, when an earlier bid jumped it up to £222 ? Because the earlier bid of £222.22 only had to beat a bid of £7.77, so was winning at £8.27. Then another bid came in at £25.88, which was immediately beaten by the £222.22 bid, which was then winning at £26.88. So why don't they show the £8:27 bid, they do usually I think? Otherwise it looks ridiculous. Or at least, adjust the timings so it looks like a proper auction. After all, if an auctioneer has a commission bid on his books, he keeps going up against the floor until one or other of them drops out, but if commission wins it, he doesn't show the timing of the bid as "two days before", or whenever the commission bid arrived with the house - it's the time of the sale.

Consulting Freeman's book, I would say that it is obverse 4 + reverse B, not quite as common as the toothed border variety, but not rare in that grade. In my estimation, it is not worth more than a few pounds, between £5 - £10.

I stand corrected Dave - 1922 penny on ebay- meant to bid on this but forgot. Flaw on both neck and ear are in the same postion as those on the 1918KN but this is a different obverse die. Must conclude that this micro variety is in fact a result of clashed dies Yes, it looks right for the folds in the drapery between Britannia's thigh and lower leg.

I'm sure you've told us before Dave, but how do you see the identities of 'private bidders'? Also, I can never quite understand things like this : £222 29-May-13 17:22:23 BST £25 29-May-13 18:27:39 BST How does a later bid of £25 even register, when an earlier bid jumped it up to £222 ?

Later years. Avoid pre 1852. Many 1850s onwards, 2nd head 1860s with die numbers, 3rd head 1872, 1873 & 1874. 4th head 1879, 1883 - 1887. The 1839 (WW on neck) is reasonably common and quite affordable.

And milled silver :) And early milled copper :)

So, one obverse and one reverse counts as two separate coins, right? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Group-of-20-George-V-Shillings-between-1928-and-1936-F-VF-EF/161037891999?_trksid=p2047675.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222002%26algo%3DSIC.FIT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D11%26meid%3D8158843120578692781%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D1005%26rk%3D3%26sd%3D111073129303%26

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.