Peckris

Yes, I think possible cud also. See my 1821 sixpence obverse for reference: http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=5250

I think it is often difficult to tell the difference between the .500% silver and the .925% one. It's perfectly possible for the silver proof NOT to be frosted. However, the .500% silver specimen will probably have a slightly dull appearance compared to the proof. The only way to be absolutely certain is to test it for silver content.

yes indeed.....a nice coin is a nice coin all the same, regardless of whether someones given it a score out of 100. Ski I agree totally, they have just perpetuated the confusion! Remove all cross-references to VF/Ef/AU etc and the Sheldon Scale, and maybe the CGS percentage scale will gain more credibility Yes, I agree too. The numeric scale without specific grades will always provide more consistency without the 'grade slippage' we've seen over the last few decades. A CGS 70 will always be a 70, and it doesn't really matter whether you call it VF or UNC. The benchmark is what matters here. I got the same email and sent it back with a bouquet about their grading system, and a brickbat about slabbing. There has to be a better way for a TPG to operate without sealing the coin into a plastic tomb. I'm relaxed about the use of the word UNC. We've all been handed copper coins in supermarkets that are full lustre, no bag marks, no wear, and can justifiably be termed BU. The fact that they have TECHNICALLY seen a tiny bit of circulation is just semantics really - it's what the coin looks like that counts. How many UNC coins in collections were personally collected from the Royal Mint output bins?

Having registered, you may well get the same email I did - telling us that CGS are changing over to a numeric-only scale of grading from now on. I emailed back to say I think their grading is wonderful but we don't all like slabs, and is this something they could address sometime soon?

Talking of 20p - I saw recently that among the early 60s patterns for decimal coins, not only was there a 1/4p, there was a 20p too. Makes you wonder why it didn't make it until 1982 and wasn't introduced in 1971. Maybe the experience of the Double Florin was haunting them! Long memories! Mind you, it wasn't exactly as if florins were "that there new fangled thang" anymore.

Ok, dorey (welcome to the forums by the way) - you have to take the prices quoted for decimal coins (and most coins from the mid-60s on), with a big pinch of salt. Chris Perkins, who runs this forum, is the publisher of the Collectors Coins GB guides. The previous guy who published it, always had a note somewhere in the guide, that went something like "Please note that any coin quoted with a price of less than £1, is really only to cover the expenses of the dealer in advertising it, selling it, packing it, etc". You won't find more than a tiny handful of dealers who are even remotely interested in run-of-the-mill currency decimal coins. And even then, they have to be absolutely in mint condition, with lustre as on the day they left the Mint. Having said that, bronze coins before the early 90s are proper bronze, not coated steel like later ones. You wouldn't get their copper value from a dealer as they have to make a profit, but they are worth a little over face value. To be honest, the only 2 pences worth anything are 1) that rare 1983 'NEW PENCE', or 2) any from a proof set, or only issued in a BU specimen set, and not for general currency. If you have a look at predecimal coins, you might find more excitement in them.

Blimey, you must have good eyesight! Or maybe you used to have

Talking of 20p - I saw recently that among the early 60s patterns for decimal coins, not only was there a 1/4p, there was a 20p too. Makes you wonder why it didn't make it until 1982 and wasn't introduced in 1971.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion! I don't know why they bother with the grade prefixes at all. Why not just stick with the percentages as a measure. Then those who think that a 70 is an EF and those who think it is an AU can both be happy. That's another excellent idea. Isn't that what the Sheldon scale does? Looks like CGS were listening This is what they are going to do. YAY. CGS - "Customer Gratification Sought".

They could do better if they would buy in the mounds of large flan 5ps and 10ps, and 1947-67 'silver' as the extra weight means way more value in scrap vs face and more importantly a huge supply with nowhere to go - not collectable and mostly sitting in boxes/bags. Surely the RM as a government offshoot can see that this should be a no-brainer given the alloy has already been made. Or am I missing something? Sorry Rob, you are confusing common sense with policy/decision making...fatal!!! Thanks for clarifying the query John. Silly me. Just think how many Churchill crowns could be lost in this way. :) :) :) Brilliant idea - all they need to really do is haunt the salerooms for a while, peer through the low-value lots that are simply vast accumulations, and bingo! In one move they would recover lots of valuable metal, AND make life so much easier for the poor dealers who currently have to take at least a look-see before throwing up their hands in horror. And it means my Churchill crown could become as scarce as the 1960 crown in, say, a century.

Thanks Nick - a whole new knowledge chasm has just opened up for me! Better get swotting ... The WB thing frightens me to death! I think that's why I've kept putting it off and stuck to tweaking with the editing software instead! The problem with that is that unless you shoot RAW (and most P&S or compact cameras don't have that option), editing software won't do very much in correcting faulty WB. You can always change 'colour temperature' but you can often end up with blown highlights. Getting the WB correct in-camera will give better JPEGs in the long run.

£7 was a lot of money in 1969. I got a job in the school holidays, on the dustbins, where £22 a week was a small fortune. But that was the height of silly money for 20thC coins. A year later, a BU 1932 penny was valued at £50, while a BU 1797 twopence was valued at £35. Crazy crazy crazy. That particular shilling looks to have a lot of rubbing on the cheek. I'd struggle to rate it EF personally, but it may be better in hand.

I went to all their sales in the late 90s, and (with a certain amount of tuition from Peter Viola), always found their sales to be representative of one of the larger and better provincial salerooms. But clearly they have gone downhill since the rise of eBay by all accounts.

Saved in my sellers list Nothing on there at present?

I've cleared out some space

Paulus, What is your eBay ID? I would like to take a look at what you are offering. PM me if you don't want to state it in a post. Me too, if you wouldn't mind?

Actually I'm not. Not sure lower grade is really their thing. Probably said this before but I've certainly seen one of theirs graded F which really should have struggled to make Fair. Could have been an aberration, but unlikely as it was hen's teeth rare. In this case I'd give it NF but could change in hand. A good £69 worth - that definitely doesn't suck! I concur with your assessment of Fair+ Peck (obv better, reverse only Fair), but at £69 you stole it! I am old school when it comes to this issue and find it hard to reconcile F, GF and NVF (which most dealers and auctioneers would grade it) with a coin exhibiting so much wear. I think W&W back then were more realistic in their grading, and (if memory serves) didn't rate it even Fine. But prices have certainly gone up dramatically since then! But it wasn't as much of a steal as my 1903, which I bought from a US dealer for the princely sum of £26 !!!! Ah, the good old days Ebay used to have loads of nice bits on across the pond at very reasonable prices too. Sadly our cousins have caught up in the pricing game This was the 1990s (pre-eBay) but still one hell of a steal when you see it... It actually looks better than that in hand - there's lots of lustre on the reverse, which tends to disguise what appears to be heavy wear to the shield edges and is not so noticeable really. These days it would probably grade VF so £26 in 1999 really was a steal. When I saw it on the dealer's list for that price, I thought it was going to be a pig, but you should have seen my face when I opened the package! I was selling A/Fair 1904's at the time for £12, so you get some idea of the context.

Yes - I think so, for a BU 1928 penny. You haven't paid 'over the odds'. Excuse ME! Don't judge our wine by the appalling (and now legendary) 1970s popularity of 'Hirondel', and our lapping up of the notorious Blue Nun. There are now some extremely good - though small scale - British vineyards : Astley in Worcestershire (or is it Gloucestershire??) is one, and they have won international awards. Apparently our climate is suited to one particular grape. I used to know what it was, but I've forgotten already - which shows you how much of a wine buff I am! (Oh wait - something is stirring ... is there a Madeleine Anjou grape? Or something similar?)

Actually I'm not. Not sure lower grade is really their thing. Probably said this before but I've certainly seen one of theirs graded F which really should have struggled to make Fair. Could have been an aberration, but unlikely as it was hen's teeth rare. In this case I'd give it NF but could change in hand. A good £69 worth - that definitely doesn't suck! I concur with your assessment of Fair+ Peck (obv better, reverse only Fair), but at £69 you stole it! I am old school when it comes to this issue and find it hard to reconcile F, GF and NVF (which most dealers and auctioneers would grade it) with a coin exhibiting so much wear. I think W&W back then were more realistic in their grading, and (if memory serves) didn't rate it even Fine. But prices have certainly gone up dramatically since then! But it wasn't as much of a steal as my 1903, which I bought from a US dealer for the princely sum of £26 !!!!

Actually I'm not. Not sure lower grade is really their thing. Probably said this before but I've certainly seen one of theirs graded F which really should have struggled to make Fair. Could have been an aberration, but unlikely as it was hen's teeth rare. In this case I'd give it NF but could change in hand. A good £69 worth - that definitely doesn't suck!

"Do you imagine, even for a moment, that a nice young girl would be remotely interested in a middle-aged brilliantined stick insect like you, Basil?" Classic!

Wha - ? Oh, Hits

Interestingly your example looks like a regular 8 with a possible small 8 undercutting it.

me neither.........you ever seen one? The 1902 edge error is something I would like. I do have the 1935 currency and proof edge error, I also have the 1951 and 1953 edge error. Would have loved that 1953 with no edge lettering in DNW but someone else was too determined. I was reading my 1979 edition of CCGB earlier, and Mr Marles had listed the 1953 proof using sandblasted dies, after which he had added the comment "dismal, extremely rare". Doesn't sound highly desirable to me

A photo or a scan always helps. But it sounds like a misstrike, which are happening more and more frequently these days (quality control at the Mint ). An interesting curio, which some people collect, but of no great value I suspect.