Peckris

im going with the hearts, or no hearts coins......were nearly there and we havent seen it yet...man were good......... Semée, feel me, touch me, heal me... lol, to think that Tommy was about that all along, I shall probably have very weird dreams tonight now! Didn't you realise that "We're not gonna take it" referred to eBay fees and policies? And 'Fiddle about' was really about certain coin sellers! I'm your wicked Uncle Martin...

im going with the hearts, or no hearts coins......were nearly there and we havent seen it yet...man were good......... Semée, feel me, touch me, heal me... lol, to think that Tommy was about that all along, I shall probably have very weird dreams tonight now! Didn't you realise that "We're not gonna take it" referred to eBay fees and policies?

im going with the hearts, or no hearts coins......were nearly there and we havent seen it yet...man were good......... Semée, feel me, touch me, heal me...

Well, that's EAST!! Any further East and it would be Holland I know I for one would not be metal detecting there! Better ways to spend your time in Amsterdam?

Not from me - I'm more than happy with my BU specimen

peck did you see the time team programme where they were excavating a moat at a castle in Derby, a metal detectorist was checking out the spoil pile from the moat and found a henry V noble.....it looked as minted.....fantastic. the guy was shaking with nerves.....a terrific find, apparantly he donated the coin to the local museum. series 15 episode 6 for those who may be interested I didn't see that - but I can understand the excitement! (I'm afraid as an impoverished student, the thought of donation to a museum just wasn't a starter - not sure Corinium Museum would have been interested in a Julia Domna denarius anyway...) That's been horribly polished. Ask them to pay you to accept it. Yeah - looking at the very obvious reflection that runs from halfway across, it must have been polished quite severely. That treatment would devalue it by 66% at least (much more if it was a more common coin).

Well, that's EAST!! Any further East and it would be Holland

Rather than the usual DECUS ET TUTAMEN ANNO REGNI II, there was this ANNO REGNI ET TUTAMEN II DECUS coin that was sold... Description: Edward VII, crown, 1902, with error edge reading ANNO REGNI / ET TUTAMEN / II DECUS (E.S.C. - (cf. 361); cf. S. 3978), extremely fine and toned, apparently a previously unpublished variety http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/edward-vii,-crown,-1902,-with-error-edge-reading-1-c-66wkbzhvss Good find, but pathetically small picture

Yes - the equivalent French bronze piece is almost exactly the size of our bronze penny, if not exactly.

Where did you get your information from? The 18thC was the era of chronic shortage of copper coins, but after the sporadic mintages of Geo IIII and William IIII, from Victoria onwards, the mintage of copper, and then bronze, was huge. Sorry, I don't have any information about the counterstamp

Quite. And don't forget the fava beans and a nice chianti! I have to say I am unclear on whether it's the French or the buntings wearing the tea towels. Either image is slightly disturbing. But as for strange races, I doubt (in culinary/gastronomic terms) the Chinese can be beaten. How anyone can derive pleasure from eating gristle or chickens' feet I cannot fathom ... .. says he tucking into his lentil, bean and quorn cottage pie. With a nice chianti of course! Dim is the lighting, then you pay the Sum at the till for what you thought you ate...

Me too. And if everyone thought like us, it really wouldn't matter how CGS grade coins - people would buy purely on what the coin looks like.

Yes, I agree. The dinner plate size doesn't help perhaps, but the second coin hasn't got the same eye appeal of the DNW example IMO.

Gone YAY Do we have another one? Here... http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/EF-Tudor-period-Hammered-Silver-Coin-Dated-1546-/380600909448?_trksid=p2047675.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222002%26algo%3DSIC.FIT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D14587%26meid%3D6380055177802333763%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D1005%26rk%3D5%26sd%3D261187061833%26

I would hope they gave it authenticity! I bought it at Warwick & Warwick in the 90s, but I can't remember what grade they said. I personally think it's more than Fair, but not Fine. But CGS would be stricter I'm sure.

but is relatively cheap compared to prices for slabbing. the modern coin collector is spoilt for storage solutions, everything from envelopes of plastic and paper to slabs and coin cabinets........so ultimately the collector will choose their own method. i recognise the merits of slabbing for maybe long term preservation but only time will tell if its completely safe. But Bills main sales pitch is around grading and how the traditional raw market have over/under graded over the years. but then so have the tpg's...there are many examples of tpg's having got things wrong on this forum and elsewhere and so is as questionable with slabs as any raw coin based solution to grading. So the problems for me with slabs...... firstly the desire to have a coin with a numerical advantage over another ( no matter how small) when that numerical advantage actually can mean so little to the coin and its appeal to a seller/purchaser/owner, but can make a huge difference to price. secondly, tpgs only offer another view on grade, grade is very subjective, and whilst tpg's can offer benchmarks to use for justifying grading in their systems.......its still just a view......and who's to say theyve got it so completely right?...maybe all the traditional dealers have got it right and tpg's havent......lets not be hoodwinked here by selling an idealism when good old fashioned grading of f,vf,ef and unc may very well be sufficient for general use with eye appeal to the prospective purchaser. thirdly, the notion that a slabbed coin can increase the value of a coin, well maybe to those who already collect slabbed coins...but for those of us looking at slabbed prices from a raw coin point of view......the prices are ridiculous.....witness Bills recent ebay acquisition of a churchill crown that for the same sum of money could have maybe allowed him to buy 30 or more of the same coin in the same grade. To summarise......ive collected raw coins for over 45 years, i went the slabbed route for a while. i guess im the opposite of Bill.......i learnt a few things though from slabbing.....theyre overpriced..theyre only another storage medium and theyre just another view on grading. Ski "30 or more in the same grade?" - Sorry, did you not read the preliminary comments on my purchase. I am not a novice collector and I believe I noted I had looked at over 100 Churchill Crowns (possibly more). None of them had achieved the quality for the 'overpriced one' that I bought. I look for the finest known - or if I cannot get it the next best possible. I already had a CGS 80 Churchill Crown but a CGS 82 to me was better - because I had not come across one as good! If you can get 30 of the same grade as CGS 82 then it would be worth buying them, paying (currently £11.99 each) to get them graded and then selling them for £30.00 each. If you found one was a CGS 85 or better I would pay £50.00 for it! Make your money back in no time. There are others who value the CGS process (we trade a lot with each other) and I suspect will continue to use it. There are a vast majority that do not like the process of slabbing at all. So be it. My purpose is to explain why I collect CGS encapsulated coins and open up the possibility to other collectors. People will become weary of my explanation of why CGS - I have had coins slabbed by other companies and I have looked at many more of the same. I buy and have bought raw coins from everywhere and the only 'standard' I have come to accept is the CGS process. Even dealers who I believe consistently grade well make mistakes (as I frequently do) - I have opened a thread on Grading as a separate topic in this forum by the way. You are right, each collector will chose their own method of storage. I have used most (although I have never lacquered a coin) and ended up preferring paper coin envelopes and CGS Capsules (and I have explained why in other posts). I have no shame in wanting a 'numerical advantage' for my coins. I want the best possible collection I can achieve. That goes hand in hand with my love of coin collecting. If I have two coins of the same type I tend to keep the best and sell on or trade the other - so why would not knowing a 'numerical advantage' be any different? "Overpriced" - interesting! I do not think the CGS service is overpriced and others obviously do not either. Having recently examined the prices offered by US companies - when you take into account all cost elements, I believe the CGS service is excellent value for money. There are indeed many cheaper ways of storing coins but none come with third party archival pictures of the coins, an optional remote logging of the coins so graded with online access and a download of that information AND with this third party verification the potential for reduced insurance costs. Some people use the archival pictures to show their friends and family their coin collections without having to remove it from any Bank Vault or secure store - so a CGS capsule is not just a means of holding a coin! Bill, if I kept my coins in a bank vault, I would have no problems with them being in a slab. But I'm of the old school that likes to take the coins out every now and then, and hold them carefully and admire them in a good light, and then put them back. As for wanting the "best known example", or the ego boost of my coins being part of the "Xxxxxxx Collection" ... well ok, that's your world, but it isn't mine. Sure, I like to have good examples of the coins, the best I can afford. But not the "best known example". What's the point of that? If a coin brings me pleasure, and is lovely to look at, I simply don't care if there are better specimens out there. I suppose what I'm saying is that there are many different kinds of collector. We know your enthusiasm for CGS grading and slabbing, I don't really think there's any more to say on the subject. We should all be the collector we want to be, "live and let live".

You see that frequently where there are large price differentials between grades. If the seller can manage to inflate the grade by a fraction, it could make the difference of several hundred pounds for a 1905 HC, whereas for a 1902 HC it's just a few quid and probably not worth the effort. How would you grade this, out of interest? I'd grade it as SBTM or slightly better than mine! I've always rated it as Fair+, but I've seen them seriously graded as Fine (CC for example). I suspect CGS would say no more than Fair.

You see that frequently where there are large price differentials between grades. If the seller can manage to inflate the grade by a fraction, it could make the difference of several hundred pounds for a 1905 HC, whereas for a 1902 HC it's just a few quid and probably not worth the effort. How would you grade this, out of interest?

Me too, I really hate Photobucket. Dropbox is a good sync'ing service which you keep a separate folder for on your own computer. One of the things you can do (they supply the folder when you download and run the free software) is put photos you want to share in its 'Public' subfolder. Dropbox then uploads the picture(s) and you get URLs which you can share with people. You only get 2 (2.5?) GB of free online storage, but they boost that by 500 MB every time you recommend Dropbox to someone else and they start using it. I'm on 3.2 GB at present but I have no idea where the "point 2" came from! Another site which seems to me to be friendlier than P'bucket, is Image Shack, where you can upload pictures, get URLs in various formats, and choose whether you want the pictures to be public or private.

Me too - I'm sure he is slowly getting the message!

Yeah, but there other sides to that particular coin I found a Julia Domna denarius on an archaeological spoil tip (which meant I could keep it) which was rather grubby. I soaked it overnight in vinegar, it cleaned up a treat, and I sold it to a dealer for what was a "nice little earner" to an impoverished student in the 70s!

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'. I also asked about the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less. Would it though, bearing in mind lustre has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with toning. You can have a deeply-toned coin with obvious full-lustre underneath. My point is you could presumably have two full-lustred CGS coins, one with ugly toning, and one with beauty personified, and they would both come out of the computer with the same grade? You can also have coins that have SOME lustre, which are way uglier than some coins which have no lustre, but an overall dark patina instead. Lustre is sometimes overrated. I wonder if anybody had the idea of slabbing a coin in bakelite? I suspect you were only joking Derek! However, I'm sure that coin collecting back then was for historical and artistic reasons, and there probably wasn't much monetary value above the intrinsic metal and there were certainly no forgers around faking numismatic as opposed to currency pieces. So the whole notion of TPG's would have resulted in raised eyebrows and a very quizzical look.

A coin that's been cleaned well, should not be detectable, so you need not worry about those. Coins badly cleaned : Polished : silver coins are highly reflective in an unnatural way, copper/bronze looks like it's been cleaned with Brasso or similar (has a bright, pinkish appearance). Buffed : coin has lots of fine hairlines, especially in the field or flat parts of the design; rubbing marks will be evident. Over-dipped silver : coin has a overall dull, flat, non-lustrous appearance, with no original toning. Any coin that has an unnatural appearance, e.g. rainbow toning, has been treated in some way. You will be able to tell after a long time of seeing coins - experience is the best guide.

Well that's interesting chaps, because the latter specimen is from the much vaunted Edinburgh collection (although clearly one of the less spectacular items), was graded at "A/Unc toned" and priced at £1250.00. Somebody must have bought it for at least relatively near the asking price, as it's no longer on sale. Personally, I don't think it's either as good or as nice as the earlier one still on sale now. Incidentally, I agree with lower EF for the latter, and about GEF for the former, although no trace of lustre on either. Hmm. If you look at the first penny, there is some flattening of the laurel leaves & the folds in Vicky's bodice, and her eyebrow is half gone. That's why I wouldn't rate higher than EF.

And there are dealers (I've met 'em) who don't know the difference between 'cleaned' and 'mirror finish', of which there are a LOT in the 19th Century. Good way to tell : The mirroring is all on the surface - e.g. the highest points of the design, the upper surfaces of the legend - while lower parts (e.g. between the letters, or lower parts of design) aren't so bright? The coin has in all likelihood been cleaned, and badly. The mirroring is mostly in the fields and between the letters, while the raised (highest) parts aren't so bright - most likely this is a genuinely mirrored finish, maybe an early strike or using up proof dies.