Peckris

ESC is stronger on early milled when it comes to varieties. It was based on earlier catalogues from Spink, which catalogued collections in the early 20th Century when people collected early milled but not really modern. Davies is much better for modern stuff. Also bear in mind that ESC is long out of date.

Welcome to the forums Nek eBay is ok to start with perhaps, but remember they are a business. We would be glad to help you out if you see something online and have your doubts. We can't give cast-iron guarantees from just a picture, but we can certainly advise if something looks wrong, or if - as in the case of Edward VII 1905 halfcrowns for example - we see that tell-tale R in the legend. Anyway, good luck with getting started and you will find us a friendly bunch (unless we are all chasing the same auction on eBay )

Interesting Peck. So was VF correspondingly higher too, or was there a bigger gap between VF and EF than there is now? I do think VF was a bit higher, yes, and the greatest gap was between F and VF. The implication there is that VF and above may have been the 'collector's grades', with F being acceptable for rarities, newcomers, temporary stopgaps. What seems to have happened is that the gap between grades has evened out somewhat, with an often correspondingly eye-watering jump in values between each grade. I think Spinks would deny all this, but they - like CGS - grade quite strictly I think, which is why their values sometimes look on the high side.

I believe that for G4 HCs, all of the veins in the laurel leaves need to be pretty much intact for EF (or better) to be considered. This is where I think CGS are too strict. You see, back in the day (40 years or more) EF was considered to be virtually UNC with light rubbing or marking only just visible to the naked eye. At that time, the differential between EF and UNC was not vast, being perhaps somewhere between 1.5 to 2 times the EF value. But now, standards have slipped. EF is allowed to accommodate some wear, though admittedly only very light; however, certainly visible to the naked eye. This is reflected in the often vast differential in value between EF and UNC. So while I applaud CGS trying to keep up standards, their strictness at the EF end is not reflective of modern-day real-world values.

I just copied out the address at the top of the DNS error page. Yes, well you want to be looking at the address that caused the DNS error, not the webpage where you ended up. I assumed that was the same thing. I.e. that the link you clicked on was still the one showing, but as the browser couldn't find it, it returned a DNS error.

It certainly doesn't, it makes the coin AUNC/EF...but each to their own! Please help me out here. When I started collecting the concept was the 'coin'. Now I may be old(er) but to me it is still the coin. It has only been in recent years (the last two) that I have begun to see descriptions as in AUNC/EF. I did suggest elsewhere that perhaps we should also grade the edge as in AUNC/EF/EF but that was very much tongue in cheek. I suppose there are collectors out there who may only have an interest in obverses or reverses and as such may not care what the 'other side' looks like. That is great and if collectors want AUNC/EF as a description that is also great. I actually wonder how many collectors out there are interested in the 'coin' as a whole (because that is what it is) or the AUNC/EF designation. As you say, each to their own. I don't know when exactly you began Bill, but I can assure you that by the late 60s, 'complex grades' already existed. And it is important - yes, it's the "coin", but if you knew that the 1917 halfcrown you saw advertised as AEF was actually VF/EF that might have a bearing on whether you bought it. After all, series 1 G5 halfcrowns are very common with obverses of VF but get progressively harder to find.

I just copied out the address at the top of the DNS error page.

That's a very good point, and calls to mind a similar operation that arose in the late 60s and early 70s (also originating in America?) : though much cruder, as there was no grading service and certification involved, it involved having your best coins sealed into perspex tombs to protect them but allow viewing. That was a fad for a few years but it eventually died the death. TPG's run a better system it's true, but there's no guarantee they too won't go the way of perspex slabs.

There already is. It still doesn't work. There are two lots of http: in the original link. This link has just one and the colon and does work. Your link - with only one http: in it - does work. The original - also with only one http: in - doesn't. The original looks like this : http://results.ispconnect.co.uk/main?InterceptSource=0&ClientLocation=uk&ParticipantID=iu4dlszggyivxb0k1g8afi94imr4lkbt&FailureMode=1&SearchQuery=&FailedURI=http%3A%2F%2Fhttp%2F%2Fwww.paulfrasercollectibles.com%2FNews%2FMexican-8-reales-coin-shines-with-15pc-increase-on-estimate%2F13349.page%3Fcatid%3D26&AddInType=4&Version=2.1.8-1.90base&Referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.predecimal.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Fshowtopic%3D7803%26st%3D0%26gopid%3D82717%26&Implementation=0

There already is. It still doesn't work.

Back in the days when "spending a penny" meant something different, you wouldn't want that to be the only one in your pockets

The above link gives a DNS error.

Thanks Peckris.Any idea of the value of something like this? None at all I'm afraid. Maybe someone else here knows something about them?

Your "no H" is either a clogged die or an earlier casualty of a very worn coin. However, you're quite right about the height of numerals on close-spaced dates. The 1879 is equally high as the 1876. Ok, here's a theory :- the close-spaced dates were designed with a possibility that any of them might need to be minted by Heatons at short notice, so the die contained room for the H. Interestingly the farthings have the same high-floatin' numerals. After the early 80s, the numerals on pennies were larger and lower.

Is that clashing or ghosting? I have a 1799 halfpenny with similar effect: There appears to be a mirror image of the olive branch below Britannia's outstretched arm, but I believe it's ghosting from the obverse.

This to me is the best design for a Crown,the differences within the three years,gives you enough to collect without being a daunting task. Forget the obsessive hunting down of minute varieties - you're spot on with the first half of your sentence. Type collectors will have to pay out for ANY decent example of this lovely Crown, but like the 1804 dollar, the rare varieties aren't truly reflected in the values (probably because it was never a circulating denomination). I think collectors just love it for what it is.

The giveaway is the height of the numerals in the exergue - they would clearly be lower if there was no H on that die design variant. As to why the H goes before the numerals, it could be that being a lot smaller and lower in relief, that portion of the die was more prone to being clogged up.

Taken to it's literal conclusion, the problem with that scenario is that the minimum currency available ~ and hence miminum price ~ would be £5, as there would be paper notes available, but no coins. True. But the way things are going, I could visualise a situation where the lower denominations gradually disappear. The penny is worth less than the 1/2p when it was demonetised, and who really finds much use for the 2p or even 5p now? The 10p probably has less buying power than 1p did in 1971. You see where this is going - small change will become too expensive to manufacture, and people will start to think in 10p or 20p units as the minimum. So revise my prediction to see the 10p or 20p as the smallest denomination in a generation. The cheque is to disappear, most people use plastic or online for much of their transactions, and it's not far-fetched to imagine that before too long, someone will come up with a working alternative to the Mondex experiment. Remember - pre-Euro, the Italians gave sweets as change rather than the worthless smallest lire denominations. And that was a long time ago, I remember it in the 70s! It must surely cost more than 1p to produce a (copper covered steel) penny already? I think you're right. it can't be long until the smallest practical unit of currency becomes the 10p and eventually, a £1. The complications could arise in on line trading, where decimal points might easily remain viable in the absence of specific legislation. Judging by the volume of 1 & 2p's from the late 80's and early 90's still with lustre on them (obviously sitting around unused for long stretches of time), I think we might getaway without minting any, and leave the rest in circulation to gradually die out ? Don't know. Intersting question though. Or as someone said on QI recently, "When are they going to mint a 99p coin to help all those shopkeepers and manufacturers?"

Not exactly. When anyone buys a house - even if they never have before - there are experts out there who you pay a lot of money to, to ensure that you don't lose a considerably larger sum. There are expert dealers for coin newbies to consult, but there isn't the infrastructure to direct one to the other, nor a legal requirement to go through certain hoops before buying a coin. You have to KNOW from experience that a toned coin is desirable, and that its cleaned sibling is a no-no. It's counter-intuitive in a way, so we as experienced collectors should take the responsibility on ourselves in our pronouncements so that there is a sort of 'knowledge base' that newbies can turn to. E.g. this forum.

It occurs when the dies are struck together without a blank in between. You'd have thought it would be catastrophic but it seems that they survive pretty well, leaving just an impression of one on the other. Clashed dies are extremely numerous on pre-Jubilee Victorian coins, especially the smaller denominations. Well, if you think about it, there are no raised surfaces involved so only the perfectly flat (field) sections meet each other. The apparent 'clash' is simply the faint impression of the perimeter of the recessed area on an equivalent flat field area on the other die. Where two recessed areas meet, nothing happens.

Link missing?

Yeah, but if inexperienced buyers are being conned into believing that cleaning coins is ok, because the devious seller thinks it makes the coin more attractive to such buyers, then that's hardly a good thing, is it? Newbies don't know enough to make a considered judgement about it, and it will be their loss when later told that their coin is not as desirable or valuable as they'd thought.

This raises an interesting point. Since CGS only give a single grade, how do they cope with grading coins that are distinctly different grades on obverse and reverse? There are series notorious for this, the pre-1920 halfcrowns coming immediately to mind. If someone submitted a 1913 halfcrown that was GVF/EF (a very commonly encountered grade for that series), how can a single grade do this justice? For example, VF followed by a high number would not convey that the coin's reverse was EF. I had a good look at my 1931 wreath crown this morning. The reverse is indisputably EF and there is no flattening of the ribs of the lilies, or on the thistles. However, the obverse shows more flattening to the ear than would be comfortable for EF, though there are many "EF details" ( ) otherwise. I'd be mortified to see CGS grade this as VF(nn).

Damn! I was hoping to be incognito for longer..

Taken to it's literal conclusion, the problem with that scenario is that the minimum currency available ~ and hence miminum price ~ would be £5, as there would be paper notes available, but no coins. True. But the way things are going, I could visualise a situation where the lower denominations gradually disappear. The penny is worth less than the 1/2p when it was demonetised, and who really finds much use for the 2p or even 5p now? The 10p probably has less buying power than 1p did in 1971. You see where this is going - small change will become too expensive to manufacture, and people will start to think in 10p or 20p units as the minimum. So revise my prediction to see the 10p or 20p as the smallest denomination in a generation. The cheque is to disappear, most people use plastic or online for much of their transactions, and it's not far-fetched to imagine that before too long, someone will come up with a working alternative to the Mondex experiment. Remember - pre-Euro, the Italians gave sweets as change rather than the worthless smallest lire denominations. And that was a long time ago, I remember it in the 70s!