Peckris

Agree with Peck about the wearing die on the obverse. The reverse also looks a bit weak on the left side of the wreath. Yours looks to be on the brighter side of dull than most and is certainly brighter than mine (attached). Most that I have seen are dull or even duller. As an aside, looking at the statistics contained within the Royal Mint annual reports shows that of all the silver coins (excluding Maundy) the threepence invariably gives the lowest coins per die pair strike average. For example, in 1873 when the Royal Mint were struggling to obtain good quality steel for dies, the figures show that it took 763 obverse and 193 reverse dies to produce just over 4 million threepences (or 8,462 threepences per pair of dies). Interesting - it's counter-intuitive, you'd almost expect the opposite, that small coins would not wear out dies as quick as halfcrowns and pennies. But maybe it has something to do with the force of the blow applied by the machinery? I'm assuming it was equal for all denominations and therefore was higher than it really needed to be for the small ones. I'd have to disagree about your 3d Nick - it's a stronger strike for sure, but I'd say it is actually brighter than Coinery's, not duller. Or so it seems to me, comparing the pictures. The dull or bright quality is difficult to judge. I believe that the bright finish coins were blanched and should therefore look rather silvery, whereas the dull ones should look that yellowy colour of the early 1920's silver. Therefore I tend to try and judge by colour rather than brightness, but I may be completely wrong. That's certainly true of Coinery's - definitely a paler and more silvery colour than yours. But yours possibly has more lustre, rather than a matt finish? The finish of the silver series from 1920 - 1926 warrants a whole paper on its own! For example, my 1921 halfcrown (EF+) is yellowish but has good lustre. However, my UNC 1922 is 'white' with a matt finish. By 1923, it's back to lustre again.

Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word! George V currency is one of my main interests! But if you asked me anything at all about hammered, I'd have to confess almost complete ignorance Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word! Agree with Peck about the wearing die on the obverse. The reverse also looks a bit weak on the left side of the wreath. Yours looks to be on the brighter side of dull than most and is certainly brighter than mine (attached). Most that I have seen are dull or even duller. As an aside, looking at the statistics contained within the Royal Mint annual reports shows that of all the silver coins (excluding Maundy) the threepence invariably gives the lowest coins per die pair strike average. For example, in 1873 when the Royal Mint were struggling to obtain good quality steel for dies, the figures show that it took 763 obverse and 193 reverse dies to produce just over 4 million threepences (or 8,462 threepences per pair of dies). Interesting - it's counter-intuitive, you'd almost expect the opposite, that small coins would not wear out dies as quick as halfcrowns and pennies. But maybe it has something to do with the force of the blow applied by the machinery? I'm assuming it was equal for all denominations and therefore was higher than it really needed to be for the small ones. I'd have to disagree about your 3d Nick - it's a stronger strike for sure, but I'd say it is actually brighter than Coinery's, not duller. Or so it seems to me, comparing the pictures.

Ah, 1922 is an interesting date. For pennies, it was the second occurrence of the redesigned portrait (which had been done for silver coins in 1920-1). However, the problem with G5 obverse strikes - 1st series - is confined to the larger denominations. It doesn't apply to the 6d, farthing, or 3d, which had no obverse redesign until the Modified Effigy, as they didn't need it. You will see the same portrait design on those from 1911 to 1926, with slight variations in 1911 : all denominations, and 1914 onwards : farthings. Therefore I would suggest your 1922 3d is simply a wearing die for the obverse. But do also bear in mind that getting crisp detail on such small denomination dies was extremely difficult, and you will see a lot less detail on the sixpence lion reverse than you do on the shilling reverse, even though it's the same design! Just for reference: the difficult dates in high grade for GV 3d are : 1925, 1926, 1928, and 1930 (though oddly, I've seen more high grade 1928s than the other dates mentioned).

The Victoria is a fantasy piece, right? Nice Gothic reverse The cartwheel looks like someone's verdict on it at the time - probably 'combined' with a hammered coin in an early steam engine

Oh come on, you're just taking the piss!

http://s1277.beta.photobucket.com/user/LouisX1V/library/British%20copper 0.30 euros is a good price for that. The 1919H is a devil to find in good, well struck condition. Yours is above average, but not greatly so. The obverse is often weak, so taking that into account, I would say that your coin is between Fine and VF. (F or F+ for the obverse, and AVF for the reverse). Because it is so difficult to find in higher grades, that's why the price rockets up once you reach EF or better. It's the same for 1918 too, and both for H and KN.

Apparently, the dreaded green can be copper carbonate, chloride or acetate. These three compounds are soluble in acetic acid, ethanol and alcohol (or water) respectively. However, knowing bugger all about chemistry - I can't vouch for the correctness of this info. Where's Declan when you need him? He can generally pull a chemistry dissertation out the bag when you need one! Acetic acid NEVER disappoints on verdigris! This is true - however vinegar converts the verd into a dark stain (inactive) but also lightens the rest of the coin, which if it's copper/bronze is a possible great disadvantage. However, for a silver coin it shouldn't make a big difference

Couldn't they have used 1967 pennies instead? Oh wait, then they couldn't have sold them at all

Oh dear, I was trying to keep it simple

.500 silver. The other 50% is vulnerable isn't it? I was just going to ask about that, how do you get verd on a silver coin, if it's not, but a deposit, is it corrosive, and could it have been caused by living in the slab?? Not surprised at your shock though Stuart! Yes, the non-silver 50% is mostly copper, so verdigris is possible. Still getting over the shock that a humble 1922 3d would be slabbed!

Awww. I didn't know that. Have they finally run out of things to dig, or does Phil want to spend more time with his hat? Mind you, they must all be getting a bit long in the tooth by now, even Tony.

Colin, I'm getting so fed up typing all this out time after time, I'm really going to ask Chris to put a sticky on the forum! Anyway, here's what you do : 1. Open an image in an image editing program (from Photoshop down to Mac Preview, or Picasa). 2. Open the Image Size dialogue and do the following - • reduce the resolution to 72 dpi • reduce the Image size to something like 600x600 pixels (assuming the coin fills the whole space - if not, crop it first) 3. Save the resulting image as a JPEG and choose a quality (aka 'compression') setting that's around halfway between Best and Worst (or Maximum or Minimum, or whatever the program calls it). You should have an image that fits into the 150k allowance. Repeat for the reverse, and put into a separate post. Repeat for any other coin images.

Yes, you have realised the imperfection of the Spink catalogue. Under one Spink number you can literally have dozens of coins, from an ultra-rare variety, right through to the commonest type, all priced the same, of course! Having said that, as a quick reference I quite like it. It's a giant leap, but there's really nothing of great value inbetween...Brown, Comber & Wilkinson's book 'The Hammered Silver Coins Produced at the Tower Mint During the Reign of Elizabeth I. (2006) Updated 2012. It's the best out there, and it is good! In fact it's excellent! Don't be tempted by JJ North for Elizabeth, it doesn't add anything to the information in Spink's. Yes, Seaby's (as the Spink catalogue used to be) was until the mid-to-late-60s a type catalogue, listing the value (often in only two grades) of the most typical i.e. common example of a particular type. I remember the huge leap when in 1969 I saved up my schoolboy pennies for their 'Standard Catalogue Part II - 1816-1968', the first time they published values for EVERY date, and SOME varieties. Since then, the Standard Catalogue has grown and grown into probably the definitive price guide for milled coins, with a vast number of varieties included. In fact, all they exclude these days are micro-varieties. However, when you go back to the pre-milled section it becomes more and more like the old Seaby's - a type guide, and when you get back to the Roman section, it's even worse : you often get a single type for each denarius/aureus/sestertius/etc to cover an entire emperor's reign, irrespective of how many types there are.

I should estimate that the vast majority of collectors here would appreciate their coins being certified and graded by CGS. That's not the issue. It's having them forever sealed into a hard-to-store, impossible-to-view, difficult-to-love plastic tomb that's the issue for many of us. If - as I outlined above - we could get them certified and graded WITHOUT encapsulation, I'm sure many more of us would use their services. You see, that's where you and I differ. I have a few nice coins, but I don't think any of them are special enough to be labelled "from the _________________ _______ collection". Maybe that's just down to personal egotism, I don't know, but I just like my collection in my own way for my own enjoyment. Sure, I'd like my inheritors to get the best price, but I will be leaving personal instructions about that. Oh believe me, Bill - you would recognise INSTANTLY the surname of the eBay seller of encapsulated 1915 farthings. I'll give you a tiny clue : you mention Lockdales - where do you think the 'Lock' in the name Lockdale comes from? (I'm NOT saying anything against the personnel of London Coins, I've met Stephen numerous times and done business with him at fairs, and always found him an amiable and straight sort of person, but please don't for one moment imagine there isn't an interconnected dealership web, even if it is largely not sinister.) It's not just 'cozy', it's the same people!

You have a razor shears?

What the Italians would call locale, diretto, and fellatio

ARGENTUMANDCOINS I tell you why (IMO!) but you won't like it: 1, if the dealers send their coins for CGS grading, most (not all but most) of their UNC coins will be returned as EF, some as AUNC but some also as VF55. The same applies to EF, VF coins etc. Just ask Bill who already submitted around 2000 coins, or Divemaster. I have exactly the same experience. As NUMISMATIST said : quote "In fact I would say MOST Large Auctioneers and MOST large dealers, many being BNTA members seriously overgrade these days". I can confirm this from my own experience. Now when I am more familiar with CGS grading it takes me just few seconds on the coin show to see that the offered UNC coin would never ever make even a basic UNC80 grade... So instead of making vast profits they would suffer vast losses. 2, lot (not all) of coin dealers are not interested in a transparent coin market. With slabbed coin you can’t buy the coin as about EF and sell it as almost UNC and make large profit. As one of many examples – just recently I have noticed Victorian YH Halfcrown , sold in recent DNW auction (where described as GEF and sold for around 800,- pounds) on Coin Dealer website - described as choice mint state with price tag of 1500,- pounds. So either the vendor or new buyer was ripped off. DNW is happy with their profit, dealer is very happy with his profit and the buyer??? This is happening all the time and you have to realise that not all coin collectors are as experienced as lot of members on this forum and that it takes years to learn. In the meantime you rely on coin dealers and if you are not experienced enough you buy choice mint state halfcrown for 1500,- …. I wish CGS was around when I started collecting 20 years ago. 3, I do not understand your comment about “auction prices realized by the sister company of the slabbing firmâ€. Are you suggesting that London Coins is bidding against London Coins just to spend 500,- pounds on a coin worth 50, - pounds to show the public how good it is to have coin slabbed??? Yes they offer lot of slabbed coins in their auctions but if I want to sell slabbed coin I would certainly ask London Coins because I am sure that collectors who are interested in slabs are keeping eye on their auctions. I think your points 1. and 2. have a lot of merit Mike. There have always been apples in the dealer barrel that range from the rotten to the "over-enthusiastic", but a lot too - as you say - who are straight. But your point 3 could use some research on your part if you don't mind me saying. A company that slabs very ordinary coins and then (possibly) gets an employee to put them up on eBay with a lot of hype and vastly inflated prices (or bidding), to show the effect of slabbing on prices... well, I don't wish to be libellous, but it goes on.

Tabbing quickly (as one does) from here to Facebook and back, I keep looking for the "Like" button here and then saying sternly to myself, "This isn't FB or Twitter!". Then, all of a sudden, I noticed a tiny green + sign and red - sign just above the reply button. I must have seen it literally 000's of times, but it appears we can after all Like a post by clicking + (or not liking it by clicking -). So, emboldened by this discovery, and NEVER HAVING USED IT BEFORE, NEVER NEVER NEVER, I clicked the + sign above this post, and got the following message : "Action failed: You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day" Oh, the quota of "Like" votes is precisely 0, then?

...

It's actually not a coin, but a commemorative medallion, of a type which have been produced for such occasions since the 19th Century. I don't imagine very many were produced (or at least 'reverse engraved' with that particular inscription) so in that sense it is probably quite rare. However, by the same token, there wouldn't be many collectors for it either, so its value is probably modest.

Just a word in your shell like ... if you really want and like those modern commemorative issues, you can pick them up for maximum half their original issue price at many an auction house. It's how I managed to snaffle all the proof sets between 1970 and 1993 at around half book price. (I thought I was such a clever boy at the time, but it was the "law of the secondary market" coming into effect - no-one there would have bid any higher to be honest.)

You can even wrap a number of posts in double quote tags, so they all appear together ~ as above. Useful if you are replying to a few posts all relating to the same point, within a larger post reply. You mean, put an extra [quoote] at the beginning and an extra [/quoote] at the end? (Misspellings necessary just here, of course )

Starters? I thought this was a thread about fake hors d'oeuvres for a minute! Surely it's manes not starters? ..and they're off!!! Brings new meaning to 70's tv chef, Graham Kerr? the "Galloping Gourmet".

Which button is the multiquote button then? I have always used the insert quotation icon and cut and pasted the bits that others have said that I wanted to appear between the two brackets. You know how there are two buttons under each post, bottom right? One says 'Reply', the other says 'Multiquote'. Either way, you get the original post(s) already placed in your reply, marked with a 'Quote / EndQuote'. I wouldn't even know where the "insert quotation icon" is if it jumped up and bit me

Starters? I thought this was a thread about fake hors d'oeuvres for a minute! Surely it's manes not starters? ..and they're off!!!