Peckris

Yeah, and £25 seems to cheap for this error. CCGB gives the price as £450 but it doesn't say when or where it went for that. Why don't you email the forum owner as he's also the author of CCGB Yeah, but the post before yours says it was in CCGB "pre-Perkins'. Original post states its in CCGB 2011, so as i said, email the forum owner. What's the point? It was in CCGB pre-Perkins. There's every chance he doesn't know. Hmmmm my 2010 CCGB book was penned by Chris, which then gives the kikelyhood that 2011 was also done by C.H.Perkins because we know that 2013 was also penned by Chris. Please read properly Peck Jeez, do I have to spoonfeed you Dave? HERE IS THE RELEVANT QUOTE FROM THE POST ABOVE!!!! "I have a lot of old CCGB... it's in the 2005 (and later) edition at £450, also in the 2001 edition at £450 (pre Perkins) but it's not in a 1987 edition." Note that "..also in the 2001 edition at £450 (pre Perkins).." Do you get it now??

And if you want to reply to SEVERAL posts ... Click on the reply that you wish to reply to, then reply.. Seriously lol ...even ones that quote one or more of the posts that you've already picked out... ...then click the Multiquote button against each post you want to include, then finally click the Add Reply button, edit everything to your heart's content, and voilà !

If the coin is noticeably worse than the encapsulated photo, then its owner has done themselves no favours (e.g. by incorrect handling or storage). Any buyer would see the coin is not the same condition (or even the same coin!) as its photo, and therefore either would not buy or - if having bought it already - would demand a refund. Such a system that I've proposed would actually encourage people to take proper care of their coins, as the greater the difference between coins and their photos, the more likely the value would not hold up. Oh, and one more thing - the encapsulated photo would include close up enlargements of noticeable 'unique identifying features' (toning, spots, any scratches, EKs, variety pointings, etc), which would prevent fraud by substituting a different coin on resale.

I don't think it can be a Maundy. I may be wrong, but I thought that the 1926 Maundy threepences were all the first type (I of BRITT to space). You mean not the M.E.? Which makes a certain sense I suppose, as the minting for Maundy would have to be done quite early in the year, to be ready for Easter. Indeed. According to Davies the M.E. wasn't used on the maundy coinage until 1928. Wow - that would make the 1927 Maundy set an interesting oddity in its own right, as the only 1927 coins to feature the pre M.E. portrait.

Bill, thank you for your input and your interest in this discussion. If you are a big fan of the CGS service, then you have no doubt followed the very many discussions in these forums on the pros and cons of slabbing. You will no doubt have seen that the vast majority of collectors here who have expressed an opinion, are either mostly against slabbing (but may own one or two slabbed pieces) or totally against them. You will also be aware, I'm sure, that there are some very serious collectors here, by which I mean NOT how seriously they take the hobby (we all do) but how much resource they put into tracking down very rare varieties and types, provenancing them, and then storing them. You are defending CGS against similar North American TPGs, specifically on the grading and slabbing of British coins. Even those of us who are against slabbing would agree that CGS are probably the best for British coins. Look at all the many complaints here about NGC - which you rightly pointed your finger at - and you will see that is true. Pro-slabbers will use CGS here in the UK because apart from their sluggish turnaround times, they seem to do a good job. Not all is sweetness and light, however. How else do you explain the appearance on eBay of very ordinary 1915 farthings, slabbed by CGS, and offered for sale at a vastly inflated price? "Ah", you might well respond, "that's not the fault of CGS, the pricing was set by the seller in the hope that a slabbed coin would command a high price". Fair enough. Yet the seller in question was traced back to London Coins. It therefore now looks like a clumsy attempt to promote the service by setting precedents for high prices on eBay for slabbed coins. Those who like slabbing defend the practice vigorously, and fair do's to them. Those of us who are against, and who prefer to remove our coins (with care) once in a while from their mahogany cabinet, and held up to be viewed and loved in the best light, look on askance at the growth of TPG services, and we wonder why a similar service could not be offered where the coin is graded and photographed, and the results sealed into a thin plastic capsule that could be stored separately from the coin, but included with it if it was sold? You are pro-slabs so you may not be open to the arguments against them, but I hope you will reflect on the fact that not everyone - and in these forums that means the vast majority - are in favour, or would willingly use the services of a TPG.

I don't think it can be a Maundy. I may be wrong, but I thought that the 1926 Maundy threepences were all the first type (I of BRITT to space). You mean not the M.E.? Which makes a certain sense I suppose, as the minting for Maundy would have to be done quite early in the year, to be ready for Easter.

It was the only fair I ever went to, but I always enjoyed it. You got to meet the Locketts, Daleys, Beaumonts, Craddocks, Nicholls, Dorsets, Windsors, Carltons et al, chew the fat, inspect goodies unhurriedly, rummage through trays of bargains, and leave with backache, a full bag and empty pockets Ah, those were the days!

It may be that NGC aren't familiar with the weak strikes that are normal for 1906 and 1907 pennies?

Yes, they all look like currency strikes (a proof for that date would be very rare). Unless you are thinking Maundy?

To me, it looks like a big gap between the 9 and the 6. I really don't see the 'skew'. The pennies often show this but you don't see it on crowns (well, I don't). Good observation.

1907 pennies are notorious for weak strikes. It's technically BU but the reverse is so weakly struck that to say "UNC Details" is just a joke! It's UNC with VF details on the reverse (No, it hasn't been cleaned - it's just a weak strike). Then it is a poor photo because it looks cleaned to me. (or my computer screen needs upgrading) it's probably because it was shot through a slab. The obverse is fully struck up with a lot of lustre, albeit streaky (also typical for the era). The reverse is very weak but has full lustre. It's not a coin I'd pay a great deal of money for tbh. A fully struck up example - even if only GEF or AUNC - with less lustre, would be a better bet IMO. His starting bid is actually more than I'd want to pay.

1907 pennies are notorious for weak strikes. It's technically BU but the reverse is so weakly struck that to say "UNC Details" is just a joke! It's UNC with VF details on the reverse (No, it hasn't been cleaned - it's just a weak strike).

Or an experimental die that wasn't used in the end?

You can post in any appropriate thread - but generally this forum is for new collectors who have an enquiry.

im not seeing in my browser a left or a right......just one above the other. if the top one is the business strike...........i got it completely wrong As I say, it's so hard to capture in a photo. Especially as I'm led to believe that the known 1964's aren't that great anyway. In hand, the 'bottom' coin (in your browser... try stretching the browser to make it wider) has a 'plastic' smoothness to the design and a mirror sheen to the fields. The complete absence of lustre on an otherwise UNC coin is just about the only clue. As for crispness of detail over the currency penny, there just isn't any. As you say, "not that great".

Me: "Have I failed to mistake you for someone who actually gives a damn?" CGS: "No"

I'm always in two minds about this one. It's such a micro variety that normally I wouldn't care. But on the other hand it's so rare, that if I was able to find one that hadn't been noticed, I would pounce!

Which is the "top" one - the one on the left, or the one on the right?

Yeah, and £25 seems to cheap for this error. CCGB gives the price as £450 but it doesn't say when or where it went for that. Why don't you email the forum owner as he's also the author of CCGB Yeah, but the post before yours says it was in CCGB "pre-Perkins'. Original post states its in CCGB 2011, so as i said, email the forum owner. What's the point? It was in CCGB pre-Perkins. There's every chance he doesn't know.

I'm telling on you!

Yeah, and £25 seems to cheap for this error. CCGB gives the price as £450 but it doesn't say when or where it went for that. Why don't you email the forum owner as he's also the author of CCGB Yeah, but the post before yours says it was in CCGB "pre-Perkins'.

My 1968 certainly has a thick rim, but looking through I'm not sure it's any thicker than some currency strikes for other 'bun' years. If only thickness was a definite marker! Thanks Steve. I did wonder because my UNC 1881H has lustre quite unlike any I've seen, and it has an unusually thick rim. I've had vague suspicions that it may be an impaired proof, but I've always dismissed them as too fanciful to be realistic. My 1881H is poor and due an upgrade, though it does have about 40% lustre. It also has a thin rim, so it would be interesting to see yours. You never know! My 1881s are LITERALLy poor! Well overdue an upgrade, but at today's prices? Hmmm. [Thinks not..] It's not a very good pic to be honest, and it looks totally different in hand. The lustre is very different to normal ~ almost akin to having been polished, although not literally polished. I don't think it is a proof but I have wondered from time to time. The pic is from the Colin Cooke site dating from when I bought it, about July 2011 iirc, for £150 Holds up hands to shield eyes from all that Windows ugliness Nice penny though.

If it really looks like that, it's quite a mésalignement drastique. A photo would be great when your camera is working again (camera -> computer USB cable?)

My 1968 certainly has a thick rim, but looking through I'm not sure it's any thicker than some currency strikes for other 'bun' years. If only thickness was a definite marker! Thanks Steve. I did wonder because my UNC 1881H has lustre quite unlike any I've seen, and it has an unusually thick rim. I've had vague suspicions that it may be an impaired proof, but I've always dismissed them as too fanciful to be realistic. My 1881H is poor and due an upgrade, though it does have about 40% lustre. It also has a thin rim, so it would be interesting to see yours. You never know! My 1881s are LITERALLy poor! Well overdue an upgrade, but at today's prices? Hmmm. [Thinks not..]

I'm not sure about the toning but I'm very happy with the price!! :D The price is sheer BUNC ! I'm not sure about "The requested content cannot be loaded - please try again later" though.