Peckris

Well well - and £99 with 5 days to go. Who says you have to have lustre for a penny to be saleable?

Well, the detail is crisp enough for a proof, but the rim is often the clincher, and it's hard to tell with yours. I have an 1862 that is similar - great detail, and the reverse is prooflike in certain lights, slight mirroring. The overall colour is dark, like yours. For me, the jury's out, but the likeliest verdict is that either they are early strikes, or struck from proof dies which often got used up for currency strikes. The dark colour? That's the weird part - without the great detail, you'd say that is what often happens to bronze over time. With the crispness... I really don't know. What I do know is, proofs are very rare, so the odds are against it. If I have neck-ache tomorrow, I'll know who to blame Pies! Doesn't your imaging software have a 'rotate' function? Certainly looks like an early strike from the level of detail and crispness of the reverse. It's harder to judge the obverse as the leaves aren't too clear in the photograph. As Peck says, proofs are rare and, in this condition, it would be hard to find anyone who would support a 'proof' verdict. For comparison I have taken close-ups of my two coins. Although the coin on the right is UNC with full lustre, it lacks the smoothness and true consistent depth of detail that the proof (on the left) displays. The overall effect is almost 'plastic' in its smoothness, compared to the rougher and slightly broken surface of the currency strike. Hope this helps. Yes, that really helps. Somehow though, I think the difference lies not in the detail but in the finish, which is why I guess most of the bun proofs are bronzed or similar.

Mmm worth £1600 so I'll sell it for a grand. Bargain. 99p would be closer to the mark for a 6 + G in this condition. I note he has tilted the camera so that the clincher between Obverses 2 and 6 - the gap between the top of the head and the linear circle - can't be seen clearly! Yes, funny that! Luckily he hasn't managed to hide different protrusion of leaves at the front of the wreath. Haha yes! A person of limited intelligence perhaps .. or else relying on the limited intelligence of buyers

Mmm worth £1600 so I'll sell it for a grand. Bargain. 99p would be closer to the mark for a 6 + G in this condition. I note he has tilted the camera so that the clincher between Obverses 2 and 6 - the gap between the top of the head and the linear circle - can't be seen clearly!

Well, the detail is crisp enough for a proof, but the rim is often the clincher, and it's hard to tell with yours. I have an 1862 that is similar - great detail, and the reverse is prooflike in certain lights, slight mirroring. The overall colour is dark, like yours. For me, the jury's out, but the likeliest verdict is that either they are early strikes, or struck from proof dies which often got used up for currency strikes. The dark colour? That's the weird part - without the great detail, you'd say that is what often happens to bronze over time. With the crispness... I really don't know. What I do know is, proofs are very rare, so the odds are against it.

I'd say CC use "Fine" to cover everything from AF down to AFair. Shame really, as they sell some good stuff otherwise.

Yes, I'd agree with that, scott

Healthy indeed considering spink has them at about 3,5k in EF. Yet another rarity they don't rate. A mintage of over 600,000 coins, makes you wonder why a 1934 wreath is priced so low in comparisson Yeah, but that's only coins actually STRUCK in 1850. Most of those will have been dated 1849, very few 1850, which is why it's so rare. Until our current Liz, Royal Mint records are only for numbers struck during a calendar year, whether they carried that year's date or a previous year's date.

Dave's being too hard on himself, Matty. Mind you, that's not him in his avatar... Welcome to the forums

I take an average of 4: CCGB 2011 (about right) Coin Yearbook 2012 (too low) British Coins Market Values 2012 (way too low) Spink 2012 (way too high) I then use a sliding scale based on grade to determine what I'd pay: F 20% of book average VF 42% of book average EF 67% of book average UNC 92% of book average ...and every intermediate grade in between, of course. This biases my successful bidding towards the top grades, which has to be a good thing. Lower grades I only tend to win if they are dirt cheap, which again, is what you'd want to happen! sorry, but you did ask! Apart from the assessment of the Coin Yearbook (which is a mixed bag, I find - some prices too high, some about right, some too low), I'd agree with Declan's assessment. I'm not sure I'd go so low as 20% of a Fine coin if I really wanted it though! Or 42% of a desired VF. There are coins that are rare but usually found in low grade, and rarely or never featured in guides - 1911 'Gouby X' penny, 1903 'Open 3', 1915 'BRITT' farthing, etc - what do you pay for them? What you can afford, if you really want it. And that's the key, I think : we are generally willing to pay a higher price for items we really want, and that's not a bad guiding principle. Rob's advice is very sound. One of the best ways to do research is to attend your nearest auction - they are attended by a mix of dealers and collectors, and with one or two exceptions (where a couple of collectors fight over a particular item) give a realistic idea of what to expect to pay. Bottom line? If you use Spink as your reference, you WILL pay too much. (Been there, done that, got the T shirt..)

Henrik - you may need to know that "pocture" is Germano-Scottish for "picture"

He's changed. Or else I didn't view a high enough sample of his coins turds.

Its maybe a sign of the times that good coins are harder to come by.........I'm not a huge fan of CC as i bought about 4 and sent 1 back from the 4........They were obviously at one time a bigger dealer than they are now. Poor grading will always come back to haunt anyone, good grading will only enhance a reputation and repeat business Couldn't agree more Dave, my favourite dealers for accurate grading are our very own Rob and Michael Gouby, I have had issues with many well known others! Problem being Paul, that good coins will cost top end and perhaps where copper123 is not prepared to go, you have to decide eventually. Mr Gouby has an 1875H penny which i have an issue with his grading on, I had a much better one but he's grading his as EF, in my mind it's no chance in hell as being EF. His price 750 quid, i sold mine to a forum member for 400 Just looked at Michael's 1875H. It's about the same as mine which I wouldn't rate better than VF. I'm looking for an upgrade if I can find one. For comparison, here's mine: Interesting. That is what Michael illustrates as VF in the original edition of his "Bronze Penny" book.

Its maybe a sign of the times that good coins are harder to come by.........I'm not a huge fan of CC as i bought about 4 and sent 1 back from the 4........They were obviously at one time a bigger dealer than they are now. Poor grading will always come back to haunt anyone, good grading will only enhance a reputation and repeat business Couldn't agree more Dave, my favourite dealers for accurate grading are our very own Rob and Michael Gouby, I have had issues with many well known others! Problem being Paul, that good coins will cost top end and perhaps where copper123 is not prepared to go, you have to decide eventually. Mr Gouby has an 1875H penny which i have an issue with his grading on, I had a much better one but he's grading his as EF, in my mind it's no chance in hell as being EF. His price 750 quid, i sold mine to a forum member for 400 I have been pleased so far with my first few purchases from Michael, most of which I saw 'in the flesh' at his shop ... I think you are a strict grader which is a good thing, but I have yet to buy from you! Here is my first purchase from Michael which perhaps colours my judgement!: Described as nVF and £210, which I thought was an extremely good buy ... other members' opinions may differ! I did visit him recently and he was upping his prices, stating that he could no longer buy the same coins in the same grades for what he was selling them for. And I have yet to/may not ever get into copper/bronze, which is undoubtedly a different area of expertise! Only going by personal experience of course, have been happy with John Newman lately (as I read so have others), while I feel Colin Cooke, Bucks Coins and INGRAM offerings are consistently over-graded and/or overpriced ... also noting that more and more 'bricks and mortar' / traditional dealers are listing on the Bay! Hmm. In that case I shall have to re-grade my Charles II crown, as I've always had it as GF. The reverse is about the same as yours, but I'd say the obverse was a bit better (though later obverse of course).

Oh yes, I keep forgetting that CC go 'recent -> older' unlike most other sellers. To be honest, their poor grading for Fine and below is a long standing thing. They always accept returns without quibble though, as did the man himself before he became late. But you're right, the eBay one is a bargain at half the price, and a better coin.

I do agree with you - eye appeal is everything. And if I had to choose between a GVF with attractive even tone, and EF with part lustre at 5 times the price, I know which one I'd go for! One thing though - I wouldn't dismiss an even black tone on a high grade item (I have an EF 1807 halfpenny that is a lovely dark almost black tone, and I love it). In relation to what, exactly? CC doesn't have a 1732, though they have a wide range of other GII dates from scruffy Fines to Unc.

That's just plain stupid. You virtually have to leave planet earth to avoid contact with 1887 shillings, though the large JH type are decidedly rare, sorry, non-existant. I've always thought that particular seller was one of the better ones. It just goes to show..

Nothing to suggest it is anything other than an I Agreed. The serifs on the cross bar of the T are angled, while the "serifs" here are right angles.

Predecimal has been horribly slow all day - it takes forever to reload the page or make a reply. All other sites seem ok, so it's not my computer or broadband. Have any of you noticed this snail's pace?

Die numbers? In 1893?? CGS and others catalogue the variants with Die numbers I don't think so!! But I note that ski has explained the difference between "die numbers" (which appear on the coin itself), and "die combinations" (i.e. obverse and reverse pairings, as used in Freeman, Peck, ESC, many other sources, and no doubt CGS also).

Yes, the search function is rubbish I think. Takes ages and then doesn't turn up what it should! For example, a search for 'charles shilling' finds nothing unless you search for 'charles I, shilling'. Who designed that!?!?! And I like to open lots in a new tab, but if I try that it just gives me the whole catalogue page again which wastes time. Quite frustrating. The same people who make 'Title' a mandatory field on an online form, or who allow you to enter credit card or National Insurance Numbers with the usual spaces in, then tell you there's an 'error'. Jeez. I was a computer programmer, so I know just how easy it is to remove spaces from an input field if you don't want them. But no, web form designers break the golden rule of IT - "NEVER EVER LET PROGRAMMERS DESIGN AN INTERFACE USED BY THE PUBLIC".

There was a thread recently by Mongo on exactly this topic. Can somebody link to it as I'm on my way out. I'm not aware of such a topic; I can see no other threads in this forum for some reason (it's set to show all). In the thread index, there's a dark blue/green top and bottom line. On the bottom line is a tiny white 'Click here to show filter options' button. If you click that, you can set parameters for what is displayed. One of the defaults is 'From the last 30 days'. As this particular sub-forum doesn't get posted in very often, probably no-one has made a new topic in the last month, which is why you don't see any. I noticed that yesterday, so I chose for it to show all, and set that as my default. Still nothing. That's the first parameter - there's 5 in all. The 4th is "Time frame" and that needs to be set longer than 30 days (at least, in this forum - others get posted to just about every day). I meant, where it said show threads from the past 30 days, I changed that to the longest duration. Yes, you're quite right - it must be a glitch in this sub-forum. There are glitches - for instance, the first thread when you visit most sub-forums takes you straight to the first unread post, but not in Free For All, which takes you to the last post, always.

Die numbers? In 1893??

There was a thread recently by Mongo on exactly this topic. Can somebody link to it as I'm on my way out. I'm not aware of such a topic; I can see no other threads in this forum for some reason (it's set to show all). In the thread index, there's a dark blue/green top and bottom line. On the bottom line is a tiny white 'Click here to show filter options' button. If you click that, you can set parameters for what is displayed. One of the defaults is 'From the last 30 days'. As this particular sub-forum doesn't get posted in very often, probably no-one has made a new topic in the last month, which is why you don't see any. I noticed that yesterday, so I chose for it to show all, and set that as my default. Still nothing. That's the first parameter - there's 5 in all. The 4th is "Time frame" and that needs to be set longer than 30 days (at least, in this forum - others get posted to just about every day).