Peckris

The minute holes in the rim will be due to its having been mounted at some point in its past. But if it's in Fair condition, it won't affect the value too much - it's the scarcest issue, and anyone buying a Fair example shouldn't be put off too much by those (in my opinion). The cleaned coin is another matter - if it's been polished, and wasn't a high grade to begin with, it will be worth not much more than scrap I'm afraid. However, even polished coins will tone back in time so if you plan to keep it then you can take measures to quicken that, and people here will let you know how to do that.

Weird in the extreme. The first few listed are: 5s £50 1681 GF-AVF nice light tone, scarce 5s £40 1682/1 AVF light tone, faintest trace of mount removed from edge 2s6d £300 1909 GVF+/EF nice light tone 2s £60 1907 EF/ABU sl weak strike obv, v. light tone 1d £50 1797 Cartwheel virt Unc lustre traces, some surface mks & rust spots rev The cartwheel must be extremely disfigured to make sense of that laughable estimate (which would be ok for a VF or GVF item), but those first two Charles II crowns are also ridiculously low especially when compared to the 1909 halfcrown that's not even fully EF! I don't know what's going on tbh - if there were any images in that pdf it would be easier to see what's what, but there aren't.

I find that odd (only my personal view) - I think the BoE dollars are far more interesting than the unconventional tokens of a few years later. Perhaps it's something to do with it being a complete design, with a very well balanced obverse and reverse. Those BoE tokens have always struck me as rather rudimentary designs, with a verbal description of the denomination surrounded by a wreath, and those rather weird looking portraits. Actually, I've just had a great idea for a collection focus - the very mixed up nature of the currency after 1775 and before 1816. For silver, that would take in the 1787 shillings and sixpences struck specially for BoE customers, the countermarked Spanish reales, the BoE dollars, and BoE tokens. For copper there are multifarious trade tokens, the Cartwheels of 1797, the 1799 issues, the 1806 and 1807 issues. Covering a period of only 40 years, it would include coins and tokens of a wondrous variety. Again, I think that's a series that invites being represented by a type (BU 1887 and 1889 are very affordable). It's only a blown-up florin, after all. Part of the reason may be to do with the obverse type being Jubilee Head only, never the most popular design. Even those scarce "1 for I" varieties don't really do it for me. I think they would appeal mainly to type collectors, but as a series they kind of lack interest. More interesting by far to me is the reason why they were introduced (Stage 2 of a decimal system? One fifth of a pound), and even more why they were discontinued ("Barmaid's Ruin", mistaken in busy pubs for a crown).

Haha. Grossly overrated year, common as muck! Everyone apparently kept them at the time as it was the last year, and BU multiples were offered in the late 60s. Not sure Britannia was ever a goddess, even in her Roman incarnation. Never under estimate the humble farthing....I do prefer pre 1936 what other coin could you get 960 for £1. I love them Come on! I wasn't dissing the farthing, just being realistic about that supposedly "scarce year" 1956.

I'd go with EF on that, but as a maximum. There seems to be a few small scratches on the reverse? Thanks Peck, yes there are, but not visible except under magnification ... so near EF about right then? I tend to grade on wear only but add other description as necessary. So for me it would be "EF with a few light scratches on reverse". But with those pictures, the buyer would be able to see clearly what he was getting anyway.

Are we talking pennies here? The 1876H is commonly the narrow date variety, whereas the wide date is quite rare. Hi, Yes (silly me), we are talking pennies. I thought it was the other way round from referencing "Collector's Coins", but thanks for the update - I am happily corrected. So the one I had originally was the rarer one. Bitten on the bum again! The wide date is G to F and the narrow date was at least F so a slight diminution of overall worth. The ebay purchase was still a bargain but less so than before. Thanks again, Garry CCGB is a fantastic value little book, with lots more packed in than many more expensive guides. However, a few of the prices have to be taken with a pinch of salt - I think Chris Perkins (who publishes it) meant to show 'wide date' as the 1876H variety, not 'narrow date'. Another incongruity is the 1886 farthing - in reality it's as common as the 1884 and 1885, but CCGB shows it 4 - 5 times the value from VF to BU. If in doubt, compare against Spink, but always keep in mind that all price guides are only that - a guide, not a bible.

In a word - yes. Must be your phone or whatever. On my monitor I can see quite clearly the eyebrow, eye complete with pupil, nose and nostril, and lips, all well defined. And that's from a small picture. So this shilling would be GEF then? Certainly no less than EF - there is not much facial difference between the two to be honest. You're not seeing the original picture clearly for some reason. At first glance they appeared deeper than I would've expected, and a little 'awkward'! They still 'feel' awkward for me, however, the consensus is most definitely that the coin's a goer! Are you going for it Paulus? Thanks everyone for your opinions, nicely varied! Still musing over it, I like it, it is graded by the dealer as GVF, with GVF money attached, so no bargain, but I might ... in fact knowing me I probably will! Will post bigger and hopefully better pics if and when I do! The dealer seems to be in consensus with the majority here, which is a good sign. If you like it, go for it. My only reservation is the gold colour but 10 to 1 that's the poor white balance not the coin itself.

I'd go with EF on that, but as a maximum. There seems to be a few small scratches on the reverse?

Haha. Grossly overrated year, common as muck! Everyone apparently kept them at the time as it was the last year, and BU multiples were offered in the late 60s. Not sure Britannia was ever a goddess, even in her Roman incarnation.

In a word - yes. Must be your phone or whatever. On my monitor I can see quite clearly the eyebrow, eye complete with pupil, nose and nostril, and lips, all well defined. And that's from a small picture.

Are we talking pennies here? The 1876H is commonly the narrow date variety, whereas the wide date is quite rare.

Apart from being - thankfully - a football-free zone, what on earth are the sports featured at 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock? Gymnastics and tykandwo The noble Yorkshire art of not buying a round?

I hope you find someone who would go out and sit with you and have a look through (I'm nowhere near). Unfortunately, my spirits sank when I read "sitting in bags". Why? That's the nature of a typical accumulation rather than collection, the kind of thing I used to wade through attending auctions as a dealer, in the usually vain hope of finding something worthwhile. True collections are found in albums or trays or even cabinets, not in loose bags. I do hope I'm wrong, but I doubt there is going to be much there. Base your hopes on that, then anything good will come as a pleasant surprise. But please, don't count on it. As a rough guide, silver and gold have a bullion value and can be sold accordingly. British silver coins before 1920 are sterling silver, before 1947 have 50% silver, from 1947 have no silver at all.

GVF Yes I agree with GVF. Superb detail.

Yes, that appears to be around EF grade, much better than your first picture, though still a little on the dark side. ("Luke...hsssssss hhhhhhssssss....I am your father, Luke...hhhhssssss"). From what I can see, the darkening looks very similar to that handed out to farthings between 1897 and 1917. That was done at the Mint using a bath of photographer's 'hypo'. As to your coin, either this was darkened in error at the Mint, or someone took a coin barely circulated and subjected it to the same treatment, post-Mint. That would be my theory anyway. It has the giveaway 'blue' tinge that hypo-treated coins have. I can't comment on the lightness, but do bear in mind that all coins have an upper and lower range within which their weight can fall. I really don't know if yours falls within that band or not. Someone with greater knowledge will comment on that.

Apart from being - thankfully - a football-free zone, what on earth are the sports featured at 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock?

No, that's not fair. It's not 'slacker', it's just different. In other words their EF is lower than ours, but is consistently lower, same with AUNC, and so on. Their grading is as consistent as ours (should be), but their grades don't exactly match ours. Just saying..

Yes, this is where Peck is so valuable as his coverage of the Soho Mint and all the Taylor restrikes, is unsurpassed. Though "C W Rob" is our home grown expert on all this. The Taylor story is fascinating, as he inherited the Soho dies/punches with varying degrees of damage and rusting, some of which he repaired himself, and some which he used complete with rust spots etc. He also paired obverse and reverse dies together which had never been paired at Soho so those are easy to identify. And of course he was quite free to do all this as the Soho currency was no longer legal tender.

That would seem to be a (small) consensus then - in favour of the 1850/49. It's very hard to tell, but a 50 over 49 makes much more logical and business sense than 50 over 46. That's my (our) four penn'orth anyway.

It's an "erb".mannnn. If you like Oriental/Asian food you've had some. Please see the following new topic. We magnified and posted two good pics on the post and also provided a link to photobucket with 21 pictures!: 1850 /46 Victoria Shilling Part 2 Follow-Up PICS Follow-Up To First Post--With Pics and/or http://photobucket.com/185046_USBmagnifier I had a good long look at the largest 'blow up' (of the 50). The 5 is indisputably cut over a 4, but the 0 is a puzzle. It seems rather 'heavy' on its left hand side, as if it was compensating for something underlying on that side. That would make more sense if it was a 9, as extra work would be more needed on the left, whereas a 6 would need more work on the right hand side. But that's mere speculation - it doesn't appear at all easy to tell what the underlying digit is. I don't suppose you have a good blow up of a known 1850/49 to compare it with? I sure wish that we could find a known 1850/49 or even an 1850/46 to compare it to! Based on your input, we did compare it to an 18x6 and an 18x9 to compare the 6 and the 9. Our thought (and possibly the graders?) were along the same as yours. What are your thoughts on this: the heavy, ''thick/wider'' left side would indicate an underlying 6 rather than a 9?? When looking at the two numbers on the "control" coins and their shapes, a 6 would go along the entire left side, causing a thicker left side from top to bottom. And a 6 would really not thicken the right side per se, due to its shape and also the bottom of the six is about the same "width/shape" as the bottom of a zero. Whereas the 9 would do basically the opposite: thicker right and partial thickness on left??????? What do you think?? Looking forward to your reply! Thanks!!! Have a look here : http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/webcatalogue/131/L1743r.jpg That shows that the left hand side of the 6 on an 1846 shilling is virtually completely usable as the left hand side of a 0, with no further alteration needed. But the right hand side would need quite a bit of work. I would guess the reverse is true for a 9? The intriguing thing about your close-up shot, is that there appears to be a ghost in the middle of the 0, showing faint lines that correspond not only to the bottom of the loop of a 9, but also the top of the loop of a 6 ! I'd say the jury is still out...

It's an "erb".mannnn. If you like Oriental/Asian food you've had some. Please see the following new topic. We magnified and posted two good pics on the post and also provided a link to photobucket with 21 pictures!: 1850 /46 Victoria Shilling Part 2 Follow-Up PICS Follow-Up To First Post--With Pics and/or http://photobucket.com/185046_USBmagnifier I had a good long look at the largest 'blow up' (of the 50). The 5 is indisputably cut over a 4, but the 0 is a puzzle. It seems rather 'heavy' on its left hand side, as if it was compensating for something underlying on that side. That would make more sense if it was a 9, as extra work would be more needed on the left, whereas a 6 would need more work on the right hand side. But that's mere speculation - it doesn't appear at all easy to tell what the underlying digit is. I don't suppose you have a good blow up of a known 1850/49 to compare it with?

There was a very High Grade Florin posted by palves and was fiound to be fake. There was also a dot underneath the I of BRIT But if the dot was a genuine die flaw, wouldn't that too get reproduced on the fake? Maybe the only coins containing the dots are known fakes, but it would only take one genuine coin with dots, to disprove the theory.

Hi, your penny is the normal issue variety. Not worth very much in that condition, but thank you for posting it - it's always worthwhile checking just in case.

Oh yes, I see it - tiny, right? There appears to be two in fact. There again, it/they could be anything - a minute die flaw for example.

I'm unsure. I can't speak for the florin; the William isn't exactly top grade, but may have been dipped. As for the Anne shilling, mine is even better, but was bought in the 90s before the Chinese invasion. For some reason that particular Anne quite often turns up in virtually UNC condition (and is rated accordingly in ESC and Cope & Rayner.) So they may all be genuine. I can't see any spot beneath the 'i' of brit.