Peckris

Ferro Di-sulphate? (Just a guess - I did get my Chemistry O Level but that's as far as it went apart from producing bright purple dyes at home from potassium permanganate )

Yes but weren't the arms facing the other way. I think it's an ancient Buddhist symbol? And yes, the Nazis flipped it horizontally.

Yes I remember "back in the day" when acetone / nail polish remover was the recommended substance.

Yep, Ferric Sulphate, Fe2SO4 also known as Copperas. I too am not 100% certain, but wasn't this collected in former days as dog's no.2s? Not if Copperas is correct. If the latter, it would be called grrrass. Or if sheep's no 2s, woolas, with apologies to the not so honourable former member for Oldham and Saddleworth. Remind us who that was, Rob?

Hippy bathday guys (Sorry, I meant "happy birthday", the other sounds too Sanatogen-related )

"makers mark & edge inscription indefinable" ... well, they didn't use to be

I didn't say you said that - your trouble is you don't read posts properly Dave, you just fly off with your first (even if incorrect) reaction. That's exactly the point I was making. Sigh. If you'd only read what people say.. Where did I say "dispensation"? READ WHAT PEOPLE SAY FOR GODS SAKE. I was talking about DIE DETAILS on a smaller coin being less detailed than on a larger coin WHICH IS A FACT. Read Derek's book. I was also talking about the difficulty of rating a small coin realistically when the picture is 10 times life size, and a picture of a halfcrown (say)would be only around 4 times. How can that be a proper comparison? I'm off out. A bit of fresh air will do me good

I would not agree with the "tarnished" verdict - it's toning in its very best guise. As for CGS, I believe they grade over-strictly by modern standards but not by 60s standards. (Essay coming up ... In the 60s, the difference between EF and UNC grades was quite small and the much lower differential in prices reflected that. The written description of EF was "very slight rubbing or wear barely visible to the naked eye". Now it's moved South as a grade, closer to the American grade (though not there .. yet). Probably due to collectos wanting the very finest and willing to pay for it - and therefore by comparison those weren't "the very finest" had to be seen to be not. And so EF standards have relaxed somewhat. I can't see any wear on that coin, though there is a very slight rubbing off of the toned lustre on the obverse (as Rob noticed). However, it's a superior example of that series and I believe would fetch top whack in any auction. AUNC? UNC? As it's not obvious, I don't think it matters. It's a dilly. I would rather not HAVE to use a machine to grade Peck, I would hate to have a coin damaged by one in the process, but if that is the only alternative to human foibles and greed that will give a more honest consistent grading, then i guess it is an option to consider. I still hate those slabs, I removed a 1964 and 65 kennedy half dollar from them a while back, they look and feel much nicer (for american coins anyway ). I think that's where the 3rd party graders do score - despite their 'orrible slabs, they are far more consistent on grading than anyone else. Conservative - yes, but also consistent. And BTW they are staffed by human beings not machines!

I agree about the greed. But grading will always be subject to the foibles of human beings and long may it be so! If you judge each coin yourself on how it looks and how you feel about it, then decide what it's worth to you, far better than a machine-like approach to things IMO.

I agree too Coinery, I love nicely toned coins too. In fact I look at my collection of shillings rather like a chocolate box of different shades which highlights the fact that the collection is unique and reflects my choices. What a great response! And surely the perfect attitude to coin collecting? We men can be far too Aspergic sometimes, especially about piddling little unimportant factors Thank you for keeping our feet on the ground.

I wouldn't class those as anything more significant than bag marks, which on some more modern UNC coins look far worse without affecting the technical grade. Remember that's a sixpence shown at around 10 times real size. I think the obverse is a strong strike, which counts in its favour, especially considering there are UNC Edwards of different dates that have less hair detail than that. And don't forget how large the picture has been 'blown up' which ALWAYS affects how it appears. Grading, as you've seen from this thread Nick, is always a highly subjective art. As for your coin, it's a gorgeous example of an Edward sixpence and anyone who says they wouldn't give it space in their own collection is being economical with the truth. Whether you define it as AUNC or UNC makes little difference in the end. Appearance is everything. There are precious few bag marks on that coin. As for the rim nicks - yes, there's clearly one on the reverse at 6 o'clock, but the others I'm not convinced about, particularly when you appreciate just how small the coin really is in relation to the picture. You don't get perfect edges on business strikes, and some of what you are calling rim nicks, don't look like 'cuts' or 'dents' to me, just the way the rim is slightly folded in places. And maybe not even visible at normal size. If we are going to judge everything on super-size enlargements, then we might as well all throw our non-proof coins into the trash. Debbie - there are many factors to take into account. Not the least of which is that small coins are less collected and popular than large coins, precisely because their detail is much harder to make out without using a glass. However, if you used the same glass where it wasn't needed - e.g. on crowns or pennies - you would soon see a plethora of apparent horror stories, which when you see the coin at normal size would NOT be apparent. But, you still need that glass to see if there is wear on Edward's hair and beard : as you do also on his larger coins, him being one of the harder monarchs to see hair wear on. And the principle is also true that grading should be consistent across denominations; a fairer comparison in terms of picture would be one that 'blows up' that sixpence to the size of a real life halfcrown. The other factor to take into account is that detail on small fine parts of the design (e.g. lion faces) is almost non-existent on UNC examples of a small coin, where on a large coin you would use those very parts to judge the first signs of wear. So size does matter when you look at the grade of a small coin, as the die itself contains less detail than the same design on larger denominations.

Yes, that's at least EF (minimal wear) and it has a very nice 'pewter' toning. Good coin!

However, unless everybody else flushes their caches - you'll be the only one that sees the change. I've just flushed mine and see that your avatar is now cyan coloured rather the purple/blue it was before. I think this is a forum s/w issue. Every time a user uploads a new avatar, a unique filename should be generated so that all browsers will download the new image. verdigris coloured, please I am sorry Peck, but I have to inform you that having looked at your Avatar, I must conclude from it's tone, and it's colour, it is not covered in Verdigris but it is a modern Fake. Noooooooooooooooo. oh well, don't tell anyone, especially not seuk. It will be our little secret.

..and it's repeated further down also But apparently it's a 'Farting', a very rare coin indeed ... Not as scarce as burpennies

I totally agree. I'd much rather have a coin with even patina than with patchy uneven lustre. Take this 1862 penny (ignore the horrible scan - it looks great in hand; dark glistening virtually prooflike fields and such sharp edges I've sometimes wondered if ...) : it would value less than a BU example which I can kind of understand, but it would even fetch less than one with patchy lustre, which is just stupid. Just how I like a coin to look, and a good enough scan to see the sharpness of hair and fingers! I absolutely could not collect anything different. That's not to say I wouldn't buy different...I just wouldn't look at them and sail away to faraway thoughts and imaginings, as I often do with the coins I love! Thanks! You won't believe it, but I got that penny in the mid-1990s from the Midland Fair ... from a dealer who clearly didn't appreciate it : it was in his £1 box.

That's just the way the reverse was designed. I have an 1887 wreath reverse 6d in EF - the top veins are gone, the rounded parts of the crown are flat, the oak leaves are flattening, etc etc, but the veins on the two lower left leaves are still intact. Overall, the wear on that coin is obvious. There's no apparent wear at all on this one. None.

However, unless everybody else flushes their caches - you'll be the only one that sees the change. I've just flushed mine and see that your avatar is now cyan coloured rather the purple/blue it was before. I think this is a forum s/w issue. Every time a user uploads a new avatar, a unique filename should be generated so that all browsers will download the new image. verdigris coloured, please

..and it's repeated further down also

I didn't no, and I still don't. Please tell me which leaf(ves) I should be looking at. Surptising.....Ok, well top leaves on the left have veins, follow those leaves down and the veins are disspearing which would then indicate wear. Right hand side, in the middle of the coin, middle leave are worn. Mayybe i'm just imagining it, but looks clear enough to me. The first points of wear on that reverse are not only the leaves, but the jewels and raised parts on the crown, and the letters. There aren't complete leaf veins on that design - it looks and feels UNC to me. Full lustre.

That's as clear an UNC as I've seen in that series, and with a delicious golden toning too. Very very nice! That's only Fair (obverse) but the reverse is certainly Fine. So I'd say Fair/Fine. (Is this schoopid thing playing up today? Won't let me reply to posts with images in. )

I totally agree. I'd much rather have a coin with even patina than with patchy uneven lustre. Take this 1862 penny (ignore the horrible scan - it looks great in hand; dark glistening virtually prooflike fields and such sharp edges I've sometimes wondered if ...) : it would value less than a BU example which I can kind of understand, but it would even fetch less than one with patchy lustre, which is just stupid.

Thanks Garry. Apart from the first page, that first one has come out fine. (But the site I had to get it from ... GAAAAAH! Don't the stupid people who create those 'captchas' understand that a robot can't read ANYTHING in a picture? On the other hand, if they put a wavy line through the characters, then humans can't read it either!! What a bunch of total pillocks!)

Nice idea, but it hadn't loaded even after 15 minutes so I gave up. Thanks anyway Garry. I think the idea is you are meant to right click and "save link as". comes down a lot faster. Yes, but you can't save a pdf until it's fully loaded in your browser.

Fascinating and rather ghostly in an almost sinister way! Interesting that it picked up her features but didn't pick up the top of her head in the equally empty field area to the top left of the trident.

Nice idea, but it hadn't loaded even after 15 minutes so I gave up. Thanks anyway Garry.