Peckris

Not forgetting I hope, that scans are also crap - great for detail but absolutely appalling for tone, lustre, or general eye appeal. If you judge your own coins from a scan, you will feel a big let-down.

The scratch is very light and not visible to the naked eye and only just visible using a magnifier. The camera however picks it up easily. £90 for yours is dead cheap. Did you see my hypothesis Nick? Makes perfect sense I believe.

The threepence has always been one of the highest rated 1927 proofs - the reasons for that maybe lost in the mists of time. However, it MAY be to do with the fact that it and the florin are the only issues of those denominations dated 1927. Admittedly the currency 1927 halfcrown and sixpence are earlier TYPES, but that may not have signified so much in days gone by. Thanks for that. Wow, £1100 for the 1927 sets in their horrible cardboard cases? I'll look after mine! No I wouldn't pay £200 for a VF 1797 2d, but I suspect that Spink's VF would look closer to our idea of EF tbh. I certainly think a genuinely VF specimen is worth at least £100, though GF examples with the usual edge damage ought to be available for around £25 as there's lots and lots of those.

Uh? So what's that doing for the value of a 1927 proof set? Over £500 now?

I wonder if it's because the rims are proportionately larger on the small denominations? Therefore would protect the lustre better and for longer.

Picture?

Pfft, isn't it obvious? The last two digits of the year, when added together, equals the first digit. Cause for rejoicing and celebration.

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 ) It might be if this compound existed, but it doesn't, at least not in a stable condition. The other Iron Sulphate is Ferric Sulphate, which is hydrated Fe2(SO4)3 and is an orange crstalline salt. Ok. I'll take your word for it - my chem is very very rusty indeed. Though if it was better I could cure that rust...

Ten sticks of dynamite hanging on a wall Ten sticks of dynamite hanging on a wall And if one stick of dynamite should accidentally fall There'd be no sticks of dynamite and no bleedin' wall (Thrown out of Scout Camp, our Liverpool troop was, for singing that round the campfire).

Nor me, just the 2010, but did get a super 2010 Florence Nightingale in my change today, 1st one I've seen David I'd have preferred a nice Katy Perry or Beyonce in my change, Florence is getting a bit old and wrinkly now for my taste. Phew, for a moment there, I thought you said Katie Price! Did you see Jasper Carrott last night?

Your 1924 is almost identical to mine (we both have gems!) - I don't see any difference compared to mine. All that series 1920 - 1925 look very silvery when BU unlike the larger silver denominations. The only discolouration I have is to my 1923 which although BU has a yellowish/gold colour rather than silver-white.

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.

I've changed my avatar picture, which shows in my Profile. But when I do a posting, it shows my previous avatar picture. What's going on?