Peckris

There's quite a lot of these privately struck, high quality commems around : I have 2 VIVAT REGINA crowns from 1978, another for JFK, another for early astronauts. Nice pieces but I'm not sure they're worth a great deal?

You can use Dropbox, but should amend the URL ending from ?dl=0 to ?raw=1 - that will allow embedding.

1973 is probably the modern proof set with the worst reputation - an untoned set often sells at a premium over book price. The probable cause is the dyes in the red foam insert used that year. Those coins are largely untreatable IMO, and spectacularly ugly.

And an object lesson in photography ... if you want to photograph your coins, wait for a rainstorm...

What does a footballer need with putty?

Sorry David. Sad news indeed. Thoughts and sympathies are with you.

Isn't it though. He though.afford a 1933, 1954 and 1952 penny from one week's wages.

They're respectable - all Fine apart from the (common)1902 which looks nearer VF. The 1905 is NOT rare! Do my eyes deceive me, or is his 1909 another 1907?

They said £750,000 this morning!

The average annual RM proof sets go for around half Spink value - or less - at auction.

Picture? Link?

I'm very fond of this book, but yes there are errors. The one that always makes me laugh is a total error of judgement : look up the rarity of 1923 halfcrowns, then read the comment next to 1925!

Because the obverse edge dink at 7 o'clock shows on the reverse at 11 o'clock, as it would if you rotated the coin through its vertical axis!

Not quite - they (and 10p's) were indeed struck from 1968 - 1971, but they weren't stockpiled. They entered circulation each year to run alongside shillings and florins, which were no longer struck after 1966 and 1967. Also in 1968, they introduced the blue plastic wallet sets of each decimal denomination from 10p down to 1/2p. However, the three bronze coins were dated 1971 and weren't legal tender until then.

Indeed it is. One penny.

I can't believe I didn't spot this April Fool back in 2010! It's all Bernie's fault for posting it in September...

Yes, that London Coins 1905 sold for £800 - and another (which they described as Good Fine, but which to my eyes is minimum VF) sold for £1400 ! As Michael says, collectors are more savvy than to take auction grades at face value.

Difficult one. Strange colour but that need not necessarily be 'wrong'. 1872 is not a rare date, and £74 for a GVF example sounds about right. However, I'd want to see it 'in hand' (mine, not someone else's!) before making a judgement call.

I think it's true of all ages, pre-Roman onwards, that gold was not used for everyday transactions. In the days before banks, it's the form you would have held your assets in, apart from property, land, and such like. Even from the 17th Century onwards (when banks appeared) gold would have been a rich man's toy - either held in a strongbox in preference to a bank, or used for gambling, betting, prize money e.g. in horse racing, or for paying for really expensive items like original works of art, racehorses etc. That's why pre-Victorian gold coins are worth far in excess of their gold value - the rarity value alone due to such limited issues makes them very costly for collectors.

I'd say that was London Coins being excessively cautious. If I were a seller, I'd say "Bold F/NVF"

Whereas the eBay description is just rubble!

It doesn't say "automatically" though. I think they're just covering their a***s.

I'd say VF too, but the edge knock is worrying. I'd not offer £200 for it. That series is by no means rare. You'll find a better one. Admittedly it was over 10 years ago, but I picked up an EF for £220. The Spink value is a bit OTT.

Bloody Brexiteers - they get everywhere.

No, but Philip of Edinburgh is definitely the husband in law of Elizabeth II.