Peckris

Damn right. It's twice the average number of each proof set issued. And the 1992/3 50p - which is twice as rare - fetches around £20 on eBay apparently.

I agree that more than 50 would be useful. However, all is not lost : if you choose the option of 'Archive this conversation', you get sent the particular conversation(s) as an email, one for each conversation, which you can then store in a suitable mailbox (I have one called ... wait for it ... 'Predecimal' )

Something wrong with your link Paul - it takes me to MY eBay, not yours. So I can't see your coins.

It's strange, but for some reason coin and banknote collectors seem to be entirely different species. Not sure why, but I've never considered collecting notes. Yet Coin News features them. I don't think it's right to say none of us is ever tempted to have a few notes? I've got the 'lion and key / Britannia' fiver (very handsome), plus a ten bob, a few one pounds, and a few blue fivers including a replacement note - and I'd sooner have those than medieval hammered!!

It's rated by ESC as "N" (meaning 'Normal') i.e. between Common and Scarce.

I think the "no melt" ruling is to prevent the gaining of profit from the value of metal which is technically still owned by the Treasury. It's not the coins that concern them, it's the scrap value. So making tokens purely to melt them would be against the spirit (and possibly the wording?) of the Act.

The reverses are a lot easier : Reverse A has a rim so thin it's almost non-existent, while Reverse B has some extra ripples in the sea immediately above and to the right of the bottom of the shield. The obverses are trickier - the most obvious mark is the position of the lower dot between GRA:BRITT; on Obverse 2 it's equidistant, and the space is smaller while on Obverse 1 it's closer to the A, and the gap is bigger. There are more border teeth on 2, and the rim is quite high on 1 (VERY high on 1912H pennies).

You are quite right. The SOHO tokens produced during the 1787-1797 period are head and shoulders above the quality of almost all other tokens. Having read several histories of the period though, I'm not so sure there was really much discussion or competition by 1797 as to whom the crown would offer the coining contract. Boulton had been at the top of their list, and had been pushing for the contract since the 1780s. Given his full work of the period, and his astute business acumen in hiring some of the most talented engravers of the era, he was pretty much a lock for the contract. However, the red-tape to get there took nearly a decade to push through the official channels. Why am I not surprised? 'Twas ever thus...

I'd agree too - I would just add that it's the gap between the top of the head and the LINEAR CIRCLE rather than the rim, that is an easy pointer between Obverses 1-5, and 6 & later.

The photos work for me if I right click and choose the option to open in another window. CC's pictures used to be a lot better - you could open one image and then use a white ">" that appeared if you moved the mouse slightly, to navigate to the next coin image, and so on. I really miss that function. Neil..?

Nothing wrong with a bit of wishful thinking. Surely you mean wistful thinking. Surely I meant "lustful thinking" (I do still remember that photo...)

The crown (image 3) is Queen Victoria's "Small Diamond Crown", as used on the Jubilee Head coinage. This was allegedly chosen by her for the portrait done by Joseph Boehm, as it was light to wear for a long sitting, unlike the "Queen Victoria Crown" (aka King Edward's Crown). However, most people have thought that the chosen crown gives the portrait an unbalanced and ungainly look, and is the main reason why that effigy became unpopular and was phased out after only 6 years' use. The Star (image 2) belongs to the "Ribbon and Star of the Garter" which was the worn form of the "Order of the Garter" - this, from Wikipedia : "The Most Noble Order of the Garter, founded in 1348, is the highest order of chivalry and the most prestigious honour (after the Victoria Cross and George Cross) in England and of the United Kingdom, and is dedicated to the image and arms of St. George as England's patron saint. It is awarded at the Sovereign's pleasure as her personal gift, on recipients from the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms. Membership of the order is limited to the Sovereign, the Prince of Wales, and no more than twenty-four members, or Companions. The order also includes supernumerary knights and ladies (e.g., members of the British Royal Family and foreign monarchs). The order's emblem, depicted on insignia, is a garter with the motto Honi soit qui mal y pense (Middle French: "shame upon him who thinks evil upon it") in gold lettering. Members of the order wear such a garter on ceremonial occasions." The shield bearing the motto is that tiny central portion of the Star, but of course it looks much larger in life and can be easily seen and read. I'm afraid I know nothing about the significance of the brooch (image 1), but it may have been a personal piece of Victoria's jewellery, perhaps given her by Prince Albert? I'm sure someone here knows more about it.

That's a real beauty Barry. And as you say - Boulton and Küchler made a formidable team. Boulton actually designed quite a few of the late 18th Century tokens which is why they are of such a high standard of workmanship; you can bet that Boulton & Watt tested out the new steam-powered presses on tokens long before they were able to get Government contracts for minting coin of the realm. That's clearly one of his later efforts and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a factor in him winning the copper coin contracts a year or so later.

The m. is just an indicator that it's a mobile site, so Nicholas is most likely on a mobile phone or tablet. Link's fine, it's a scene from the first Anchorman film. Oops. And there was me with visions of 'Marina' or whoever that Romanian model was whose picture was used in a spam post here, for guys looking for luuuuuurv. I've never seen Anchorman before, but that scene was HILARIOUS!! (Especially as I remember the song..)

Hmm. I suspect you may have been hacked Nicholas. I've never seen a YouTube link that begins with "m." before, and the wording of your message is ... well, let's be kind and just say SUSPECT. If someone else clicks on it with impunity then ok, but I ain't gonna be the first

I think being in thrall to price guides is something we all do as newbies, and gradually become less and less so with experience.

Wow. Gives a whole new meaning to "Bend It Like Beckham"

That's a bit strong! Wouldn't it be fairer to say that they are simply a guide, as various members have said, and that a complete newbie could judge from them which are the rarest types and dates? They would also see from them, that Edward VII silver in general is much scarcer and pricier than Geo V for example. Ok, we experienced collectors know that already, but if I were buying a Caracalla denarius in GVF, I'd at least know the general ballpark I was in. I think it would be fairer to say that all price guides should be taken with a pinch of salt, but in general, and depending on the eye appeal, strike quality, etc, one could vary a given value up or down by something considerably less than 100%. Exceptional rarities that only come on the market once in a blue moon would command their own values, of course.

You're welcome. Yes, I've had that GV florin since the late 70s, having bought it from Windsor Coins who were still trading in the early Noughties, its proprietor - John Dunkerton - in the process of handing the business over to his son. JD also sold me a BU 1940 penny at its then book price. I was very chuffed indeed later to discover that it was the scarcer Reverse A (single exergue line), which though included in Freeman wasn't generally included in price guides back then or in dealer lists.

When Rotographic was owned by Mr Marles he used to publish CCGB with the note that prices were compiled from 'Auctions and dealers lists', but that raises a whole raft of potential problems : 1. A coin turns up in an auction during the year, and is bought by a dealer at half its 'book price', for stock. 2. The same coin turns up on the dealer's list at 'book price'. 3. Eventually he sells it at a discount because it's not moving. 4. The buyer changes their mind and submits it for another auction where this time it's bought by a collector at 3/4 book price, dealers having dropped out. So the same coin data could have been used three times over in the guide - one from an auction where 'wholesale' price was paid, once from a dealer's list where there were no takers at that price, and once from another auction where it realised 3/4 book price. The compilers of a guide would get completely knotted up about the coin's value, and would probably list it lower than a collector might be prepared to pay, who was looking for that specific coin to fill a gap.

I could only accept this argument where the publishers are also dealers (qua Spink). Where there is no axe to grind - CCGB, CMV, The Year Book - what's in it for them? I presume the sales of neither CMV nor Seabys suffered during the long stagnation of the mid-80s to mid-90s, even though collectors must have been buying those guides more in hope than expectation. Also, don't ignore the distorting effect of type collectors, who will keep the values of - e.g. - 1902 coins higher than perhaps they merit, simply because most type collectors know that's the most cost-effective date when collecting Ed VII. On the other hand, if you're only discussing hammered I'll back out, as I have little interest in or knowledge about that area of collecting.

Maybe this was only ever an urban myth - is it supposed to have the Britannia reverse or the 4d reverse?

Yes - the 3 leopards are usually small even on florins and halfcrowns. Tom Jones to see them weakly defined, especially the faces. However that example you've posted has also had some rubbing to it, and you can see that most on the hind-quarters of the leopards and the shield, where the metal shows a lighter colour than the rest of the coin. It's actually quite a common feature on George V reverses up to 1926 : the bronze suffers equally with Britannia's face and chest taking quite a hit. The problem is caused by the particularly high profile of GV on the obverse. I did a series of pictures showing how this causes 'ghosting' and weak reverse spots, and I attach the picture I did for the florin, from my BU 1914 example. (The red line shows where the edges of the GV bust are on the obverse.) I'm glad you show an interest in George V. It's a fascinating reign, with lots of numismatic interest exceeded only by that of George III in the milled era.

No way can that be described as F ! The reverse ... maybe ... but the obverse is Fair only.

I thought that most of the oil is off the Shetlands and the previous time independence came up the Shetlands said they would stay with the English. Hmm. Shades of Alaska? Anyway, if the Scots raised the price of Brent crude it wouldn't make a lot of difference at the pumps given how much Dick Turpin George Osborne takes in fuel duty.