Peckris

Forgeries on their own, or forgeries + evasions? I'd be inclined to think it was the latter. Trade tokens in the UK rendered contepmorary forgeries less necessary.

...good point, well made. It's just so typical of SE arrogance that they think they are funding the rest of Britain. And where WEREN'T the manufacturies and foundries during the Industrial Revolution? Yeah, you guessed it - in the SE...

"I think there is an error, looks like1895 is reversed, I am not sure of the value but This could be your next treasure." Aww, bless.

I'm with you there Dave, but for me it's the Tory b******s in the Home Counties who should declare independence and leave the rest of the UK to everyone else including the Scots. Your part of the UK would be a bit short of income if they did. Elmbridge in Surrey (£1.18bn) alone pays more income tax than Glasgow (£898m), Sheffield (£812m), Aberdeen (£728m), Cardiff (£589m) and Newcastle (£443m). Income tax payers are the poor little pampered darlings who've all had it very very easy since the 1990s. Meanwhile the rest of us, as ever, pay VAT on nearly everything we buy, crippling fuel duty on our transport, Council Tax, insurance tax, and anything else the Government can think up to scorch us for. I have absolutely no sympathy with or pity for income tax payers in the slightest, or in the good citizens of Elmbridge in Surrey...

I'm with you there Dave, but for me it's the Tory b******s in the Home Counties who should declare independence and leave the rest of the UK to everyone else including the Scots.

If the buyer and seller mutually agree that's the price of the transaction, then it's fair. Whether that means it's also 'realistic' or 'normal' or 'what you could expect to pay', is a whole different matter.

I grieve that the scans of my own (non-proof) crown are so poor I'd love for you all to see how it really looks. :(

That's gorgeous - looks almost like a clay model rather than metal.

Is that a 1674 farthing?? Zooming in my screen, I'm near certain it's 1675.

It took a foray into dealing to learn this lesson. Before then, I considered Seaby / Spink to be the absolute 'bible' on coin values, and never even queried that if that were so, then why did CMV and the Year Book exist? It was buying and selling that taught me to take even "the bible's" valuations with a certain pinch of salt. A rough guide, certainly, but not to be taken too literally. Yes, I do like it! It just took a while for the penny to drop, and for me to calculate that one hammered Spink ref can cover 50+ varieties of one coin and numerous mint marks, common and rare alike!Rare mint mark of same S number sells £500 Common mint mark of same S number sells £140 Ref guide so far = £320 Simples! Edit: moral of the story is don't expect to get £320 for your common mint mark, just because the Spink's guide values it 'group' as such! That doesn't sound right, Stuart. Surely a rarity weighting needs to be included in the algorithm? Here's a puzzle for the weekend: If there are two varieties of a coin and the rarer, worth £100, appears 1/10 of the time, while the more common, worth £10, appears 9/10 of the time, show that the weighted average value is £19. :-) Shouldn't this be the Spink value? Absolutely not. It would be 100% misleading and would make buyers of the common variety - paying £10 or heaven forfend £12 - think they had got a bargain, when in fact they had not. As Nicholas says, either just publish the standard 'normal' variety and mention there are rarer varieties too, or give separate prices for both. The former method was the early Seaby practice until 1968, and is still the Spink practice for much of the hammered and ancient content.

Believe it or not, that's how they used to do milled as well, especially early milled. I have the vague idea that the 1968 "Part 2" Guide (from 1816 to date) was the first to do values by date - and even then most varieties were not included apart from the obvious like H and KN and LT etc.

To be honest, I don't think those small marks count for much - as Peter says, the picture is blown up, at life size they would be barely noticeable.

Are they photos or scans? If you look at the scans of mine, you will see the difficulty. In hand it is a predominantly untoned, full bright lustre coin (BU). Unfortunately, the scan threw highlights from the lustre all over the place, and even after reducing the highlights and contrast & adjusting the Levels to give that totally unreal appearance you see, the remaining highlights are 'blown' and can't be reduced any further. It only goes to show that the ONLY way to see a coin's full glory, is to have it 'in hand'.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted. We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs. No, what I meant was - only the third image you linked seems to be an incontestable proof. The others (including Rob's and the SNC examples) COULD be simply prooflike. Now I understand.... I am a bit slow but I get there eventually On the other hand, that third image is a 'bronzed proof' - the others could simply be 'normal' proofs? Or indeed, just 'prooflike'. It's a minefield.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted. We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs. No, what I meant was - only the third image you linked seems to be an incontestable proof. The others (including Rob's and the SNC examples) COULD be simply prooflike.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted.

Sounds like a misstrike on the wrong blank. These things do happen from time to time, most are spotted but occasionally one gets out.

Yes - if you look at George's strap and the horse's chest muscles on mine, they're the same as the coin on the left, whereas that CGS proof is as detailed as the coin on the right. I think that proves it?

I think that's a distinct possibility : my own example is as near BU as you could get (despite the noxious lousy scan ) but as you can see, the strike is no better than the coin on the left :

It seems clear to me that the coin on the right is the sharper, better strike. The one on the left has lovelier tone certainly, but less detail.

I'll link them here: Those are gorgeous, even allowing for the slight striations onn the 1863 obverse.

I agree. The Labour Government may have 'caused' the deficit by spending billions to bail out the banks, but the alternative would have been total economic collapse, worse even than Greece. Unfortunately I've read that the banks are back to some of their worst excesses, and haven't learned a thing it seems except how to make irresponsible profits. I've run my own businesses all my working life and never received a penny from government when times are hard, nor have I ever expected it. In years gone by I've had to raid my personal savings to pay staff (I never let them know) and juggle things so as never to let a single supplier down. Whilst understanding the necessity of saving the banks and preventing financial melt-down, what sticks in my craw is the sense of entitlement that bankers still seem to have, despite our saving their collective arses. I have first hand experience of an RBS director, from the days of failure, still living the high life when, in any other business situation, he'd be struggling to explain to potential employers why he deserves a job counting paperclips. Hear hear. Speaking as a disabled lowlife, I can at least claim to have paid National Insurance for over 25 years, so I feel that the benefits that enable me to have some kind of a life, I helped pay for. As with any insurance policy.

I agree. The Labour Government may have 'caused' the deficit by spending billions to bail out the banks, but the alternative would have been total economic collapse, worse even than Greece. Unfortunately I've read that the banks are back to some of their worst excesses, and haven't learned a thing it seems except how to make irresponsible profits.

From one of the comments : "Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom as long as Stewart [sic] Blood sits upon the throne of the United Kingdom. We made that deal centuries ago because of that blood, and Scotland today is far better off because of it." Stewart! That would be Andy then, would it? Assuming the commenter means 'Stuart', then my response would be, what Stuart blood? It's been resolutely Hanoverian since George I. If there really was any Stuart blood on the throne (apart from a few unlaundered dried smears from Charlie's neck) then what were the Jacobite rebellions all about, the 'Prince across the water', an' a'that?

Welcome Lee. Like 'old' Derek, I began by perusing bags of pennies and halfpennies from the banks pre-decimalisation, and trying to complete date runs. After periods of losing interest, then buying a few nice things at one time or another, I returned full-time to the hobby in the 90s and became a 'type' collector. This would normally involve collecting one of each major denomination type for each monarch, in the best condition possible. But there's no hard and fast rule! I've still got a date run of pennies from 1887 - 1970 apart from the very rarest varieties, and unimportant micro-varieties (1905, 1937), and halfcrowns from 1911. For most other things I stick to 'types' (though I do have one Unc Ed VII halfcrown, plus 1903/4/5 in lower grades!). However, early milled - 1662-1775 - in high grades is increasingly out of my reach financially, so I've put together a 'type' strategy based around the fact that there are few distinct reverses in early milled : most of the silver has the same reverse give or take roses / plumes, and there are only two different Britannias on the copper. As long as I have a high grade silver reverse, one plain, and one with roses and plumes, and a high grade for each of the two Britannias, then it only remains to get one decent obverse for each monarch. From 1787 onwards it becomes generally a) cheaper, but c) more complicated as there are many different reverses across the board. The thing is, to decide on what you like most, and go for it. As long as you get coins in the highest grade you can afford, and DON'T CLEAN!!!!!!, then you will get hours of enjoyment from this absorbing hobby. Members here will always give advice and help where needed, don't be afraid to ask.