Peckris

That's a very interesting point Stuart. I'm not sure how we can find out, perhaps Bill Pugsley will know, if he is still reading the Forum posts. Or someone with a coin in the points score range in question might be monitoring their CGS valuation ... I don't suppose you made a note of the CGS value of your EF coin when you bought it, and what are they valuing it at now? Incidentally, the grade comparison guide I posted is also printed at the back of London Coins auction catalogues. And that raises a separate interesting point : CGS is now the standard for grading, but as Mike says, on a consistent numeric scale. Yet Spink is the standard for values, and they use the traditional grading not a numeric scale. That seems a dichotomy really, as someone could buy from CGS according to their grading, then value according to Spink by looking in a column that doesn't strictly accord to the coin they have. The thing is that Spink has got (understandably) only one price for UNC. On the other hand CGS UNC coins come in grades 78,80,82,85,88,90, ...100. And believe me there is a huge difference in quality (and therefore scarcity, desirability and subsequently price) of coin graded 80 or 88 or even higher. IMO. M. Spink - probably like many of us here - have an old-fashioned attitude to UNC. To them, UNC means UNC, not AUNC (which is what used to be GEF). They would also acknowledge that a blazing crisp early strike BU would carry a premium over their UNC valuation. And that's the point I think - a numeric scale implies some kind of circulation degradation; yet most collectors UNOFFICIALLY regard crisp early strikes as worth a premium over book price. They don't need a sliding scale to tell them how much they can or want to pay for a highly desirable coin. Beginners who buy slab numbers without knowing enough about the hobby, should get their heads examined, to be honest.

...and The Daily Mail, which does all the European thinking for a vast swathe of the population.

The decimal system was begun - after the French introduced theirs - in 1849 with the florin ("one tenth of a pound"). Shortly after, the halfcrown was phased out, though presumably the shilling was kept as "a twentieth of a pound". Public demand brought the halfcrown back in 1874 but probably it was intended to be a temporary move until the double florin took over (haha). The lowest denominations took a lower priority but there were decimal patterns produced like this, not for release but as tryouts, presumably to test production methods, especially as there was also a changeover from copper to bronze (a much much bigger project).

Got it. Yes, there's a VF- for £25 with some unsightly edge knocks, and an F+ for £20. I'd prefer one a bit better, but thanks for the heads up, and I will think about whether to get the F+

Is that abccoinandstamps, or abccoinsandtokens, or are they the same?

That's a very interesting point Stuart. I'm not sure how we can find out, perhaps Bill Pugsley will know, if he is still reading the Forum posts. Or someone with a coin in the points score range in question might be monitoring their CGS valuation ... I don't suppose you made a note of the CGS value of your EF coin when you bought it, and what are they valuing it at now? Incidentally, the grade comparison guide I posted is also printed at the back of London Coins auction catalogues. And that raises a separate interesting point : CGS is now the standard for grading, but as Mike says, on a consistent numeric scale. Yet Spink is the standard for values, and they use the traditional grading not a numeric scale. That seems a dichotomy really, as someone could buy from CGS according to their grading, then value according to Spink by looking in a column that doesn't strictly accord to the coin they have.

I would happily upgrade my 1798 halfpenny (-> GVF or EF) as it's the only cartwheel halfpenny I would ever be able to afford.

Being disabled, when I cashed in my personal pensions I was surprised to get as much as I did - I'd always regarded my 'pot' as a bit on the weedy side, but it matches my disability benefit each month, so I'm not complaining! Like you, I wouldn't buy gold, but I'm not attracted to gold coins anyway; there's no toning variation.

Welcome to the forums Geoff I only own one IOM coin, but it's a fascinating one - a rather worn 'cartwheel halfpenny' dated 1798 with the three legs of Man as the reverse motif instead of Britannia.

Ditto from me I'd echo that CGS have probably changed the alphabetic grade descriptions but not the numerical ones. That doesn't mean I will buy slabbed coins or have my own slabbed, but I accept their integrity. I also agree with you that grades generally have changed in relation to what they were a generation or more ago : however, it's also true that value ranges have changed in line with grades; a coin whose values 50 years ago might have been F £1 VF £3 EF £7 (and not listed for UNC which would have been 'a premium', e.g. £10) might now look something like F £10 VF £25 EF £90 UNC £170 It's also decided by the change in priorities of collectors; 50 years ago it was all about rarities and key dates, while now it's all about condition and quality.

Me too.

I don't think you bought much in Saxon times, not on a village level anyway. Houses (huts) were built specifically for the incoming population, and boats would have been a shared resource, particularly longboats which your average villager inland wouldn't have seen anyway. Military service to the ruling earl was required, and in return you got citizenship which gave you a voice in the councils. For your daily requirements you farmed your own little patch and also farmed for the whole village; you'd have kept a pig and maybe a few chickens if you were lucky. You made your own furniture, and maybe traded your surplus for the occasional piece of jewellery, which would have been VERY rare! I imagine that silver coins were mostly used by higher level Saxons & Vikings in return for large transactions, such as building longboats and equipping an army, or building large communal structures like bridges and churches.

I'd put that down to the strike or the die Dave, not circulation wear.

Here's the kind of thing you might aim for, if you're wondering what to look for : (Any apparent roughness of the edge is simply due to poor cropping in Photoshop.)

Can't say. Haven't seen a link to the coins in question. Here they are: Link 1 Link 2 I can recommend the seller Thanks Paulus. In reply to Stuart's original question, I'd say I can't see any obvious signs of dipping. The absence of tone is not a de facto indication that a coin's been dipped, and anyway those don't display the usual character of dipping, especially the first one.

If it was just a case of wear, I'd say you got more than a decent deal - it's certainly better than VF. Unfortunately I have to agree with the others about the possible cleaning and chamfering, which would make it a coin to avoid.

Can't say. Haven't seen a link to the coins in question.

That would be like trying to grind LCW off a bun penny!

Not done that before, posted within a post! my post is:"Stranger still, the 2008 and 2011 are £3.00 too, so maybe not a typo...what's that all about?" I suspect they didn't amend the proof values? Mind you, they say in the description "...a section of Our Royal Arms..." - if Spink think they have their own Royal Arms then they are capable of just about anything

When would you need them by? And what size do you prefer (x-life, I mean, rather than ppi)?

Ah, but mine is the signed with ISBN type. I could get mine signed - after all, it's a post-production feature

Hammered / milled makes more sense to me, especially if the decimals were hived off into a softback produced every two or three years (after all, the values of decimals change even less than Roman and Ancients). Hammered / milled would give approximately half a book each, where pre-decimal / decimal would be about 7:1. But perhaps they've already identified that's where the biggest market split is?

Yes - it can't be a brockage, not with an obverse and reverse, so your shed theory is the most likely I reckon.

I have a few items I could scan for you Chris : two halfpennies that are better than VF (1771 and 1774 which covers both obverses) and a farthing 1773 EF. Let me know if they are any use (I would scan at 1200 dpi for size then reduce to 300 for you in Photoshop).