Nick

The major auction houses and slabbing companies should be playing a part here. Each time they reject a coin as fake, pictures should be stored in their online archives clearly labelled and searchable as such.

Getting a current list of fakes is easy. Just do an eBay search for coins with the description containing the word genuine.

Of those 3 designs, I like the 2005 reverse design the best.

There are a couple of dodgy 1818 halfcrowns for sale here but if you don't want to pay that much for a replica (and I'm sure you don't) try here.

Ethiopian 1/100 Birr. link

Do a simple specific gravity test. There is sufficient difference between the densities of silver and zinc, that even fairly crude measurements should allow you to distinguish between the two metals.

London Coins should probably know better because CGS have previously rejected one as non-authentic (UIN:23853).

The fake 1818 halfcrown doesn't seem to be known by some of the established auction houses. DNW and London Coins auction archives both contain examples of the fakes. In their March sale, London Coins sold two (lots 1652 and 1653) which exhibit all of the known flaws and a few more: dent in the forehead, nicks on the chin and the neck etc.

...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... You can ignore the facts if you like, but you can't change them. At the present time, London and the south-east do subsidise the rest of the UK and during the Industrial Revolution it was probably the other way around.

Would have been worth a go if it was a sixpence, but it's a shilling.

I do take your point Peck. To reduce the gap between rich and poor, which has been ever widening since the seventies, income tax would need to be increased and indirect taxes such as VAT need to reduce. The problem with income tax though is that the higher rates don't actually raise much and to make any kind of difference, the basic rate would need to be increased and you can imagine the howls of anguish this would produce from the dogs in the manger. As a result raising it is probably politically impossible.Despite it being a maximum of 50 miles from me, I have never heard of Elmbridge! It's just the name of a borough. People would more readily recognise the places it contains: Esher, Weybridge, Walton-on-Thames.

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... Income tax is still the largest source of income for the government of the day and income tax payers also pay VAT, fuel duty, council tax, etc etc, so without the tax payers of Elmbridge there would be £1.18bn less for the government to spend, which no doubt you would also moan about. I notice you didn't answer how your part of the UK would deal with the shortfall of income once the home counties had been floated offshore.

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).

I have to say I didn't take such a close look at Nick's, being dazzled by that CGS 92, but you could be right! That is a beautiful coin Nick I definitely prefer the toning on your's too! Thanks. It is a nice looking coin and the toning is not unattractive, which is not something you can always say about toned 1902 matt proofs. Indeed the shilling from the same set is decidedly unattractive. I'm not sure whether this one would grade 92 or higher, but we're not going to find out.

Suggesting that an independent Scotland walks away from their share of the UK debt would do wonders for their credit rating as a fledgling nation.

The only matt proof crown I have had is this one:

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. Am I alone in thinking that the coin on the right is acutally a matt proof and not a currency coin? The strike looks to me to be too good for normal currency (esp. in the area of St George's chest and strap). The grading would make more sense if that's the case. I think so too.

£750 Is it worth that? No. Will somebody pay that? Probably.

Becaise its up tot h Scots to decided David. That wouöd be like asking the Welsh to also vote Or the Irish. We're not splitting the Union, we're taking back what was once ours anyway and something which Westminster has tried to keep for over 300 years. Scotland is'nt Englands toy to Play with like they did with the poll tax where it was started in Scotland 1 year before The Rest of the UK. Scotland has been westminsters Guinea pigs for Long enough. What i find interesting is WHY Westminster are resorting to smearing the Scottish "yes" campaign. The sooner we rid ourselves of the bottom feeders that reside at Westminster the better. Ian Duncan Smith, don't even get me started on him. Stephen, we'd welsome England Voting but we'd be too afraid you'd vote to stay in a union. That's just politics nowadays. It just so happens that the three main Westminster parties all support 'No', but for different reasons. Labour and Lib Dems would lose too many MPs if Scotland left the union, so they won't support independence and the Conservatives would much rather have the North Sea oil income staying as part of UK plc, so they won't support it either. It's always about vested interests.

I have no issue with it. It should be the aspiration of every country to be truly independent (as far as that is possible). For sure, any split would cause some difficulties - constitutional, economic and political - but that shouldn't affect the choice of becoming independent.

That's true for the US I'm sure, but the observations I've seen here are that they are not so good with UK coins. That's my perception too.

Well I switched off the filters and took predecimal.com out of compatibility mode and ... I still can't see who likes what. I am just devastated. LOL But on the 'good' side, now I'm not seeing it in compatibility mode, when I click 'Quote' it does now pick up the text I want to quote as it should. In case that helps anyone else. Nor I - though I can see where I've Liked something, as the button has turned to "unlike". However, I can see who has liked my posts if I look in Notifications (top). But I can't see any case where Person A has liked Person B's post. Me neither. I suspect one needs to be in admin group to see who liked what.

I'd worry about that 1919 sixpence - "Country of Manufacture": Mexico - Yikes! It looks nice enough but £300 over the top. The 1935 halfcrown reverse is absolutely stunning, but the obverse has some bag marks and not enough eye appeal for it to be worth any more than $100.

Lot: 567 Anne, pre-Union, Shilling, 1702, draped first bust left, vigo below, rev. four crowned shields cruciform (ESC 1130; S.3585), toned, extremely fine Estimate £ 500-600 Sold for £1,050 Not sure whether the picture link will work. But try this.

This may be the article AC is referring to.