Nick

Do you have any other photos of this coin? It may just be the angle of the light that makes it look lightly polished.

You could always look in the table of contents pages 2-4.

Unrecorded variety as far as I'm aware.

I don't think it is. Under the microscope it looks like there is just a small die break between the upper and lower parts of the 5.

How on earth did that happen? I'm pretty sure I only pressed the button once.

Not sure. I'll have to have another look under the microscope.

Happy New Year to all forum members.

Happy New Year to all forum members.

Is that typical for the 2 to sit so high on the die? Here's a picture of a typical 1852 sixpence which seems to match up pretty well with what I believe is the remains of the 2.

Indeed. The link works only for those with a Gmail account or the like. You don't need a Google account to view the pictures. You can use your own email address to login in. Doesn't work - my email address isn't a Gmail address. Unfortunately I wrote Google where I meant Gmail. You don't need a Gmail account, but you do need a Google account - but you can use your current email address to create a Google account. The YouTube explains it better.

Updated: see below.

Indeed. The link works only for those with a Gmail account or the like. You don't need a Google account to view the pictures. You can use your own email address to login in.

Waste of a bleedin' post - your links just took me to a Google anonymous home page. I suggest you use Photobucket (or similar) in future then everyone can see your pictures. Links work fine for me (and Rob by the looks of it).

It looks to me like a proof with a tarnished obverse, but it's difficult to tell from the photo. You could try taking another photo with the light coming from a different angle. Sadly, I don't think there are any die markings to differentiate proof and currency versions. I have a couple of 1950/1951 brass threepences that are roughly half way between proof and currency, but I put them down as proof because that is the more likely scenario.

It's a lovely coin. George IV halfcrowns are not easy to find in high grade.

To echo everyone else's sentiments: Abi Titmus to one and all.

Many thanks Rob. I vaguely recall that A9040 was an internet only auction, but can't be sure. It doesn't appear in the archive list of auctions on their website. If it helps, I think the date of the auction was 15th December 2009.

If anybody has access to any Spink Auction catalogues from the last few years, would they be kind enough to look up a couple of lot descriptions please? The lot descriptions required are Auction 8024, Lot 512 and Auction A9040, Lot 153.

My guess was MS62 and given that Heritage have an auction estimate of $1250-$1750, it is well off my radar too.

Nobody guessed a high enough number. Incredibly, PCGS have this graded as MS67.

Here's a picture of the obverse.

And Google is gospel? Not! I only said perhaps interesting. Personally, I only use FDC for proof coins, but I do also use the term aFDC for 'a few contact marks otherwise FDC' or some such description.

Like so? I don't empty the cache in my browser often enough to see many changes to one's avatar.

First, I think to qualify FDC with A or N is a complete nonsense - AFDC is merely UNC (or a slightly flawed PROOF) and should be described as such. In the modern era, FDC normally applies only to proofs, as currency coins will ALWAYS have imperfections, unless it's those BU specimens sold by the Mint. FDC should describe a coin with no flaws. No defects, knocks, bag marks, scratches, weak strike, marks, wear, rubs, cleaning, etc. However, do be aware that FDC has never applied to toning; but if a dealer described a badly toned coin as FDC I would consider it a bit cheeky! 1973 FDC proof set for sale ~ slightly toned I own the one UNtoned 1973 set!! Make that two. I own an untoned set too. At least, it was last time I looked.

It is, perhaps, interesting that Google translates 'fleur de coin' into the English word 'uncirculated'.