DaveG38

I don't guarantee these were the correct RM prices as I often bought the sets from people other than the Royal Mint (particularly from Airdales who always sold at a discount on RM prices): 2000 £25.00 2001 £25.00 2002 £25.00 2003 £25.00 2004 £25.00 2005 £35.00 2006 £40.00 2007 £40.00 These are for the standard sets, not any with the fancy packaging.

Is this the same method as used to remove dirt etc. from buried coins? If so, I've got a kit, but will it affect the silver - I have a degree in chemistry, but my knowledge of electro-chemistry is fading now. Just had a look at the instructions for my kit and it says 'do not be tempted to clean silver coins' so I guess that's another idea gone. However, it does suggest using lemon juice (citric acid) to clean the crud off silver. I may well try this one and see how it works.

Anyone got any ideas about this little conundrum? I've just bought a bulk lot of hammered coins and in amongst them is a group of three silver penny sized coins, plus a couple of slivers of silver, which appear to all be stuck together. From what I can see of the coins, they are fairly low grade and may even be foreign so I'm happy to look to fairly drastic measures to separate them. So what's best? Heat? Oven or blowtorch? Soaking in oil? Prising with a screwdriver (just joking, but......)?? I won't hold it against anybody if a suggestion fails catastrophically.

Is this the same method as used to remove dirt etc. from buried coins? If so, I've got a kit, but will it affect the silver - I have a degree in chemistry, but my knowledge of electro-chemistry is fading now.

I'm not sure I see the EU coughing up further cash as its likely to be good money after bad. Two things are a concern. Firstly, its by no means clear what the injected funding is being spent on. There are suggestions that the Greek government is simply using this money to employ more people in the public sector. In other words, its not being used for investment, which might help the economy grow, but is simply being used to garner support for the government. The other issue is the vexed question of austerity and the Greek's ability or otherwise to either service their debts or manage their economy even in default. I've seen it suggeted that even without debt repayments they would find it difficult to manage anyway without further borrowing. Who is going to be daft enough to lend to them in such a situation? Which Eurozone country is going to want to permanently prop up a government that is profligate with other people's money, who have no interest in sorting out the mess they are in, and more importantly have no means of improving their situation? Thank goodness we aren't in the Eurozone - no thanks to Nick Clegg, whoever he was!!

And if there's a 1823 first reverse halfcrown or a 1816 three shillings then bags I first dibs at them!!!

If your box includes a William III crown plus some later crowns plus some hammered, then you will have some value there depending on condtion. For advice you'd be advised to list those early coins and dates, where you can, with perhaps a few pics to give the experts on here something to judge value on.

Hi Dave, it looks like a rev H to me. As you say, G is different in the lighthouse style and base, wide date etc. and Britannia's helmet is a different shape too. J also has a wide date and the sea finishes further from the linear circle as you say. Reverse H should have 4 incuse lines running down from the lighthouse top which would make 5 raised lines. The 2 extra windows sit just above the pair at the top and are much much smaller and shallower than the 4 obvious windows, very easy to miss or even discount them as windows. Even on this coin the windows are just visible http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=733&f=r&s=l Well done and thank you - Reverse H it is. I see the point about the 4 incuse and 5 raised lines now, plus you are quite right about the 4 windows.

I'm having a bit of a job with his penny. The condition isn't great due to corrosion, but as far as I can judge it doesn't seem to fit in with Freeman's descriptors for any of Reverses G, H or J. The date is 1875 with a narrow date, but when I go through Freeman, I've concluded that it can't be Reverse G as it doesn't have a knob on top of the lighthouse and there is a rock to the left of the lighthouse. However, it does have 5 lines coming down from the top of the lighthouse to the brickwork. It can't be Reverse H, as this should have 6 lines down to the brickwork of the lighthouse, plus is should have 6 windows - mine has 4. However, Reverse H does have narrow date numerals. Then there's reverse J, but this has widely spaced date numbers and a thicker lighthouse, plus the sea doesn't meet the inner circle, none of which mine has, so it doesn't look like this type. If I had to choose the most likely option, I guess I'd go for Reverse G, but that still leaves some unexplained features. So, help..... Any ideas?

A good deal of wear. For your money you can do much better. I'd wait for another.

In defence of Azda, I've got to say that I didn't read anything objectionable into his response concerning the grade. And after all, it is the grade as much as anything that will determine value, so it is entirely relevant to the question raised, whereas Fluke did seem to me to go off on one very quickly in his post #6. After that things did go downhill fast, but I don't see Azda as the villain here.

As part of my collect anything and everything strategy, I do collect decimal coins and have a date run of all from 1968 through to the present day, mostly collected from change early in the life of the coin. Thus most are GEF. I also have collected those varieties that exist, with the exception of some of the early 70s five and ten pence types. It's quite surprising what a weight of coins this represents. I keep them all in plastic sheets in a single album (nothing too posh for these beggars) and the sheer weight of the album is becoming unwieldy. I've just done a quick count of them and the total comes out close to 500 circulating coins (leaving out 25p and £5 commemoratives) so there's plenty for a collector to look for and enjoy, especially on a budget.

Still, he does at least explain that he artifically tones these coins, unlike many 'rainbow toned' examples that are claimed to be the result of natural processes!!

Either way looks good for £10!!

Just come off the DNW auction, after failing to win anything. I was staggerred at some of the prices. A whole group of Charles II /James II maundy brockages were going at £1000 plus per lot, against an estimate of £100-150. A 1937 proof set in gold, usually selling at around £5500-6000, went for £8,500, and the lot I really wanted, an empty box for a short 1893 proof set, went for £650 against an estimate of £150-200. For a bit of leather cardboard and velvet I was willing to go to around £400, and even that was a stretch, considering that it was debateable whether the box was a genuine Royal Mint one as opposed to a contemporary or slightly later product. But £650!!! Shheesh. I know they are hard to come by but that's just plain daft.

Ah, I see. I rather assumed that the coins came with a box when they were first issued, and there should, therefore, be a reasonable number of boxes around given sets have been broken up over the years. Based on what you have posted that's clearly not the case, so the box is likely rarer than the coins themselves, which is a bit bizarre. It's a bit like my 1934 crown which came mounted into a specially printed card. There may have been 932 (or is it 934) crowns struck, but I doubt more than a few had the card mounting, so my card is rarer than the coin - doesn't add to the value though! So, I guess you may be right about the price. The only thing that bothered me is that I always understood that the 1893 sets came in a black leather box with the date on and this one, which I've no doubt was intended for a short set of some kind, was a kind of brownish red, rather like some of the 1902 boxes. It did make me wonder if this was not an official box but some kind of commercial product made for the aftersales market. I was also struck by the gold embossing which seemed to me too like that on the 1927 box, so I did wonder if it was an alternative type for this set. Here's a London Coins set in it's box for comparison: http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=145&searchlot=304&searchtype=2 And here's the DNW one: http://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=344&lot_id=254

To be fair, for many of the single lots their estimates were not too far out. They were way off for the multiple lots and for the maundy, particularly the brockages and as I say for anything I wanted!!! If I was in for a 1887 or 1893 boxed full proof set then they were spot with the hammer in the middle of the estimate range.

Chances are coinery if you get it ,will be at your top bid and not less.Yes, it's not very often I get a nice surprise with proxy bids! Well, I've just won a nice little lot of 5 UNC or near so late victoria sixpences at £180, whereas I was willing to go to £220, so I'm £40 to the good on my max bid.

Nicer than mine. Looks OK. Decent strike, all round even wear ...... just depends on price.

Well, I'm one for a start - that's all denominations apart from gold!! The latter is too expensive and to be honest rather boring, especially the George and Dragon Reverse, used for so many years (or is it centuries?).

Why not buy a genuine antique weighing scales in its box? They aren't usually too expensive and are quite a talking point compared to say a modern digital scales.

It was Scaramanga's gun that was gold.

This is the guy. http://www.crs-stockton.com/index2.html

To be fair a great many of the coins on the so called GB200 list are proofs or patterns and as such are not so interesting to many collectors, even if they could afford them. I don't collect proofs so things like the gold £5 1935, whilst interesting, wouldn't tempt me to buy even if I could afford one. As I see it, it's investors who are going for these coins, not collectors. The real issue is what impact does this have on genuine collectors. Is there a trickle down in terms of prices, or is the rarified atmosphere of these coins completely remote from 'normal' collectors?

That's a pretty good depiction of a lion for 1796. There can't have been too many people who had seen one, either live or in a publication back then.