DaveG38

I do love an optimist, but at £1,175, even with free postage I don't think anyone but an idiot would be tempted. Apart from the price, I thought all the 1893 proof set boxes were black, not red, but I may be misinformed about this. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1893-Proof-set-case-empty-/221612357570?pt=Coins_BritishProofs_RL&hash=item33992037c2

You can ask the mint by all means but don't expect a reply this side of doomsday. I asked them several months ago whether they had any records from 1695 regarding the DEI GRATIA halfpenny that appears in the latest Coin News. I had an acknowledgement back, but that was it - I'm still waiting, so if you do ask them don't expect anything quickly.

Oh if only it were, but sadly both of mine are, I think Obverse 6 - there's no sign of W Wyon on either of them. In my case, the gap at the top of the bust is only marginally smaller on one example compared to the other, say 0.8mm against 1.00mm - in other words a tiny difference. The misaligned 'T' is similar in range to yours, but in mine the left hand cross piece of the 'T' drops downwards, not the right hand side as on yours. Finally, the 6 and 2 in the date are wider on one example than on the other. If I could get my camera working I'd put up a photo or two. If not I'll see what I can do otherwise.

Can anybody help me with advice about varieties of the 1862 penny? I've just bought a second one, in rather better condition than the original, though still not fantastic, and I have noticed several differences beteen the two. Basically, the new one appears to be the 'standard' 1862 version, whereas the original has three (so far) points of difference: 1. On the reverse, the 6 and the 2 are more narrowly spaced and the pointings to the border teeth are different. 2. On the obverse, the gap between the top of the head and the raised ring is a little smaller. 3. On the obverse the first T in BRITT is distinctly misaligned with the I and the other T. To avoid any doubts, I don't think, based on Freeman's identifiers, that I have got examples of Obverse 2 and Obverse 6. As far as I can judge, I seem to have two Obverse 6 examples, except that they differ from each other, so does anybody know of any varieties for this type?

Good question Dave. I would guess that's post mint damage? I just wondered if there is any scenario in which the doubled letters could have occurred at the same time as the damage. Looking at it, I'm equally curious about what could have caused those two dents, as much as the letter doubling.

What impact would these theories have about the damage to the hair? How does that factor into the explanations or is it totally unrelated?

Oldest for me was a George IV 1826 shilling in GVF. I used to work on the till at J Lyons Western Road shop in Brighton and one day a man passed me the coin in payment for a cup of tea. I queried what it was, but gave him 6d change anyway and then swapped the coin for a shilling of my own. The 1826 shilling still resides in my collection - I don't think I would swap it for a better grade given its origins.

That's true, although medals and awards are very personal to the individual or family, whereas toys, coins etc. generally aren't. Like others on here, I've got my dad's few medals from WW2 and an uncle's medals from WW1, neither of which are in any way rare, and I neither want to part with them for sentimental reasons, nor do they inspire me to collect any others. I certainly can't see why anybody else would take an interest in them or want to collect them.

Yes, I believe his turn round times are quite long, but his prices are quite reasonable.

Before you make your mind up about whether to repair or not, you might like to consider the work of the American who runs this service: http://www.crs-stockton.com/index2.html The before and after photos are impressive, BUT I have not seen his work on anything hammered, so can't say how he would perform on your coin. Let's just say that he has done a fantastic job on the coins shown on his website. If you didn't want to use this guy, then I would certainly echo the points on here about not having it crudely plugged, as that will only make things worse.

That's also a very nice bust, are they your images, Mark?I once knew a girl named Liz and she had a really nice bust!!!

I do see your point, although I think you'd have to be very gullible to believe that these were genuine. What I have never understood is the 'happy bidding' comment, something I've seen on many ebay auctions and never really figured out. It's winning, as cheaply as possible, that makes me happy, not bidding.

It's a very nice example, so if that doesn't work you might be immune to the attractions of Roman! It's an early Empire sestertius, and those are usually in higher demand than the silver denarius (probably because they were 'working currency' and it's harder to find them in decent condition). For me the problem is one of understanding the series. The number of emperors is bewildering, as is the number of mints and designs, even for a single emperor. Then there's the denominations and the metal used, and it all becomes a big melting pot of uncertainty. Add in the possibilities for fakes and for me it's a minefield I don't think my poor brain can handle. Nice progressive English coinage, one king/queen after the other, nicely dated or dateable plus a range of denominations that I can understand works for me. Somewhere I 've got a bag of raw Roman finds that I have tried to attribute after cleaning, but which I gave up on as my old head became completely befuddled by it all.

Thank you for this advice. I've now managed to track down an example online. http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.44749 Based on the information on this and another site, it seems that the composition, diameter and weight of mine are just about right. Add to this that it was in with a small lot of F+ - VF early miled, some quite nice, and I'm reasonably confident that it is genuine. There are also no obvious signs of recent manufacture or marks to indicate that it is a fake. The question is whether it will pique my interest in Roman or not.

I'm not a Roman coin collector, nor do I know anything about them (the Romans bypassed me in school history) so I'd be grateful for any advice about this coin. I bought it in a job lot of early milled material the other day. For all I know it might be a modern repro. Does anyone know what it is and what it's worth? Diameter is 33mm and it appears to be made of brass or bronze. Edge is very uneven. Weight is 26 gms. The obverse inscription appears to be : IMP CAESNERVAETR IANO AVGGERDACR roughly!!

I belive the mintage was around 70,000, so not rare.

Well done that man - where did you cull that one up from?

I've just bought an upgrading 1930 halfcrown and for the first time, I've properly studied the reverse design. I'm curious about the shield design, which has an odd indented loop at the top left of the shield, but nothing similar on the right. Does anybody know what this was meant to signify? When I look at it, the design now looks oddly uneven, so there must be a good reason for this loop. Here's a typical example to remind everyone:

For 1937 there are 10 (yes 10) obverse types: Obv 1 - Upright of ‘E‘ in Georgivs points to space, the upright of ‘I‘ in VI points to a space, the upright of ‘R‘ in BR: points to a space and the upright of ‘D‘ in F:D: points to a tooth. Obv 2 - Upright of ‘E‘ in Georgivs points to tooth, the upright of ‘I‘ in GEORGIVS points to a space, the upright of ‘R‘ in Rex points to a tooth, and the upright of ‘F‘ in F:D: points to a space. Obv 3 - Upright of ‘D‘ in D:G: points to a space, the right hand upright of ‘N‘ of Omn: points to a space, the right hand upright of ‘N‘ of IND points to a space and the upright of ‘P‘ of Imp points to a space. Obv 4 - Upright of ‘R‘ in Georgivs points to toothe, the upright of ‘D‘ of D:G: points to a space, the upright of ‘R‘ of BR points to a tooth and the upright of ‘E‘ of Rex points to a space. Obv 5 - Similar to obv 4 but having an enlarged portrait from 25.4 mm instead of 25.6 mm, producing an obv. with a distinctly thinner rim. The ‘H‘ in the designer‘s initials on this obv. have longer upper arms almost matching the lower ones, whilst on obv. 4 the upper arms are shorter. Obv 6 - The upright of ‘R‘ in Georgivs points to a space, the upright of ‘D‘ of F:D points to a tooth, the upright of ‘D‘ of IND: points to a tooth, and the upright of ‘I‘ of IMP. points to a tooth. Obv 7 - The upright of ‘R‘ in Georgivs points to space, the upright of ‘B‘ of BR points to a tooth, the right hand upright of the ‘N‘ of IND points to a space, and the upright o f the ‘P‘ of IMP points to a tooth. Obv 8 - The upright of ‘R‘ in Georgivs points to a tooth, the upright of the ‘D‘ of D:G points to a space, the upright of ‘E‘ of Rex points to a tooth, and the upright of ‘I‘ of IMP points to a space. Obv 9 - The upright of the ‘E‘ in Georgivs points to a space, the right hand upright of the ‘N‘ of OMN points to a space, the upright of the ‘R‘ of Rex points to a space, and the upright of ‘F‘ of F:D points to a tooth. Obv 10 - The upright of the ‘E‘ in Georgivs points to tooth, the upright of ‘I‘ of VI points to a tooth, the upright of ‘F‘ of F:D points to a space, and the upright of ‘D‘ of IND points to a space. There are 7 minor varieties for the 1937 Proof £2 coins. Additionally, obverses 3 and 4 come with and without detached upper dragon's paws. For 1902, there are examples with the initials DeS and the start of the legend double struck, whilst the matt proof £5 has two date spacings: 7mm or 7.5 mm wide.

For what it's worth, I did consider a book on 20thC gold varieties, but with a little research I realised that most of it, with a few exceptions, would revolve around the Commonwealth mint marks and those are already well documented. The exceptions include the 1994 and 1996, BOE and rugby gold £2 coins, the 1937 proof £5 coins and as I recall the 1902 proof £2. It appears that there are several varieties of the 1937 proof £5 coin, despite the low mintage of 5500 or so. Quite how this could occur, given the relative softness of gold and the low mintage is something I don't understand. It's hard to see how the punches could have worn out so quickly, as to need recutting, leading to not one but several varieties. Whatever the explanation of these things, I quickly realised that there are relatively few gold collectors, and even less gold variety collectors, and probably a miniscule number of 1937 gold proof £5 variety collectors (around the same number of thumbs on my feet), and so I didn't bother to continue to research this area of collecting.

An 1893 JH sixpence graded 'EF or better' sold at DNW on 18th September 2013 for £2,500. At the time it was outside my price range. Had it been this last sale I would have probably bought it. The last 1854 'EF" at DNW was September of 2009 when it sold for £1,900. I think that when these rarities come around you just have to go for it. Finances permitting of course. The operative phrase is 'Finances permitting of course.' And the problem is the sheer number of coins that would require this level of expenditure. That becomes prohibitive and so I have to decide where I'd prefer to spend. Would I like to upgrade my fine condition rare date sixpences, or do I buy a new coin altogether to fill a gap? With my most recent purchase, I'd rather have the 1703 plain halfcrown for £1850, than update a rare date, but ultimately relatively boring coin such as a Victorian sixpence.

It's all down to bubble gum for me. One of the makers (Wrigleys?) in the 1950s produced a series of paper inserts in their packs called 'Strange But True' in which they recounted odd events that had happened around the world. When you had all of these, you sent these thin sheets off and got back a properly printed flip book of the facts all nicely illustrated. From this you can see you had to be a completist in order to get the booklet at the end. One missing and it was no book!! So, I had to find the lot, which I did. Sadly, I can't find the booklet any more, but I'm sure this and the Brooke Bond experience are the reasons for my completism. Am I psychologically scarred? Can I sue for damages do you think? It might give me some cash for coins.

Looking at the one on AMR Coins, which is very nice and £5k, I'd say yours should hit around the £1.5 - £2k mark. The wear will hold it down compared to AMRs and the scratches will take a bit more off.

That's a bargain and a half Dave! Even 20 years ago, my UNC-and-very-nearly-BU 1954 and 1959 halfcrowns cost me £4 apiece. I agree with you about "not worth spending the money" on absolutely perfect specimens of them. My general approach has been to try and upgrade to GEF to UNC where I can, but without breaking the bank. As I work backwards, I'm often finding that I'm dropping to EF (and for the 1905 halfcrown I'll probably stick with my own fine specimen) and that's OK with me. The only exception I make is that within a date run, I like to ensure I have at least one coin which is in UNC condition. In that way, if I ever go to type collecting I will have a good basis to start from. I think that's a good point. There are several reasons why I switched to type collecting, one of the main ones being that once I had some high grade examples with eye appeal I completely lost interest in looking at (even owning) the lower grade coins, and there was no way I was ever going to afford a high grade example of every date. Much happier striving for 1 cracking example from each series Unfortunately, I'm a completist, at least as far as dates go. I think it goes back to when I was a child and I used to collect Brooke Bond Tea cards. The aim was always to get the set and stick them all in the album, and an album with one missing was a no-no for me. It's the same with coins. I need to complete the date runs, even if they aren't all in top condition. Some, of course almost never will be. For instance my 1854 sixpence is fine at best as is my 1893 Jub Head one. The likelihood of finding, let alone affording a EF one of either is quite low, and so I have to accept lower grades to fill that itchy gap. Of course, it does make for mixed grades in a series, but in some ways that can be instructive as it does show the effects of wear if I have pretty much all grades represented. The real problems come with the rarities. I don't yet have a 1841 halfcrown, and so I'm interested in the one mentioned on another thread on here. It will cost me though if I can secure it through an auction, but its the only way to fill that gap. I managed an 1839 halfcrown a while ago. It's absolutely horrible, but still cost a fair sum, but more importantly it filled one more gap. Similarly, I've just bought a 1703 plain halfcrown in around VF for £1850. Pricey enough for me, but it does finish my date run of Queen Anne halfcrowns. Completism can be a bit of an obsession!!!

That's a bargain and a half Dave! Even 20 years ago, my UNC-and-very-nearly-BU 1954 and 1959 halfcrowns cost me £4 apiece. I agree with you about "not worth spending the money" on absolutely perfect specimens of them. My general approach has been to try and upgrade to GEF to UNC where I can, but without breaking the bank. As I work backwards, I'm often finding that I'm dropping to EF (and for the 1905 halfcrown I'll probably stick with my own fine specimen) and that's OK with me. The only exception I make is that within a date run, I like to ensure I have at least one coin which is in UNC condition. In that way, if I ever go to type collecting I will have a good basis to start from.