DaveG38

Many thanks for the endorsement - another gap in my collection filled. Only a 1684 James II to go!! DaveG38

Hi, Here is a composite picture of both sides of the coin, plus the edge date. I have to say that it compares well with the much better example on the Colin Cooke website, but I stand to be corrected if mine turns out to be a contemporary forgery. Any further thoughts please. Thanks. DaveG38

Hi all, I have just been lucky enough to obtain a 1685 Charles II tin farthing. It's in about fine condition, but is pretty corroded with the copper plug missing, so a bit of a mixture from a collector's point of view, although it is the first one I have seen for many years and fills a gap in my collection. What I would like to know is whether there were many varieties of edge for this particular farthing type, as there are with the James II tin farthings, where there seem to be all kinds of mixtures of mullets, stops and spaces. Does the Peck 'bible' say anything about this? The edge of mine is very clear so I should be able to assign it correctly. All advice gratefully received. Thanks. DaveG38

Here's one of the best ebay laughs of all. Its closed now, but I could supply this seller with plenty more at half his asking price!!! http://cgi.ebay.com/1965-British-Crown-Ste...1QQcmdZViewItem DaveG38

I am pretty sure that Red Riley is quite correct about the taper. Colin Cooke did indeed have a coin where the plug was missing, but only went part of the way through. The coin was a 1689 tin farthing, which is now in my collection - pictures of it are still on the CC website. The plug was roughly rectangular in shape, and tapered as it went into the coin, but it didn't go all the way through. There is also another 1689 on the CC website, where the plug is mssing, and looking at the obverse and reverse photos, it seems to me that the plug was wedge shaped when put in by the mint. Hope this helps. DaveG38

I have both bought and sold on ebay, and my overall view is that most feedback is genuine and honest - I have only one negative, several years ago, and this only arose because I gave him negative in the first place. However, I have watched with interest the debate about ebay and its merits (or otherwise). One aspect not mentioned is that their software doesn't always work properly, and this leads to the situation where a buyer or seller can't leave feedback. I have two items in this situation at the moment. Both are paid for, yet there is no way (unless I have missed it) to get beyond the flags shown on my summary. This, of course, does a disservice to the buyers, who can't receive the feedback, and to me as the seller as I always like to respond when sales or purchases take place. One thing I do agree on is that ebay aren't interested in sorting the problem - a common theme from many users as far as I can see. DaveG38

Looking through the replies in this thread, I am bemused by the variety of answers and opinions. Just so that I fully understand the history of proofs and VIP proofs, I felt it might be useful if some of you experts could cast your eye over my interpretation of my own coins, based on the advice given. First up is my 1953 Proof Set - all coins still in their plastic envelopes, and pretty much polished both in the field and the devices. Perhaps slightly matt on the busts, so I guess this is a set produced well into the striking run, and not at the beginning when the devices and bust would have been matt. Next is a 1953 Scottish shilling in an NGC slab, which is described as cameo PF 68, and it clearly is, as both bust and lettering etc are matt. Therefore, it seems to me that this is an early proof strike, or perhaps a VIP strike. Lastly, I have a 1937 set, in which both the Crown and the Scottish shilling have a cameo finish. All the other coins in the set are highly polished over the whole coin, and exhibit no signs of frosting or a matt finish. My conclusions: clearly the crown and shilling are an earlier strike or a VIP proof, whilst the other coins are very late strikes, as there is no sign of any matt finish. Therefore, either the crown and shilling were omitted from an early set and were 'found' later at the mint and 'married' to later coins to make up the set, or the set has been made up by a collector bringing together individual coins to complete the set. Does all this make sense, or have I misunderstood this thread completely? PS: For what it is worth neither my 1950, or 1951 set exhibit the slightest sign of matt finish or cameo effect, which I presume is correct?

Can anybody help me with a couple of queries about George V Muandy sets? Firstly, I am re-building a 1913 set from individual coins, and concerned about how to identify a genuine Maundy 3d, as opposed to a currency version. Secondly, I have a 1926 set, and would like to know whether this originally came in a box or pouch, and if so what it would look like i.e. size, colour, covered in leather, embossed and if so what the lettering should say. I guess I would also like to know what sort of case the 1913 set should have, as well as the 1926 set. Can anybody help please? Thanks. DaveG38