pokal02

There's currently a Churchill crown on ebay (actually there are hundreds, but what stands out about this one is the £500.00 asking price). Seller has a zero feedback too. At least he/she doesn't say it's rare.

Much better than mine, haven't seen many Henrys that good.

...but there must still be a lot of 'date runners' out there, or a 1665 crown would cost the same as a 1668 in the same grade!

I tend to look for better examples of common coins eg Edward VI 3rd issue shilling I'd want an AVF whereas a rarer/more expensive one eg Richard III groat I'll settle for GF at best. So I can see that a relatively cheap/common coin in F might be relatively unwanted. I'm not well up on Chas I 1/-'s but if I collected them, and the coin in question is a rare variety needed to fill a gap, I'd definitely have had it (it's a difficult one to grade - Lloyd Bennett usually suggests a grade but doesn't appear to have done so here).

Managed to get the lot I wanted, although did pay more than it's worth. Not as bad as the 1888 crown in AU which fetched £1,488 gross - was this bonkers or have I missed something (it wasn't a 'wide date')? I wouln't have paid more than £300 for it!

In old money I'd say GVF+ (rev slightly better than obv), GF and NEF respectively. This seems to be about 53, 30 and 55. (I seem to be lowest on the G2 crown but can't grade it any higher). Vic OH's are a prime example of how the VF grade has become debased over the last 10-20 years. I think the 'old' VF may have been too severe (I was looking at a 2004 Spink Circular earlier and there seemed little if any difference between the Vic OH VF's and EF's!) but think it's gone too far the other way now.

I'm starting to think Anglo-Saxon, which has gone up more than anything in the last 10 years, has overheated. Nearly all the early stuff at Baldwin's 2 weeks ago was unsold, yesterday was very patchy with most, even quite rare stuff (Cuthred & Bertwulf) going for under low estimate. At a recent Spink I got a Wulfred 1d @ £950 - £2,850 having been asked for the same coin in Spink N Circ in 2007!

As a very young collector in the late 60's I remember quite a few 1948 pennies turning up in circulation with much lustre - much more so than 49's, 61's, 62's & 63s. Perhaps someone hung on to them as the last 'IND IMP' date? .

Some silly prioces just because it's Slaney? Surely the 1601 shilling, looking overgraded at VF, was worth nearer £250-300 gross than £700 net??

Anyone have any luck here? I had a total disaster - most coins were being passed or going for low/mid-estimate, but the two I marked as 'must-haves' went for 4.5 and 4 times estimate - on one I wasn't even the underbidder. Worse still, had I known I wasn't spending, I could have got a decent Coelnoth 1d which was unsold at £800. Oh well, there's always Slaney 2....!

One of mine was lot 101 Henry VI Bristol groat, AVF, chipped, I thought it would go for 550-600 (est 300-400) It went for about £1,300 I think. I never even got in a bid - there were always people clicking before me!! I'd have given up anyway at 800-850 though.

I .personally think the VF examples of both Victoria Gothic and Old Heads in the Standard Guide to Grading British coins are far too lenient (possibly the most lenient 2 in the whole book). I'd say not much above GF for either. It's interesting that half of us seem to think this is GVF and half AU rather than everyone plumping for EF. Spink suggest £1650 in GVF and £4000 in AU (and I do try to grade like Spink as I base my valuations on their book), and I'm guessing from NRP's post that the price asked was much closer to the lower figure than the higher. (I'd have taken it, if I didn't already have one, at say £1500-£1800.)

I'd say GVF. That would do me (in fact mine's barely GVF). I try to avoid harshly cleaned milled coins, but will take if there's no (or only much lower grade) alternatives. I guess it comes down to personal preference as to whether you can wait for, or afford, one in the same grade with no problems.

Three Graces, 1831 and Gothic Crowns for me too. I believe a few Una & Lion £5's were struck in silver - can I count them as Crowns?

Have to agree with KB Coins unfortunately, see their two Oxford crowns graded GVF & NEF which I'd grade GF and NVF, They had a 1732 Proof crown (now gone) described as GVF/NEF which was barely F. Saltford aren't as bad - their NVF's I normally go GF and their GF's I'd say are F (or even AF - see their 1684 crown). I guess anything 1/2 grade or less could be described as a difference of opinion rather than overgrading. Then we have the question of American dealers - I know their grades are more lenient, but by how much? I always thought it was about 1/2 a grade, ie a US VF was our NVF and their NVF was our F. Some seem a lot worse even than this though?

Wow, Poor's harsh for the second one.. the reverse doesn't look bad at all. Perhaps my AF was a bit optimistic though.

Lot 1627 is the under-graded one, lot 1629 is the one that looks about right?

Some strange undergrading as well as overgrading. See the two 1666 crowns, I'd agree VG for the second but 'VG, rev slightly better' for the first? Some dealers would grade it VF!! I'd say Fine or perhaps 'about Fine'. (How can the 2 obverses possibly be considered identical?)

Yes, that bears out my theory - I'd rather have the scratched GF than the unscratched one (AF?).

Again, it's down to personal choice/availability. I had a 1746 crown in VF which had been mounted and had no visible edge legend. When I sold it it went for just under the price of an F which seemed about right - I'd rather have had it than a problem-free example in Fair, and F would have been close. Minor scratches I almost ignore (at any rate on pre-1800 coins) - if we are saying the Charles shilling with a scratch is GF, I'd possibly rather have it than an unscratched F, and definitely rather have it than an unscratched AF.

I think NF isn't ridiculously far out for that shilling, although Fair or GFair (is there such a grade?) might have been more accurate. It's strange that as VF, EF standards get ever lower those for lower grades seem to be creeping up. I suspect no-one cares any more - anything below F might as well be 'poor' because it isn't considered collectable these days.

Nor for me (would have liked the complete works of Helen Farquhar, but not at £2,500!)

There were 2 James II Crowns in the Spink auction today, graded F & GF. The F is somewhere between the 2014 Spink Coins of England F and the 2015 - I'd still say F+ or even GF myself. (Maybe I'm a bit lenient on James II coins generally - it's not a reign, due to its brevity, where anyone would see that many coins). It would be interesting to know why the changes in the book were made, but I expect we'll never know. ( This forum, I think, is divided on whether F & VF grades have got more lenient over the years or stayed constant, but no-one thinks they've become less lenient!)

The strangest thing in the new book is the alteration to the milled grading guide. The previous F and VF examples (of a James II Crown) have been taken away and substituted by much better coins - the 'F' looks at least half way to VF even with my conservative grading (I downgrade 75% of coins bought from the grade attributed, and have only ever upgraded one coin). What do others think? Milled silver seems stagnant in both grades (although they've launched 1697 crown - one of the few I need to upgrade - into the stratosphere). Have taken a (theoretical) hit on some of my lower grade hammered though.

Edward VII are among the hardest milled coins to grade as the head is in relatively low relief. I'd say the original coin was VF overall.