Coinery

As a vegetarian, who many years ago used to love every morsel of the animal kingdom, I can understand your indulgence. However, Mrs Peter has certainly got it right, and I have a new found respect for her! Viva la goose and Mrs P. Spiritual evolution will bring about your own vegetarian state some day, Peter, so you'd best enjoy that liver while you can!

I've got a 1967 penny, wish that could take my son for a walk!

Thanks, Bill, though it was the point on toning that was of particular interest. As you pointed out, a black coin can achieve a high grade (which I'm happy with), leaving me to think a coin with the half-moon tone you get from a coin sitting on a coin, or a coin with an ugly, patchy tone or, reciprocally, a beautifully preserved coin with a golden tone, would have no bearing on the the numeric grade it received? Terrible use of grammar there, but I just couldn't think my way around it, so apologies!

I've 'politely' informed him too!

This was the secure server recommended, though I haven't had time to create an account and check it out, yet! It's on the list of to-do's, so if you find out ahead of me, I'd appreciate your thoughts! https://www.dropbox.com/

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'. I also asked about the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less. Would it though, bearing in mind lustre has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with toning. You can have a deeply-toned coin with obvious full-lustre underneath. My point is you could presumably have two full-lustred CGS coins, one with ugly toning, and one with beauty personified, and they would both come out of the computer with the same grade?

What I did find interesting, given we have mostly said that buying a coin blind from CGS is a better option than from most other sources, is that they don't include eye-appeal. Namely, they haven't determined any markings for or against for toning, suggesting to me that a black coin or an untoned gem, or a half-moon-toned (coin on coin) coin, would achieve exactly the same grade, if all other components of the calculation were the same? The TPGC soup is altogether enough to put you off collecting anything more recent than Charles I!

I've a funny feeling this CGS thread is going to be around for a very long time, it'll all come down to whether you can get a week off work to read it!

So they acknowledge the existence of Cabinet Friction, they just mark it down for wear, which we all would do! Can anyone further clarify the 6 thing as, comparing Paul's to Rob's, it isn't leaping out at me?

Go careful buying gothic ANYTHING, especially crowns! With only a couple of month's under your belt, I'd read around a lot! I'm not sure who your dealer is, but there are well-known 'dealers' who have been picked up by the members of this forum for 'knowingly' selling fakes! So, here's my advice...read the gothic content on this forum, and whatever material you can lay your hands on, until you know what a gothic is not! Don't get burned at that level, as cleaned coins will pale into insignificance by comparison. Now, about cleaning...I 100% agree with you that there is good and bad cleaning. I have no issue with certain lightly dipped coins, provided they are big or full lustred to begin with, as it is only these coins that ever look 'right' in my opinion. Shiny bright unlustred silver never looks good! I confess to dipping an uneven-toned aUNC 1916 halfcrown the other day, but it was for 2 seconds, and still left a decent amount of extremely pretty golden tone behind. The coin now looks a million dollars I think. Of course, the coin will now need proper storage, as you will not be able to 'patch' coins up indefinitely. Welcome aboard, have a good read around, you'll be pleasantly surprised by the threads you'll find!

But aren't those lovely old toned-uncirculated coins, with the toning lightened at the high spots, but not worn, isn't that cabinet/storage friction/wear?

I've recently aquired this HA-2:b Sixpence. Does anyone have any thoughts on the reverse legend? Is this IPOSV, or just die rotation, possibly explaining the rounded O-like bottom of the P? My other thought was a broken foot on the P punch, and a botched attempt at repairing it on the die? Anyone?

And, of course...

A very interesting contemporary counterfeit Elizabeth I shilling here. It rings convincingly, is appropriately thin, and is hammered from home-fashioned dies! It's very well done, and a happy addition for me! Some of the issues: Lions and Lis (and, of course, letters) are not to type for TUN and are primitive. The bust is an attempt at Bust 3A (with some decent detailing, such as veil pointing at the forehead, and decent replication in hairlines and embroidery), which never of course appeared on the TUN coinage. The nose and other facial features are missing on account of a gouge, which isn't so clear in the image. It's around 1 gram under weight, but not so shocking a difference, given the grade. Cost me as much as the genuine article, wasn't expecting that!

Yes, but neither an artwork nor an antique is housed in a plastic slab, which was my point. Unless you're Damien Hurst, of course!

Greater knowledge leads only to greater questions!

That's where they're at for me!

Ahh, now once again, you see, this is where I come unstuck with the phone, which I'm back on now, after only just managing to upload the image link from Rubbish-bucket before flattening the battery...a totally wasted hour trying to upload images, and I didn't even fully succeed!! Time to look for a new image host I think! Will definitely check out the https one recommended earlier!

Just spent about an hour trying to get these onto photo-Bucket! I was wondering about the obverse mark, what do you think? It looks as possible an overmark on your obverse too? I'm not completely sure, would be good to have the full res images of this coin too, as my '66 PC obverse may be the same die as your's. I even thought the reverse might be too, just for a small while! Whoops! Thought that was resized! There is definitely something wrong with PB, I've uploaded images that show in the number count, but aren't displaying in my library...so I can't add the reverse tonight, sorry!

I've never seen one finer! If only to stick to examples like that, I'd only have about 4 in my collection! I will always remember where I've seen the finest sixpence of its rare type! Well done for plucking that one! If you die before me, can you let someone know I'd like to have it! Can I have some high-res images? PLEASE! Lol, someone's got the 'I wants' ! Loveliest sixpence I've seen in ages! Would be amazing for any MM but, a considerably rarer type as well, you'll not see a comparable example! ! I can't even conceive of a better one! Eye-wateringly pretty! I have a hunch that Rob's collection is full of such exemplary pieces! What's great about coins like this, is the detail you don't ordinarily get to see on lesser examples, such as the broken shield punch, showing as a fracture in the top right corner! I want to chop that shield out! It's also the rarest of the acorn die-pairings according to BCW, as if being a nice coin wasn't enough! I'm sure if you ask Rob nicely he will send you other pics of his Lizzy I coins, then you will really be in trouble!!! Yes, too many coins and not enough time to chop!

I've never seen one finer! If only to stick to examples like that, I'd only have about 4 in my collection! I will always remember where I've seen the finest sixpence of its rare type! Well done for plucking that one! If you die before me, can you let someone know I'd like to have it! Can I have some high-res images? PLEASE! Lol, someone's got the 'I wants' ! Loveliest sixpence I've seen in ages! Would be amazing for any MM but, a considerably rarer type as well, you'll not see a comparable example! ! I can't even conceive of a better one! Eye-wateringly pretty! I have a hunch that Rob's collection is full of such exemplary pieces! What's great about coins like this, is the detail you don't ordinarily get to see on lesser examples, such as the broken shield punch, showing as a fracture in the top right corner! I want to chop that shield out! It's also the rarest of the acorn die-pairings according to BCW, as if being a nice coin wasn't enough!

I've never seen one finer! If only to stick to examples like that, I'd only have about 4 in my collection! I will always remember where I've seen the finest sixpence of its rare type! Well done for plucking that one! If you die before me, can you let someone know I'd like to have it! Can I have some high-res images? PLEASE! Lol, someone's got the 'I wants' ! Loveliest sixpence I've seen in ages! Would be amazing for any MM but, a considerably rarer type as well, you'll not see a comparable example! ! I can't even conceive of a better one! Eye-wateringly pretty!

Thanks, Rob! That really is a very special coin!

I've never seen one finer! If only to stick to examples like that, I'd only have about 4 in my collection! I will always remember where I've seen the finest sixpence of its rare type! Well done for plucking that one! If you die before me, can you let someone know I'd like to have it! Can I have some high-res images? PLEASE!

A PROPER one! Not too many Oak Nut coins in that condition! I take it that one won't be hitting your site?