Coinery

No, I don't think anyone was put off by the reversal at all, it would have been from the general appearance of the coin that an assessment was made. I don't have an image to hand, but if you type George V half sovereign into google images, you'll see for yourself how one should really look!

Yes, sorry, water bird...I meant the end of it being an exciting discovery for you! It's not a genuine G5 gold coin, which also means it's 90%+ unlikely to even be made of gold! Really sorry, but I would guess few would be interested in it as anything other than a curiosity, and at pennies even for that!

No!

I work in a small care home ... Get you, TG, very impressed! Are you sure you don't live in a caravan?

You can be a nasty piece of work sometimes, Debbie!

Ahh, that'll be the end of that, then, waterbird!

You can only think of ONE downside to working in London!

You don't want the surface wet and gummy with oil! get it (wipe) to a state where dust would blow off the surface, as with any coin! Absorbent tissue sucks it away from the surface quite nicely with a bit of 'tickling'!

That one looks more like nEF. No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom. My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade. I can make out a complete eyebrow, but it certainly isn't better than EF I'd say. On the other hand I always distrust 'blown up' photos as they magnify any little tiny flaws and make them seem like horror stories which they wouldn't in hand. That's a well-known issue - the reverses of George V before 1921/2 are notoriously affected by the high relief of the obverse portrait 'sucking' metal away from the reverse (and causing 'ghosting' too). This is especially true where the reverse rims don't protect the design properly (pennies & halfpennies) or the reverse design is too shallow compared to the obverse (shillings, and to a less extent, sixpences). Where there are strong reverse rims and a strong reverse design - halfcrowns - you don't see the ghosting or weakly struck reverses. Interestingly, the 'recessed ear' 1915/16 pennies usually have Britannia fully struck up, so why the Mint didn't persist with the experiment further is a bit baffling. So did ANY, say 1920 pennies for example, get through unscathed, or would I be wasting my time looking for one?

That one looks more like nEF. No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom. And what about the reverses of the 1920 penny, does Britannia's bodice exist anywhere in a well struck-up state?

Think I'd bedder 'ave one then, with all that endorsement!

I've only ever bought spink, but I hear there's a little extra with CCGB, am I missing out on much? For the weekend, Sir? Better make that twooo please!

Here is the Obverse! It's so easy to forget that these coins are nearly 140 year's old when you see one looking like that! I admired the pictures for quite some time! Lovely coin!

I do know a Pat, and can't get that thought out of my head now!

Rightly or wrongly, I only ever wipe/pat(Peter) off as much as I can to make the coin dry in appearance again. I never remove ALL the oil residue with something else, like acetone for example. Copper/brass coins always look beautiful after a wipe of oil, almost conditioned but, I have asked the question on here many times, whether anyone has ever noticed any long-term effects from exposure to Olive Oil. I think I recall Peck saying that he hadn't noticed any changes, in around 80-90 years of observing I think it was (don't quote me on that, it might be longer) Am I going to get hate mail for this, but I routinely acetone and oil my copper coins before sealing them up in 2x2's. I've been doing that for around 4 years and haven't noticed any changes yet.

GVF

Happy birthday chaps! I will get back to you Colin, just wading my way through Tax business, uugh, I'm interested, yes!

I've only ever bought spink, but I hear there's a little extra with CCGB, am I missing out on much?

Told you you'd get plenty of assistance with that one on here, looks like a stay-clear! Will reply to your PM later!

Good, thanks Peter - that makes me feel better - I only paid a fiver for it. GVF money would have made me feel guilty! Ignore our resident pessimist - those aren't so much 'knocks' as 'faint taps, almost inaudible' I have to confess it never leapt out at me either. In all honesty i don't think I'd be unhappy if I'd bought GVF blind and your coin arrived! I'll give you a fiver for it, Declan, then you won't have to feel guilty about it anymore! A deformed rim/edge is an imperfection, however obvious. I'm on Peter's side. Me too, the eye is drawn to it, so a negative in the eye appeal stakes, still a bargain though! Well I'm just going to have to jolly well go and get my PC out then in that case!

Good, thanks Peter - that makes me feel better - I only paid a fiver for it. GVF money would have made me feel guilty! Ignore our resident pessimist - those aren't so much 'knocks' as 'faint taps, almost inaudible' I have to confess it never leapt out at me either. In all honesty i don't think I'd be unhappy if I'd bought GVF blind and your coin arrived! I'll give you a fiver for it, Declan, then you won't have to feel guilty about it anymore!

I have a Nikon D90 with a 105mm macro lens. Using the metadata from Coinery's posted pictures; it looks as if he has a Canon EOS 1100D. Hah, your good, Nick! And a 100mm macro! I kind of agree with Peck re any macro camera will do, but I wouldn't swap my set-up! Nor I mine, although I have to say that I think that the Canon autofocus system (for static subjects) is a little better than that on the Nikon. Bugger, you responded before I could edit that wrong YOUR out!

I have a Nikon D90 with a 105mm macro lens. Using the metadata from Coinery's posted pictures; it looks as if he has a Canon EOS 1100D. Hah, you're good, Nick! And a 100mm macro! I kind of agree with Peck re any macro camera will do, but I wouldn't swap my set-up!

I think you'll find CGS has a few misnomers in their submission process too, unless they've sorted that side of things out now? It took 2 calls, and an increase in fees to sort it all out, when I submitted 20 coins last year (without discount)!

I don't think anyone would remotely suggest that the plastic of slabs can react with coins. 'Factors prior to encapsulation' is the thing I fear the most, especially with coins you haven't submitted yourself!