Sword

It must be something really unexpected. PF62? (61 would be my second guess)

I think it is unlikely that there will be any issues. However, if you want peace of mind, then I would suggest buying branded products like Quadrums. https://www.coingallery.co.uk/quadrum-coin-capsules-36-c.asp Quite a few people here swear by them. A cheaper option is 2x2 coin flip (cardboard with transparent window). The option for traditionalists would be the coin cabinet.

And you have made a good informed start to collecting. Your coins are "honest" collectible examples without serious issues like harsh cleaning, holes, soldering, gilding etc. Grading skills will develop with time. Will be interesting to see how your collection will develop.

I agree with the others, the 1887 is definitely not VF in my view. Grading is subjective and you will end up buying a lot more from dealers you agree with.

"The age of milled coins should not affect the grade". This mean that you shouldn't relax your grading standard just because a milled coin is older. (Things are different when you are dealing with hammered coins).

Your English shilling could well be UNC but it is best to avoid coins with this type of discolouration. The grade is not the only consideration and eye appeal is also very important. I think my Scottish shilling is UNC (completely lustrous). Likewise, the 1936 shilling is also UNC in my view.

Welcome to the forum. I too started with collecting shillings when I first took up the hobby as a teenager. It's a very good series for the type collector. Books are very helpful to learn grading but there is no substitute for experience. It is all too easy for beginners to overgrade. My suggestion is to start off with cheaper coins (like George VI) but in UNC condition. Once you have seen a few coins in top condition, you will know what UNC truly means: absolutely no wear and no loss of luster on high points. Some George V unc shillings are economical too. Edward VII, Victoria old head and Victoria Jubilee Head are still affordable but things will get expensive before that. Also bear in mind that the age of milled coins should not affect the grade. One mistake I made in my early days of collecting was thinking that better grade = better details. But the loss of detail could be due to weak striking (which doesn't technically affect the grade). The lion's noise on the reverse of Edward VII and earlier George V shillings are usually rather flat due to weak striking. Happy collecting.

I missed that also 🙂 DNW is a well respected auction house. But I think many of us here would agree that the provenance of "Nick's collection" would bear more weight. I didn't bid because I thought (and it turned out quite correctly) that the lots I like are more then I can afford.

It's a indeed a very sad incident and I have a great deal of sympathy to the current owner. But the coin is so obviously a fake. It is simply very risky to spend thousands of pounds on the words of a stranger.

I don't think I can be certain even with a better photo. One need to see if there are hairlines and what the luster is like in that area. I would simply ask the seller and see what type of answer you get. Asking about a potential issue can't do any harm even if you want to buy afterwards.

I agree it is possible that area had been wiped in the past.

16 weeks wait to get a replacement base pad with enough holes. Not exactly speedy.

Even an error in the packaging can only make the set more interesting and there is no reason to return it.

The only "coloured" coin I do like is the 1990 Isle of Man penny black crown. It won three awards at the time:

The serifs on the letters "S" certainly do look different. It's a real shame that someone has removed the possible identification marks on the obverse. It could have given really interesting information.

It is rather unusual that the pattern was struck using worn reverse die. Hence the flatness on St George's chest and helmet. I remember reading somewhere that the 1951 crown was struck using a left over die from the Victorian era with the date altered. Might be someone experimented with a worn old die as an experiment and then a previously unused one was employed for striking the real thing?

Haven't heard of it before. Am I alone in thinking that St George's face looks like that of a middle age lady?

It's the Royal Mint unfortunately...https://www.royalmint.com/our-coins/events/mr-men-little-miss/

Possibly. But my young nephew would be very upset if I brought him that coin instead of a toy he wanted.

Not you I think, and definitely not I. A fair number were brought by investors hoping for a quick profit I would imagine. Coins reusing historical designs always have greater chance of becoming wanted at least in the short term. The mint is quite clever not to do this too often or it will lose the effect.

Not everyone buying coins are numismatists. They include impulse buyers, investors, misguided investors, souvenir buyers, present purchasers and one-off buyers. The offerings from the Royal Mint are rarely aimed at numismatists these days, but at the other groups. Their mission is to simply to make money (banknotes rather than well-designed coins). It's easier for numismatists to just ignore the souvenir coin market.

Just his surname on coins I think.

But seriously, it is the norm these days with the Royal Mint. Wallace & Gromit, Paddington, Snowman, Winnie the Pooh ... Described as "uncirculated" and they can never be circulated...

"That's not fair! We weren't allowed to put our full names on our designs!"

That's why I really like your example. Well struck fringe and hair band make a big difference to eye appeal. Nice toning and clean fields. The deeper marks (one base of neck and hair) are out of the way and not distracting. The strike is a little weak on the top of the crown on the reverse but this is relatively insignificant. For me, its a definite keeper as it would cost a fortune to upgrade to something significantly better.