Sword

But that's more of ego boosting or wealth-flaunting than coin collecting.

It is indeed surprising for it to be graded 65 with those marks on the cheek.

One problem is that the TPGs have been producing tables with prices for different grades. This help to promote the believe that prices only depend on grades. Things get much less scientific when they try to incorporate subjective things like toning, eye appeal, great provenance etc (which obviously affect value) into the grading number.

Just curious, did you join at the end?

The designs look too crude to be a trial (or proof) in my view. Some of the titles of the King are missing. FID DEF, IND IMP will need to be on the observe or reverse. Hence, I too think it is imitation money.

I have very much enjoyed reading my copy. I doubt there will be a second edition due to the work involved. But if a second edition were to happen, one major improvement is to ensure that each of the coins featured have large size UNC photos of the entire coins. Telling the difference between UNC and GEF is often the hardest.

1896 florin 2+A. Posting it here as it is one of my top two coins in terms of toning. Toning is better than what the photos would suggest.

PGCS photos.

It's analogous to Ebay laughs. People can only find offerings like this if they do a Google search. Then they will immediately get dozens of people trying to sell the same thing for a tiny percentage of the price. There is also a "30 day money back guarantee" on offer which should come in handy.

Incredibly difficult to find! Also look at the edge of the coin :-) Come on, make an effort with the photography. £95 p + p

Timeless British sitcom. Never fail to make me laugh no matter how many times I have watched it. Some of the signs:

Multiple system atrophy is a much rarer form of progressive neurological disorder than MS. An ex-colleague of mine had it and it is a truly dreadful disease. Sorry that you are having a really stressful time Blake. (However, drinking a good Malt or Amarone is a definite sign that you have things under control.)

I think auctioneers deliberately set low estimates with "exciting lots" to generate more interest. Then will be brag about how many times it sold above estimate. But to be honest, the coin doesn't do anything for me. It is just visually very unimpressive. An "unloved" series as VS has pointed out. I would much rather own an Edward VIII threepence if both are the same price. (But in reality, I will of course never own neither!)

It does seem likely that a mint employee has kept a coin back. But at least he didn't do it for quick money as it is resurfacing for the first time 74 years after it was minted.

Adjustment lines do reduce eye appeal and will inevitably lower the value of a coin. I imagine the impact on price can range from insignificance to considerable depending on severity and locations and also on the quality and rarity of the rest of the piece. As Rob say, it's about aesthetics. For the coin in question, there is no doubt that it would had sold more "more" money in LCA if there were no adjustment lines. The reverse lines are right in the centre and damaged the garter star. But the coin still has very good eye appeal overall and so would be welcome in quality collections. This is from the Heritage: " As a rule, adjustment marks do not reduce the value of a coin nearly as much as a series of equally visible scratches, which were not "mint-applied".

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/7956/

I also think that NGC holders are easier to photograph than other TPGs (but admittedly have only done it a few times). For example, I had no problem getting photos of my 1902 halfcrown in NGC holder.

Would be nice if PCGS and NGC would actually use the term "technical MS" in their grading. "Technical" meaning you must look at the coin in hand or you will be in for a surprise.

I think that's probably what the graders were thinking on this occasion. But NGC's definition of MS63 is "Slightly weak or average strike". The strike appear to be terrible rather than just "slightly" weak. (The official NGC photos are similar but the ear looks better.)

The strike is so weak that even the chin is gone!

According to data from the Royal Mint which was previously posted, the issue prices were: 1927 proof set (in cardboard box): 15 shillings (11 shillings 3 pence face). Extra for leather case. 1935 raised edge proof in cardboard box: 7 shillings 6 pence 1935 specimen in cardboard box: 5 shillings 6 pence. So the 1935 currency was probably issued at 5 shillings face. It is therefore possible that the 1928 -34, 36 wreath crown which were issued in currency without boxes were also issued at face value (or with just a very small premium). I think they were issued at the end of each year so that people might want them for Christmas presents.

I guess I am rather literal with the term "commemorative" but do accept that it is not clear cut with certain coins. I do however agree that 1951, 1953 and 1960 crowns are commemoratives. 1951 was for the Festival of Britain, 1953 was for the coronation and 1960 was related to the New York Exhibition. Of these three, 1960 is more debatable. The 1927 wreath crown in sets weren't good sellers. In fact, the 15000 sets were only sold out in 1933. My opinion is that the low mintages of wreath crown was simply because demand was low but the mint produced them because of tradition rather than as some money making scheme. True commenoratives like the 1935, 1951 etc were far more popular with the public and much greater numbers were minted.

Having a look at the non coinage works of Benedetto Pistrucci. I thought it might be interesting to see how his training as a cameo engraver might influence his work on coin dies.