Sword

Gosh, that's very light!

Yes to both questions. I really like them myself.

Exact diameters of some common UK coins are: LSD: Farthing 20mm, Halfpenny 26mm, Penny 30.81mm, Silver threepence 16mm, Brass threepence 21mm, Sixpence 19mm, Shillings 23.1mm, Florin 28.5mm, Half Crown 32mm, Crown 38.6mm. Decimal: Halfpenny 17mm, Penny 20.32mm, Twopence 25.91mm, Old Five Pence 23.5mm (pre 1990), New Five Pence 18mm, Old Ten Pence 28.5mm (pre 1992), New Ten Pence 24.5mm, Twenty Pence 21.4mm, Old Fifty Pence (pre 1997) 30mm, New Fifty Pence 27.3mm, One Pound 22.5mm, Two Pound 28.4mm, Crown 38.6mm. 23mm are good for the 12 sided £1 coin http://vi.raptor.ebaydesc.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemDescV4&item=110339646462&category=549&pm=1&ds=0&t=1559547793000&ver=0 With capsules you need to go up to the nearest mm. Hence two pound 28.4mm will need a 29mm capsule. Unfortunately, there will be a bit of rattle. If you are using a quadrum, then you can use a 28mm size as the foam can expands a bit with no problem. Hence no rattle and eliminates the risk of friction between the coin and plastic. I personally use quadrums even though you can't see the edges of the coins.

and it is no longer listed.

It's just there are 29 olympic 50p coins. They will just dominate the table if all are included. The abridged table shows a wider range of dates and types. Some previous tables from changechecker have included them.

I thought you implied in the OP that the 2017 Royal Shield is the second rarest 50p? But quite a few others have lower mintages.

No you didn't win :) The changechecker site explicitly states that the Olympic 50p are omitted from the chart. Mintage figures according to ITN news: 2009 Kew Gardens: 210,000 2011 Olympic wrestling: 1,129,500 2011 Olympic football: 1,161,500 2011 Olympic judo: 1,161,500 2011 Olympic triathlon: 1,163,500 2018 Peter Rabbit: 1,400,000 2018 Flopsy Bunny: 1,400,000 2011 Olympic tennis: 1,454,000 2011 Olympic goalball: 1,615,500 2011 Olympic shooting: 1,656,500

A 1951 crown is a nice choice as a first coin. Great reverse design (struck from left over victorian die(s) with date re-engraved if I remember correctly), large, proof-like and inexpensive for something nearly 70 years old.

At least he has also removed "mint error" from the description.

The are coin counters with adjustable coin diameter and thickness like this one: https://www.amazon.co.uk/ZZap-CC10-Automatic-counting-currencies-Black/dp/B00FQGZ4WM/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=coin+counter+diameter+thickness&qid=1570965570&sr=8-1-fkmr0 No idea if it is any good and it is also pricey. Looks like a good internet search is required to find a good deal.

Numerical grading can only be used if the coin has been slabbed by "an eBay-approved company such as NGC, PCGS, ANACS, ICG, or PMG" Otherwise, you can't use numerical grading but can use traditional grades like EF, VF etc. https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-items/stamps-currency-coins-policy?id=4337 It has been like that for quite a long time as far as I know but how well it has been enforced is a matter of opinion.

I guess so. It's just I found the pretense of donating 10% of the sale to charity bad taste.

Thanks for the update. The lack of photos (and brief descriptions) meant that it was really risky to leave commission bids. But I am certain very good deals were available if one can attend in person. The disappearance of a 5% commission auction house is indeed rather sad.

10% of the sale price will be donated to Cancer Research UK. How very generous. He is asking for £9 million for postage in addition to a ridiculous BIN price. I just don't feel like laughing at people with this sort of mentality.

MS 62 :)

Do you think such double obverse / reverse coins were made with the consent with the management of the mint or were they just unauthorized items made secretly by mint employees or genuine errors?

Not quite. "We reserve the right to round down bids that are less than 5% increment over our published bid steps. So bids such as £101 , £1,005, £10,010 may be rounded down to £100 £1,000 and £10,000 respectively"

There is a specimen in the British Museum and this is from its website. "These medals were to serve as presents for the followers of the Duke of Alva at his meeting with Charles IX and Catherine at Bayonne in June". I guess the quality of medals in the 16th century can be surprising high. https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?assetId=1613269679&objectId=943268&partId=1 I do wonder if the gold plating on that "vermeil" medal is official or if it was done in a later date.

I have tried to brighten up your photo a little.

This is a glitch of the website. You need to sign out, wipe web history and then post the second picture.

There are silver and vermeil versions on sale on the web. I think your description is a direct translation of the vermeil medal's French description. The "House of Platt" is Maison Platt which is a coin & medal shop. https://www.maisonplatt.com/default.asp?langue=en This is the medal for sale: http://www.123numismatique.com/documents/monnaies/fiche.php?categorie=medailles&id=243 Your bronze version has a somewhat cruder design in my view. (The lace loop at the bottom of the queen's portrait is missing). The font is different. The vermeil medal has wavy bottoms serifs to the letters. The edge of the bronze medal and the beading look a lot more modern to me. So I imagine yours is a reproduction or restrike. The word bronze was stamped on the edge presumably so that people cannot confuse it with the vermeil version.

I don't collect medals or know anything about them. But if it say "bronze" on the edge, then surely the description must be wrong in calling it "vermeil" which does indeed mean silver gilt.

Use the App "Paint" (which is a standard app in windows) to open the picture. Then click the "resize" button in the tool bar. Then select "pixels". Reduce the horizontal pixel number (try 1200 or 1000). Then save and use properties to see if you have reduce the picture to 0.5Mb or less. If not repeat the process and reduce the horizontal number further.

I agree that dipping a coin with bad or ugly toning is often worth trying. The appearance can be significantly improved making it more marketable and increasing its potential value. But one of the biggest worry of any form of toning removal is the loss or alteration of lustre. (And lustre is to do with how atoms are arranged on the surface). None of the methods is perfect so that is why there are alternatives. The reason why people are afraid to leave their coin in the liquid for too long is precisely the worry that it might look dull afterwards. Otherwise you can leave it in the liquid for a month until all the even toning is gone. There are plenty of discussions of cartwheel lustre and flowlines and how these are affected by any method of toning removal including the aluminium method. Goggle and have a look. I am not saying that toning removal shouldn't be attempted. The numerous discussions on the web has convinced me that once a coin has been significantly toned, none of the methods used will be able to give it the 100% original mint lustre. But I am not arguing that the final result might still be an improvement than the original badly toned state.

There is clearly a conflict of interest when a TPG carries out "conservation" and is then allowed to grade its own handiwork. To be truly impartial, coins after NGC conservation must be graded only at PCGS and vice versa. Obviously, one must not declare that conservation has been carried out and see if the other TPG can work it out for themselves. But this will never happen.