Sword

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.

I have always liked the highly reflective surfaces on JH coins. Even deeply toned coins can still show this mirror finish.

I was indeed thinking of that process. Although the sulfides are converted back to silver atoms, I am inclined to think that some lustre would be /could be lost because the arrangement of the surface atoms might not be as regular as they were previously. I have not tried the process myself and so am only guessing.

Yes, I guess restoration is a more appropriate word than conservation when there is any modification to the metal surface. But we do agree what removing external contaminants without damaging the surface is not consider detrimental to the coin or its value in response to the OP.

I think the definition of the term "cleaning" is somewhat imprecise. If cleaning is about removing loose surface contaminants without damaging the coin surface in anyway, then it is of course perfectly acceptable and is usually the correct thing to do. This can include removing deposits on dug up coins, or dipping a coin in acetone for example. This can be compared to cleaning a valuable oil painting covered with dirt. It is absolutely correct to remove the dirt so that we can actually see the painting below. We want to admire the painting and not the layer of dirt. However, conservation is a different thing as this is about altering the actual surface of the object in some way. This can include removing a mount, a mark on a frosted portrait, and yes, in the strict sense removing bad toning or tarnishing. I don't think it is chemically possible to turn a toned object back to its 100% original shiny untoned state. Whether this removal of toning is obvious / not obvious / exceedingly difficult to detect is another matter. Giving a choice, who wouldn't prefer a coin that has not been "conserved" over a "conserved" specimen. Removing dirt off the surface of a painting is cleaning. But chemically turning the pigments that have discoloured with time back to the original colours is conservation. Such conservation is often very acceptable for paintings because each painting is unique and you will not find another better specimen. I think IanB is correct in that it is not necessarily true that all bright / untoned coins over 100 years old have been cleaned. There are bronze coins over 100 years old with full lustre but are admittedly rare. By sheer coincidence, coin surface can perhaps be protected from toning by picking up / developing a layer of "substance"? If the layer is thin enough, it will be invisible.

I think the "seller" only wants to get information on his teddy which is sentimental to him. A price needs to be given for an advert on Ebay and a £10k price just mean he doesn't want to sell it. Nothing sinister in that. Likewise he is only after information on his coin I think. It would be different if he had artificially toned the teddy a pale golden colour (which I understand can be a very rare colour), sew a button onto the ear to pretend it is a Steiff, make up some story about it being the favorite teddy of Queen Victoria and get "assistance" with the biddings.

I think the standing Scottish lion is just a hybrid between a man and a lion. It is also well known that the crowned lion on George IV shillings has a very human looking face.

Great to see you back !