Sword

nice joke

When viewing the photo on my tablet which has higher resolution compared to my laptop, I think there are green spots on quite a few other places also. E.g. below the mustache, around the ear, neck, R and E of Rex etc. I am not saying they must be verd spots however.

The first two wreath crowns were sold by London Coins but were not graded by CGS. The auction descriptions did mention verdigris. I think well-established verd on 0.5 silver must eventually pit the surface.

George V coins with Verd Even a "green spot" on a sterling silver coin is much more likely to something else than verd I think.

Although I agree that verd on sterling silver coins must be very rare indeed, it can sometimes be found on 0.5 silver coins. In fact, it is one thing I particular look out for when buying post 1919 George V. Uneven metal mix causing verd has also crossed my mind as a theoretical possibility. I am not saying it really happens but just as a possibility. As I understand it, uneven metal mix is not that uncommon with bronze coinage and this results in streaky toning.

I have seen a George V halfcrown I would like to buy but it is flat around the harp. Would you say this is post mint damage or done during the minting process? Thanks.

1915

If I have to guess, I would say it is possible that the coin was dipped into something and some residue was left afterwards. It certainly has a lot of luster and I am rather fond of this design

This highlights the point that desirability is not dependent solely on technical grading.

Thanks Peck. I think general weakness in that area of the reverse does make the series more interesting. It is a nice (long term) challenge to find an UNC example fully struck on both sides. Yes, I do prefer my example to this one. This is the type of coin I would not consider buying regardless of its technical grade. It is very difficult to say if the flat ear and end of mustache is due to wear or weak striking. The reverse has a lot of weaknesses too.

Do you have the cert number?

I think the question is how much does weak strike affect the grade. In the traditional strict grading, I think it would be a great deal. I think Peck once made the point that in Spink, the definition of Fine for milled coinage is "a coin that exhibits considerable wear to the raised surfaces of the design, either through circulation, or damage perhaps due to faulty striking." Nowadays, many people are happy to call a weak strike coin UNC if it is lustrous and the loss of details is not due to wear. One can argue that weak strike is part of the minting process and does not affect the grade. I have taken a stronger interest in George V coins lately and have decided not to get involve in these sort of arguments. Hence, I just won't buy a weak strike coin if I can help it. So for me I would certainly prefer your second coin. This is my example of 1917 crown. I brought it quite recently from Colin Cooke. Like yours, there is slight weakness at the top left of the shield which has almost merged with the crown. I did debate with myself if I should wait for a better struck example. However, I decided that since most 1917 are weak in that area and I might have to wait quite a long time to get fully struck example.

I am not certain there is any foul play here. After all, she has not asked at any point if anyone is interested in buying and was trying to sell it in an auction house rather than Ebay.

It was never sold by London Coins and so I guess they probably thought it was a fake.

The coin in question. The discussion on PCGS forum can be found here: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/996983/gold-godless-florin

Don't get your hopes up as it is very unlikely that any of them are actually "rare" and worth anything more than £2 each. The writing on the edge is "right way up" for half the coins minted and "upside down" for the other half. Let's face it, if you can find several "rare" coins in a pot, then you are just as likely to find "rare" coins if you get several bags of £2 from a bank. Do post a photo if you like.

Previously was a bit like the split personality of Gollum and Sméagol Now just a bit like Gollum. Sorry, just can't resist having another poke at them now that they have officially dissolved.

It's more like they have just changed their name by deed poll rather than actual death in any case.

For the record, CGS's death certificate:

I hope it wasn't done by PCGS as they explicitly states that they will never add toning to a coin during their "restoration service".

P70 (I assume PR70) for the 1937 is a typo? Surely no George VI proof can be graded so high?