Sword

September LCA catalogue now out for those interested.

I am rather suspicious with it as the seller couldn't give a decent description. It's a Scotland Charles I 30 shillings, Falconer's issue. Instead it's described as a "17 century Great Britain half crown". Besides he has got three feedbacks from people complaining about fakes / possible fakes. I think the price of £390 is high even if the coin is genuine. This Falconer's issue was milled rather than hammered and so do generally show more details.

Looks like LCGS no longer believes in slabbing hammered coins. They are selling all their milled coins slabbed on their website but all the hammered are now sold raw. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=retail_coins&cat=7

I rather like this table as TPG (or FPG in the case of LCGS) tend to pretend their numbers convert to excessively high raw grades. As a minor point, I think MS67-70 merit a stronger adjective than "choice". MS64 or CGS82 for UNC sounds about right. CGS 80 can have a bit too much cabinet friction (aka wear) to be called UNC in strict grading in my view. (I would suggest CGS 80-78/75 as About UNC rather than just 80) MS60 = EF sounds about right too.

I cringed when I saw it for the first time. Then I decided it isn't so bad. The slightly bowed head, the rather shy demeanour, and big simile does remind one of Diana. I still don't like looking at it though.

Exactly and the art deco rocking horse crown is iconic. It is also very cheap compared to the earlier crowns. You can get a currency, specimen or a RE proof depending on your budget. Personally, I think a silver denomination set is just less exciting without the biggest coin.

1935 is also a year to consider. The designs look nice and the coins are relatively low priced. Come to think of it, I have unintentionally made a start on a 1935 denomination set and have got the crown (both the proof and currency), halfcrown and florin. I do like the modified effigy and the florin design in particular. I also think these 0.5 silver coins have been coated with a layer of pure silver and BUNC examples are attractive.

I remember when I was at university, one of the lecturers shown us a scientific paper with an author called Ding Dong.

Indeed. Seriously, I agree it is best left alone especially as the queen wasn't exactly " aesthetically pleasing looking" in her eighties. (But she is and always will be well-loved by the nation!)

I personally prefer high grades than rare dates. So if I am going for a denomination set, I would go for 1893, 1897, 1900 or 1902, to keep cost down. For Edward VII, you can only get a crown in 1902. The 1902 halfcrown and florin can be obtained in AU or UNC at much lower prices than other dates.

It is indeed a shame. But I am not too sorry for the buyer in this case as anyone thinking that he can buy a high grade genuine Elizabeth I shilling for $25 is just stupid or blinded by greed.

"near mint copy of the Mundy coin a real collectors item ! it will be sent 1st class recorded delivery signed for if won, thanks"

Looks rather crude to me but better looking than some copies I guess. The seller gave his address as Moussaieff [Jewellers] Hilton , 22 Park lane, London. I do find this very hard to believe especially when the item is supposed to be in Hong Kong and Moussaieff sells very expensive jewellery.

Have a look at: https://www.pcgs.com/eyeappeal/ Apparently, PCGS does take account of toning as part of their "eye appeal" assessment when assigning the grade. Supposedly, MS or PR 66 must have "above average" eye-appeal. High end coins for the grade, i.e. "plus" grades, cannot have negative or below average eye appeal for the grade. Can't say I agree with them on some of the examples they gave. Personally, I find their two Morgan dollars with rainbow toning assessed with positive eye appeal positively ugly. The Peace Dollar with "below average" eye appeal is terrible but the reverse of the Morgan dollar with the lower category of "negative" eye appeal looks kind of OK to me.

That's why one should buy the coin and not the number! And buying a slabbed coin unseen can be a big mistake.

Sorry. My mistake

I did not find one in the circa 40 checked. Problem is that if this variety becomes better known, then you will have people hammering out the nickel-plated centre in order to produce them. I think it would be fun if the Royal Mint had deliberately produced a rarer variety (say 1 in 1000) and put them into circulation. This would generate a lot of interest in the new £1 coins.

Some were posted here previously http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/7018-crowns/?page=21

I would imagine that weight has historically been more important than diameter when it comes to coins?

Sterling silver and 0.5 silver don't have the same density (0.5 silver is less dense). Assuming they have the same weight, then the diameter and /or thickness must be different. I remember trying to put a currency 1935 crown into a proof crown box and it didn't fit. The hole was too small for the currency crown.

No, frosting is the norm for 1935 RE proof crowns. This example (sold by LCA) shows it very nicely.

My own examples: 1927 proof crown with no frosting 1935 RE crown with frosting (but the mirrored surfaces have toned making this less obvious)

The 1935 Raised Edge Proof crowns are generally frosted (but I have read this is not always the case for the later struck examples). The wreath crowns are generally not frosted but Vicky Silver have posted one with minimal frosting.

He is also trying to sell a circulated 2016 base metal £2 coin for £1500! http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Shakespeare-Coin-/112516457181?hash=item1a3280e2dd:g:5BwAAOSw9EZZilQT

Glad to hear it. It is always a nice surprise when the coin you get looks better than the seller's photos.