Sword

I do find it rather ironic that her title is "Unidentified Variety" when her "variety" appears to have been identified... Might be we need a new category "Identified Variety: "

Well done for telling them and I am pleased that they have integrity and removed the lot. Surely you didn't really expect a "thank you" from them? My confidence in LCA have been shaken by the way they closed CGS and by the reduced quality of their auction descriptions. At least they are like the last banana in the fruit bowl; not all bad.

I have just noticed that if you click on the "sign up" button on the CGS web site, it is now asking an annual membership fee of £99! http://www.coingradingservices.co.uk/?page=signup It is not clear what benefit you get from having membership beyond being able to view their population reports etc. and this is hardly worth £99 a year. I have got my free membership some years ago and will definitely not keep it if CGS were to ask me for money. If they were to insist on having paid membership to slab coins in the future, then I am done with them.

Might be you should e-mail them and see how they respond. Another illustration of the reduced standard of LCA descriptions. No mention of that cut on the head.

Not this one ...

At least they have decided to correct some of their errors now.

"according to the LCGSValuations By Grade." i.e. their valuations and not Spink's. Rather unfortunately their valuations are sometimes way over the top. Some of the coins I slabbed with CGS in the past were given CGS values of three times what I paid. And to be fair to them, they do occasionally give realistic values.

Not as far as I know but I have not used them since the demise of CGS. It still states "Charges per coin are the greater of the flat fee or 2% of the coins value after grading and according to the LCGS Valuations By Grade. The flat fee £15.75 per coin." on their website. However, their LCGS' charges for hammered have never been clear cut.

Mike is right in that they should have checked it (even if quickly) before it went online. I am not trying to be cynical but I am not certain if they could be bothered to correct all those mistakes. After all, they couldn't be bothered to fix the LCGS section of their website. There are still numerous mentions of CGS Ltd and missing photos. And it is only 16 days to the auction. The mistakes won't matter soon ...

Impressive that you have worked it out!

There are probably dozens (and I am not joking) of errors of the same type. Now I can understand why the catalogue was described as a train wreck.

Care with spelling Guy. At least you only missed out one letter rather than two. Might be Nordle11 can correct the typo?

Love that portrait. I think the double struck bell mint mark is kind of cute rather than distracting. If only there is no flan split.

I didn't realise that they do until now. This guy is proud of his low grading at PR45. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1906-25C-PF45-lowest-graded-example-POP1-CIRCULATED-will-not-EVER-find-another-/132069897483?hash=item1ebffab50b%3Ag%3AiI4AAOSwmLlX2Fwz

I agree with Dave that they were particularly careless this time. Whilst mistakes are unavoidable, even the most cursory inspection would find these odd photos in the hammered section. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=1722&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=1816&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=1817&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue I wouldn’t say it’s quite a bad as a train wreck, more like Windows 8 when it was first released.

Exactly. It really should be rejected by TPGs.

The metal needs to react with substance(s) for toning to form. I don't believe light on its own can cause the loss of lustre but it can accelerate the reactions of metals with substances in the air. Alternatively the lustre will be hidden if something like particles in cigarette smoke are deposited on the surface. I remember Rob mentioning that a coin of his remained lustrous for hundreds of years as it were trapped in the bottom of a glass tumbler. If I have a valuable lustrous bronze coin, I would probably want to slab it just to reduce the chances of it tarnishing.

I have noticed that too and was also surprised by the grading. I wonder why do people use phrases like "nearer EF than VF" in the first place when GVF or NEF are available. By the way I think you have a superb shilling there Dave. To be fair to LCA, many would say yours is quite a bit better than GVF

I have asked before and they e-mailed me the photos (but it was for a more expensive lot). However, I don't trust their descriptions enough these days to be buying blind. Have a look at lot 2295 "Halfcrown 1887 Young Head ESC 717 UNC and graded 78 by LCGS". If they didn't mention the rim damage at 10 o'clock, they might not want to mention a range of other defects either.

I love the Wreath Crown design and think it is Kruger Gray's best work. It was also a very original design and has deservedly achieved iconic status. This idea of plants coming out of a coronet was no doubt inspired by the excellent works of Leslie Durbin shown on the 1984-87 pound coins. I really like Durbin's works and the only set of decimal coins I have brought was the 1984-87 four coins piedfort.

This is a photo of the original design. Apparently there were more than 6000 entries including adults. The design was then refined by the coin artist David Lawrence. Don't get me wrong. I am very pleased for him and I think it is a totally fantastic for a 15 year old to win the competition. However, if I am honest, it really just look like the work of a (talented) schoolboy rather than a pro. I understand that he tried to be PC and so the leek, rose, thistle and shamrock are similar in size. But it just look odd for the leek to be the same size as say the shamrock. For me, the coronet is also out of proportion to the plants. The rose, thistle, shamrock and leek are somehow just sitting next to each other without any sort of interlinking. The quality of the engraving (which has nothing to do with his design) just doesn't do it for me. Then again, many of the modern designs also look rather poor. That's why I don't collect modern RM offerings!

Great photos. Thanks! I do get the impression that museums don't always treat their rare coins well unfortunately ...

I laugh at the cheap and ridiculous scams some people try to pull nowadays. If you Google "Nicky123 Coins", you will find that another and perhaps unrelated Nicky123 has posted " I have to unfortunately sell my collection of UNDATED 20p COINS Mint Condition: More than 500 pieces Very Good Condition: 150 pieces ... " in another forum. The said person has since claimed that she has received a "good offer". Someone then posted "And now they're miraculously sold, without any proof. Congratulations; you win 'Least Convincing Scam, February 2017". http://thesilverforum.com/topic/8037-undated-20p-received-a-good-offer/#comment-104302 Oh, I found two 1933 pennies when sorting out old coins ... I wonder if they are valuable .... anyone interested?

This post suggests that they were collected in change. But no one can believe that it is possible to find 700 that way... Rob's post really says it all.

I think any coin with a UIN of less than 25000 would have the traditional grade (e.g. EF70, AU75, AU78, (or EF75 & EF78 for early slabs)) stated on the slab unless it has been re-slabbed later on. CGS dropped the prefix grading letters after march 2013. Hence UIN of 9285 would certainly have UNC 80 stated on the slab unless it has been reholdered.