Sword

CGS is making a real mistake if they doesn't listen to their star supporter Bill Pugsley. The trouble is that when a few of their big customers pay the £499 fee, it will be harder for CGS to make changes (as they might have to make some sort of refund to them).

They are the only UK based TPG company. I guess the slabbing concept is not popular enough here to tempt anyone else from starting. Hypothetically, I wonder if Spink could back a new TPG? Their grading is well respected and they are publishing price guides already.

I think you are right that they don't have the staffing to cope with the number of submissions. (Hence the three months turnaround time). As far as I know the graders are employed by London Coins and they grade for CGS in their "spare time". Could it be that they now have enough big customers and don't want ( or can't manage) the additional business of the occasional slabbers? I slab 1-3 coins a year with them and so I too am out as there is no way I will hand over £499.

I was in the British Museum recently and took some photos of the Gothic Crown dies. They are on loan to the BM from the Royal Mint Museum. (There is a hairline crack at 10 o'clock on the obverse die.)

According the information from the British Museum: The dies were made by Norbert Roettier, the Engraver General of the English mint appointed by the exiled Stuarts. The year of manufacture was 1708 and just after the failed invasion attempt by James III. These coin dies and this coin are the only known examples of the dies and coins ordered by James III on this occasion.

Glad to see that the images are well liked. I am attaching a few more photos of dies and matrices (thanks to VS for teaching me the term) taken on the same date. The quality of the photos are not unfortunately not great (I had to use a zoom lens through display cabinets and was not allowed to use a flash).

Nice coins and some very nice toning. The grades (from the PCGS website) are: 1902 crown MS64 1893 crown MS64 1758 shilling AU58 1743 crown AU58 1698 halfcrown The PCGS website is really messed up here and thinks that this certificate number is a 1868 American one cent!

Die crack shown in last photo.

Look forward to seeing more of your notes I think most coin collectors have at least some interest in other forms of money!

Nice error note and I don't remember seeing one with inverted numbers before. I don't collect notes and have just brought one a long time ago to frame up.

I very much enjoy reading my copy of the new ESC. It's very interesting to see images of patterns not available to collectors in particular. One thing I have noticed is that they have missed out (probably unintentionally) the meaning of the rarity terms like S, R1, R2 etc. That's of little importance of course since everyone know the definitions already and most would have the 5th edition. However, I think it would be very useful (but would probably be too much work in practice) if it specifies the rarity of grades that collectors want to know. For example, the 1746 LIMA halfcrown is given a rarity factor of C3 (very common). However, I don't care about how many worn pieces are available but would be interested to know the rarity of an EF or UNC example. I also don't understand the rarity factors allocated to certain coins. For example the proof RE rocking horse crown is given a rarity of R and they are readily available in auctions. The proof Arabic I double florin is given a rarity factor S despite a lower mintage. Also The Roman I which is so much rarer is also given the same R factor.

Every time I am in Oxford, I can't resist dropping into the Ashmolean Museum to have a look at the Oxford Crowns on display. Unfortunately, the Heberden coin room can only be visited by appointment. Nevertheless, there are still a number of impressive / interesting pieces in the permanent exhibits. I have attached a few photos just in case they are of any interest.

Photos are allowed.

For the sake of completeness, the rest of the rarity grades are R3 (extremely rare), R2 (very rare), R (rare), S (scarce), N (normal), C (common), C2 (Very common) and C3 (extremely common)

I just don't understand how TPGs interpret the Sheldon scale sometimes. The crown is extremely attractive indeed. However, MS 60 is supposed to have bad eye appeal, lots of contact marks etc. which is clearly not the case here. It appears that coins with a trace of wear but has good eye appeal can be given low MS grades by TPGs in contrary to the definitions of the Sheldon scale.

I have read on p285 (on George III crowns) that there is a "W (Wyon) on buckle". I confess I didn't know about this before. After checking out my crown and a bit googling, surely it must be letters WWP ( on three sides of the buckle) referring to William Wellesley Pole and not Wyon?

It's like saying "it's REAL money, providing you don't try to spend it" It wonder if you can pay your taxes with them. i.e. do taxes count as "debts" to the government?

I have read that they were wiped at the mint. Does anyone know why they did it? Nice set by the way. I particularly like the crown.

It would be really great if you could post photos of some of your best currency coins (i.e. those that can be pass as proof). I would love to see how good currency coins can get.

I too wonder why he wanted to keep his identity secret in the first place. If I ever accumulate a nice collection, I certainly want it to be named after me when I eventually dispose of it.

I think the term "finest known" is simply misleading and "finest graded by ..." is a lot more accurate. Having said that as (Mike as pointed out), it's meaningless unless a sufficient number of coins have been graded. I suppose they can do worse and call coins with a population report "1 of 1" as the "only example known".

This 1887 is CGS 75