jaggy

I shall not be bidding at LCA this auction. There is simply too much good quality material at Heritage and DNW so I shall be focusing my efforts there.

No I haven't. For me - and I appreciate that others may have a different point of view - the only advantage of slabbed is for resale. And for that purpose, the US 3rd party graders are orders of magnitude better than CGS.

Thanks for posting. I just spent 30 mins working through lots that might interest me, and there are a couple. However, it would appear that LCA is rapidly becoming a sales channel for CGS slabbed coins which does not interest me in the slightest. If I am going to buy slabbed then I prefer one of the US 3rd party graders as they have a much wider market acceptance. Also, there are very interesting Heritage and DNW auctions coming up and with better material for my collecting focus.

Much appreciated! I was thinking I might have to acquire a few pennies just to participate in the forum.

A rather nice example!

Been looking back at my Charles II sixpences after last night's discussion with Paulus. As I examined my 1677 with the benefit of a blow-up photo which I did not have when I bought the coin in 1992, it occurred to me that it might be the G over O variety (ESC 1516A). I would appreciate the thoughts of others on here.

I for one appreciate the work you did. My view is that the 1678 over 7 and my 1677 come from the same die. And that is the die that gives the G over O or D which is the only variety listed in ESC for 1678. There are two varieties listed for 1677. A 'regular' 1677 (see photo above) and a G over O or D. Consequently, my feeling is that the coin I own is a G over O or D.

This is a 1677 sixpence from the DNW site with a well defined G. To me, it looks like a different die to my 1677 when I compare the two coins. http://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/catalogue-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=140135

I get that. I was just hopeful I might have it. I bought those sets so long ago and not really paid attention to them.

Rushed to check my own UK uncirculated sets ........ I have 1984, 1985 and 1986 ..... but not 1983

I would give it a grade of AUNC.

Actually, I'm going to contradict my own post above. You can get good 'nasal' examples during the war years. Witness this 1918:

That is not dissimilar to my own 1921. I really think the 'flat nose' is a mint issue rather than a wear one. I notice a marked 'nasal improvement' once you get past 1923. For example: Also, pre-war, for example:

Per Davies ....... Reverse A: Colon of FID to bead. Lion has small face. Reverse B: Colon of FID to space. Lion has broad face Your looks like it might be broad face but would want to know where the colon points to.

In addition to Rob's comment, all the George V lions have a nose that look rather flat so I can see how they may appear to be worn. I think it is just the design. Good UNC examples exist for all the years you cite. I know, I have them. I did compare my lions noses for those dates with those for other dates in similar UNC grades and really didn't notice much of a difference although after 1923 is better than before. Edit: there is a difference for 1911 and Davies notes two reverse varieties for that year. Lion with small face and lion with broad face.

That isa nice looking sixpence!

I suspect you are right. The absence of any good examples of G over O at either the London Coins or DNW archives suggests that the variety is rather rare. I will err on the side of caution until I can run a valid comparison.

ESC lists the variety for 1677 and 1678. The 1679 I found in the DNW archive looks like it may have existed in 1679 as well. However, ESC does not list the variety for 1679. There are several 1677 sixpences in the DNW archive that have a good G and quite different to mine. This is one of them: http://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/catalogue-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=150295 Unfortunately, I could not find an archive or image for a G over O for comparison purposes.

Yes. 1681, 1682 & 1683 are all good. It is the similarity between 1677 & 1678 that makes me think it could be a G over O because we know that these exist for the two dates and because ESC only lists this variety (plus the G over D) for 1678.

I don't have either a 1676 or 1679. However, my 1674 Reverse has a well defined G. There is a 1676/5 in the DNW archive where the G is also well defined: http://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/catalogue-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=113626 Also in the DNW archive, 1679 is less well defined and more like my 1677 and 1678. http://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/catalogue-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=146844

1677 Obverse. The G is well defined:

Except that it is very similar to the 1878 - 8 over 7 - which ESC lists as G over O or D:

To illustrate Rob's comment, this is a 1949 Uniface and you can clearly see the rim on the blank side.

You nearly lost me on this one as I almost didn't click. Glad I did, however.

1848 & 1854 are, as you know, a couple of key dates that are missing from my own collection. I am also missing 1863 but that is my own fault as I was too cheap when they came up at auction. Other than that, the 'completionist' in me is interested in the many of the varieties listed in Davies but which are not really referenced in the article. Most of his sixpences are quite nice and coins which I would have no trouble in owning. He does seem to have a bit of a fetish for slabbed coins or at least that is the impression I get from his article.