Red Riley

Yes, best of luck Clive. My daughter attempted it a couple of years ago but got altitude sickness half a day from the top.

The 1895 seems to be unusual in that the mintage wasn't that great but a much higher proportion than normal are in high grade.

Maths (or math as you call it) was never my strong point.

According to Peter Kaye, you know you have turned into your dad when you put a stick aside for stirring paint... Sadly I've got loads of paint stirring sticks secreted in various locations but I'm getting to the point now that I forget where I've put them.

A really worthwhile exercise Declan. I wonder if it would be possible to pin this somewhere as it looks extremely useful. Perhaps you should try selling it to Spink's!

It is going to be worth a heck of a lot of money anyway. The best chance of selling well would be to send it to one of the more upmarket auction houses. A lovely coin even if gold isn't quite my thing.

To me you are looking at 95%+ lustre to be BU (which is pretty much Spink's description) and so neither of those would qualify in my book. Any advert for sale for the 1862 should make mention of the horrible black stain on both sides, especially the reverse. But I agree with 400, calling things BU is a habit I should like to kick.

I like the concept of the bid and offer price, after all that's how equities, unit trusts etc. are traded. Perhaps we should move to a similar system, the only problem being that a 40% bid/offer spread doesn't look too enticing in the cold light of day!

This coin has wear wear in odd places, the right hand and drapery to the right of the shield which is actually unusual whereas the visor doesn't show that much wear. The shoulder is quite bold and although the breast is comparatively flat, this is an area that can often be weakly struck. After due consideration I would class it as NEF, the obverse probably being much the same given the comparative completeness of the ear. But as I said before, AU it ain't!

I would have to say that with their shallow portraiture and uniformly dark patina, 26MEs are among the hardest coins to photograph successfully. Perhaps Ski could give us some advice!

Hi Huss, I did try to send you a personal message but I think your inbox is full. My message though isn't really personal, and so this is what I was going to say; 'That's a really good guide and you should be congratulated, so my comments are restricted to one minor suggestion and one typo. Firstly, under 'Buy from sellers with good feedback' you have stated 'true (not 'too') good to be true'. Secondly, in my experience blurry pictures and only a few transactions (i.e. somebody who doesn't buy and sell much on e-bay) can be a good way of getting bargains. However, blurry pictures and feedback in the thousands points towards the seller deliberately attaching a poor image, and therefore ay potential purchase should be treated with extreme caution. Hope this helps. Derek'

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that the highest grade coins are always the rarest, which means that pricewise what middle grade coins there are tend towards the unc rather than the fine price. I think however that this rule of thumb applies to coins in which the overall supply is strictly limited - the 1918KN penny and 1946/49 threepences being good examples. With the reasonably common Victorian pennies where mid-grade coins are abundant, the opposite applies.

It's not that much better than VF! Perhaps between VF and EF at most. I'd rate it a £250 - £300 coin. Reverse looks pretty much EF, but you aren't buying the reverse on a 26ME. I will be charitable and say that the photograph may not do the obverse justice, although the ear doesn't seem to show that much wear. AU though? Hmmm...

Strangely this basic principle is probably also true for any KG5 penny, it's just that we don't notice it. Most coins were collected from circulation either around the date of issue or much later on when they were likely to be withdrawn at any time. When was the last time you saw a GVF 1914?

On the other hand, too many or long a password is a virtual guarantee that you will forget it/them as I know by bitter experience! I now use as short a password as possible for sites such as this one where it really doesn't matter, reserving the longer and more forgetable password for something important such as my bank account - still no guarantee I won't forget it though...

Personally I don't subscribe to the view that insurance is a waste of time and money - for coins and other valuable items at any rate. Frankly, the days when insurers could hide behind Clause 13b(vi) on page 5 of the small print have long gone. Much legislation has been passed in recent years ensuring that this won't happen. If you answer all the questions on the proposal form truthfully then you should be OK. In the event that you file a claim and are not getting satisfaction from your insurer, then you have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service. I am a bit of an insider here as I spent a couple of years working for the ombudsman, and far from feeling that they did not uphold sufficient complaints, my main frustration was undeserving individuals filing dubious claims, having them upheld by a lenient ombudsman on scanty evidence and effectively raping the system. Where the ombudsman did get a slightly dubious reputation was on the time-barring of complaints in such as the Pensions Mis-selling or Mortgage Endowment Reviews, but this was outside the ombudsman's control, the time-frames being set by parliament. On a slightly different tack, you are asking for trouble if you don't have decent home security. If you have a collection worth say, £50k, isn't it reasonable to invest £3-4k in a decent safe and intruder alarm? Of course, most collections won't be worth this much, and where you draw the line is entirely up to you, but it certainly gives you peace of mind. Additionally, good security will make your insurance cheaper. It is easy to be cynical about all these safeguards, but in my view that is misplaced and for your own benefit, you really should think hard about protecting what is a substantial investment.

You'd need to be a cockney to understand that one.

Couldn't agree more. One of the worst I think. Frankly, very little from 1937 onwards (bar the farthings) really cut the mustard. Am I just a grumpy old man monotonously saying, 'things aren't as good as they used to be...'? Anyway, back to the subject, I did dabble in both types of collection, eventually having a complete penny run from 1797 to 1970, as well as more than three-quarters of the milled types. In the end, I also went in for European and USA coins, but then the money ran out...

The big issue for me is that what had once been a coin is now a lump of ugly plastic with a sterile, untouchable coin in it.

Happy birthday Bob. Don't strain yourself blowing out all the candles!

No colon dots after F:D. Peck 1623a, Gouby 1860 Type T. Took me ages to realise though.

Most 1934s were still in GF-VF condition in 1971 whereas 12Hs were generally pretty grim by that stage, although unlike 18 and 19 H/KN (especially KNs) were still fairly common in circulation.

This is a go and hide in the air-raid shelter moment. I have a copy of Peck, not because it looks nice but because it is useful. I paid a three figure sum for it and as things stand, consider that good value. Frankly however, I would be just as happy with a loose life binder full of photocopied sheets (now there's a thought...). I am not an antiquarian and in my view a book is there to convey information. In the unlikely event that pressure from those of us who have 'invested' in copies of Peck on the secondhand books market prevented Spink or whoever from re-printing the book at a reasonable price, then surely we would be guilty of denying information to those who might need it, purely to protect our investment. Call me old-fashioned but that just don't seem right to me.

Wasn't Chris involved in some project to re-issue Peck? Might be worth trawling through the old postings.

Not for me. A number struck over a different number e.g. 1865 over 3 is fine but a 9 over another 9 just doesn't float my boat.