Red Riley

I'm not sure to be honest, I haven't heard anything either way ? I e-mailed them yesterday. They've not got round to sending out the invoices yet but if you haven't been informed that you've been outbid, then you won. Or at least that's the theory.

It wouldn't be worth any more in cash terms as a variety for the same basic reasons as your half sovereign which is that there are insufficient collectors of the series with deep pockets. But a 6/5 would have a numismatic value as our knowledge base would be extended, i.e. the 1765 die was made but never used. I've got one in EF Rob. Message me your e-mail again and I'll put it as an attachment.

I just sold two of these, they didn't make big bucks but as soon as I'd posted them off I rather regretted it; actually rather nice 'big' coins and there's plenty of detail on the obverse.

... Tandoori

Yes and no.

Is it just me that half hopes the public regain their senses and they end up being stuck with it?

Unfortunately they are all deceased.

I was watching 'Take Your Pick'...

But it is way out of line, the foreman (or whoever) will have spotted it and insisted that it be re-cut. What Rob says is perfectly true, there has to be a substantial following for a type of variety to make it valuable and letters re-cut letters seldom fire the juices. There is one exception that springs to mind and that is the 1860 'N over sideways N' penny but that is 90 degrees out whereas this is maybe 5 or 6. If you wanted to try your arm, maybe advertise it as 'V over misaligned V - unrecorded variety' and see if you get any interest.

I think the best way to tell whizzed copper/bronze is that the 'lustre' (or whatever you want to call it!) is just too even and looks false. If you don't return the coin it will rapidly tarnish in a most unattractive way. This is why I am always very suspicious of hundred year old coins with 'full mint lustre' and no toning. In real life it don't happen. What makes it worse is that frequently the whizzing is not done with wire but on a buffing wheel and the scratches can only be seen with careful scrutiny. Learn from one who has been caught!

Normally dealers work on the basis of buying a coin for around 60% of its market value; less for common coins which will sit in stock for years (and they do), more for rarer or more desirable coins which they would hope to turn over quickly. E-bay is by far the cheapest way to sell but I would be a bit hesitant to put my best coins on there and buyers seem reluctant to buy more expensive coins that way. At the end of the day, you are faced with the choice of selling to somebody who will aim to make a profit or getting yourself involved in a great deal of hassle to seel your coins direct to the end customer. You pays your money...

Michael's equivalent of BU is PAS, although it is a grade he seldom allocates and I will agree this is far closer to the Spink definition of Unc than that used by virtually anybody else, although the nomenclature is different. He evangelised the system in his book 'The British Bronze Penny 1860-1970' but subsequently amended it slightly. It is a system I have always used for my own collection and will continue to use.

I suppose the question to be asked on the gold coin you mention above is, 'who got it right?'. Auction houses deal with 1000s of coins at a time and will therefore make mistakes. Gold is probably the most difficult metal to grade because of its relative lack of toning and I can accept EF instead of NEF but no two professionals should disagree to the extent of one calling a coin VF and the other EF. Your final paragraph re the 1902LT is a practical example of what concerns me with the type of pictures CCC use. As you have clearly demonstrated, a tiny spot of verdigris can be the difference between buying and leaving on the shelf. If they use that type of illustration it is incumbent upon them to mention any shortcomings in the blurb. Personally, I would have to say that although I haven't bought much from CCC, I have nonetheless been satisfied with what little I have bought. Despite my rather heated spat with VickyS, I have found the discussion on lustre an interesting one. I am not a luddite but am still of the opinion that buyers perceive lustre as original untoned surface and a dealer who describes a coin as 'full lustre, some toning' is in an untenable position. Perhaps as Peckris says there is a difference in perception between the UK and the US on this point but I would say that I feel other's comments on the subject have vindicated my view, from a UK perspective at least. A couple more not entirely unrelated points. I recently had to catalogue 72 uncirculated 20th century pennies, and excluding the 7 1934s and 1944-46s I only managed to grade 4 of them BU (or in my eyes 'fully lustrous coins'!), a 1938 and 3x 1961-67s. Curiously I often see 1938s in this condition, far more than any other date, presumably one of the reasons they are worth buttons. All the others were AU90(%) downwards. Some while back I conducted an experiment in toning polished coins (I would state that I didn't polish them!) with a toning fluid called 'Tourmaline'. The results were OK but what I actually got was coins with shiny toning which needed further work to make them look like circulated pennies (i.e. distressing them by carrying them in my pocket with the loose change). Looking at Huss's illustration I can only believe this effect was caused by both the valleys and the peaks being completely filled by a very smooth layer of toning whereas with natural toning the surface is much rougher with the odd peak breaking through.

I would call it EF5 - not quite 15 - and in this case the residual lustre is red. Actually quite an attractive coin I feel.

Yes sorry, this has all got carried away a bit, but I guess in Oscar Wilde's terms 'there is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about'. One lot I will not be bidding on is number 37. When I saw it I had to do a double take as I have its absolute twin. Not only is it in the same condition (I think mine's a bit better but I would say that wouldn't I?) but I also have the same die cracks evident on the reverse at 12 o'clock and in the exergue, so the two coins would have been minted at almost exactly the same time from a reverse die that was not long for this world. Other than the die cracks, the coins are exceptionally well struck and it is curious that neither coin seems to have entered circulation. There is probably an interesting story to be told here, but we'll never know...

You can quote 'science' all you like but in the final analysis the issue is still very simple. If a coin has any toning at all it cannot be described as having full lustre. Just answer these two questions; 1) Why are coins frquently described as having 'lustre in legend'? I mentioned this in an earlier post but you did not reply to it; 2) Have a look at Michael Gouby's website (http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/). Why do you think he describes all his high grade bronze as AU50, AU70 etc.?

It's simple . Does the coin have all the original sheen it had when it was made? Yes/no. Everything else is obfuscation.

I don't know whose definition of lustre you are referring to by saying that proof coins do not have it, certainly not one I have seen. Proof coins tone in the same way as business strikes, the main difference being in the preparation of the blanks and the dies which may be sand, shot or bead blasted. As such I can see no fundamental difference between the shine of a proof specimen and that of a business strike, the only difference being one of quality. The term 'full red' is seldom used in Europe and is in itself confusing as the tone is usually not red at all! With a little practice it is easy to see the difference between lutre and an artificially polished surface. A coin which has toned does not by most people's definition have lustre - hence the reason one often sees such descriptions as, 'a little lustre remaining in legend'. The surface may be undamaged, it may even look more attractive than a completely untoned specimen, but does it have lustre? Not in my book.

I'm sorry but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My view (and I believe that of most collectors) is that lustre is that surface shininess which appears on a coin as a result of the minting process and which, given the correct storage conditions will persist pretty much indefinitely. Full lustre = BU or PAS or whatever you want to call it. Anything less can be presented with a percentage figure e.g. 50, 60 or 70% lustre; others prefer to use such terms as 'subdued' or 'degraded' lustre. Whatever you want to call it, that which is not lustre is toning (or in the case of damaged coins, bare metal) and it is therefore not logical to describe a coin with such a phrase as 'full lustre, lightly toning'.

You've pretty much stated my view, Peck. I think expressions such as 'full lustre' or 'BU' should be incredibly sparingly used or the industry will lose credibility. In my view Victorian pennies that I would describe in those terms are very rare indeed - I don't think I've ever owned one and I can't even really recall seeing more than the odd one. To be honest I like a little toning on my pennies as I feel that it can give a coin character, but also blazing lustre is pretty hard to preserve and I would always be a little concerned that the coin would tone when I wasn't looking!

To be honest, almost anything with lustre (e.g. 57, 60, 66, 70). I don't believe it is meant to deceive in any way, but all the lustrous coins look rather like caricatures of themselves and almost as if they have been painted by hand. I don't know whether it's Photoshop or some other package they use, but in the final analysis I would rather see a more realistic result, warts and all. Won't stop me bidding though!

Perhaps I'm being a miserable old git but I do find the photographs on both the website and in the catalogue too heavily 'shopped to be overly useful and one more thing, one or two coins are described something like this; 'full lustre, lightly toning'. So that's not full lustre then. I know Colin Cooke's are a thoroughly professional outfit but I jut felt they could have done better in those areas.

Sixpence probably...(sixpences are about 20mm., shillings about 25mm.). NF-F I'd give it. Either way £3.50 is a bargain. Please pat yourself on the back! Sizes really didn't change that much - the last issue shilling being 24mm.

Far from being a legal expert, but I believe the law only applies to professional sellers, everything else is a 'grey area'.

Try this for 'To Hanover'; http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/coins.html. You may need to use the 'Find' function. Courtesy Tony Clayton