Red Riley

An 1894 penny. Quite nice - except for the fingerpriints. They gave it an AU78. I gave it AU60 on the Gouby system (where 60 is the % of lustre).

Actually they do come up quite often, usually in high grade as do a lot of these late colonials (1902 and 1913 1/3 farthings being cases in point). Seems most were just put aside as curiosities and hence the survival rate is high. Spink in my opinion seriously overvalues them at £80 (EF) and £185 (Unc.). That's the bad news though, yours looks at least EF and seems to be nicely toned, so imho a nice thing to have even if it's not worth a fortune.

and here's a 1934

Only a small proportion of 1935s seem to have been treated but virtually the whole of 1934. 1934s are notoriously difficult to find in high grade, I suspect because the people who used to put a nice shiny penny away every year, just couldn't find one for 1934 and gave up in despair. The tone of these pennies is usually somewhat lighter and, in my opinion, not quite as attractive as the 1944-46 batch. The alternative explanation as to why the coins were mint toned was simply to prevent hoarding i.e. stopping the likes of you and me collecting the things. Don't forget this was in the middle of the great depression and any wastage of the circulating currency was a drain on the state, which it could ill afford. Judging by the dearth of high grade 1934s, it probably achieved its objective. But why only these two years? Why no halfpennies? Farthings?

I looked at it and immediately thought NEF. These primitive milled coins are a real hybrid but should in my opinion be graded by early milled standards, even though the cut of the portrait is very much as per the hammered series. Actually I thought £311 was on the low side despite the cleaning. Shame I didn't spot it...

Never mind, if it had been, we would all have been expecting a beer.

Paul is actually a decent guy and usually listens to what is said to him. He is also usually worth chatting to in those quiet spots when they're auctioning off share certificates etc.

My thoughts entirely. I know where the line is, but until I see the coin I don't know which side of it a particular coin falls. In this case, it falls the wrong side.

I use wooden cocktail sticks to dig them out.

No. Here's a genuine one in roughly the same condition;

Perhaps somebody tried to get it out of a slab with a hammer...

How very dare you. Best game in the world.

Couldn't agree more.

Happy birthday er... the link is so far up the page I've forgotten. Oh yes, Scott & Debbie!

Thanks Colin, I got that from the erstwhile chairman of the Reading Coin Club, and yes there was quite a difference between the 1894 1d and that florin... I did get one of the pennies from the first tranche, an 1865 which was an absolute belter. I guess everybody cottoned on because the second lot all went for ludicrous prices - far to high for me to make any profit on re-sale. Does anybody know whose collection it was?

I see what you mean Bob, but it's probably the weakest (or from the mint's point of view, the most successful) that I've ever seen.

Being a country bumpkin, I have a regular postie who has become a friend. I am quite happy for him to sign for my packages as a) I trust him and it saves me the 3 mile drive the following day to get it from the sorting office. Where did that bloody smiley come from?

Yes but... here are a couple of cases in point. Both of these were fresh out of a sealed 1970 set. Neither qualify for FDC in my view, and in point of fact, left the mint that way, the first because it's got a couple of minor scratches on the bust and the second because some bozo at the mint has stuck his thumb on it! If these were not proof, you could still describe them as Unc, the first for the reason that 'bag abrasions' are permitted, the second because toning doesn't affect a coin's uncirculated status. But as proof coins, they don't as I have said qualify for FDC, 'uncirculated' goes without saying and really doesn't help us much, GEF implies some wear which they patently haven't got and I really don't want to go down the route of calling them AFDC because that is utter gibberish! So what do I call them? Perhaps I ought to get out more...

Gulp! Guilty as charged - only on occasion though. The reason being that FDC demands perfection and the vast bulk of coins I have seen described this way just haven't been perfect. I am cursed with myopia which means my short range vision is extremely acute and as soon as I look at a coin I see scratches or minor damage of some sort. This can itself be a blessing or a curse, and let's face it nothing made by man is perfect. So where should we draw the line, perfect to the naked eye? with an eyeglass? or should we accept that everything however well-intentioned does contain some flaws? Personally, I think the problem lies in the description for FDC that Spink and others trot out. I would need some time to dream up a more appropriate description but frankly 'perfection' just doesn't wash. In addition to this, I think we do need a second tier for proof coins but don't think PAS is quite right, as it is already used by some dealers to describe the very best currency pieces (e.g. by Michael Gouby on base metal pieces exceeding 95% lustre). This is one area where I think the Sheldon scale has it over traditional grading descriptions, as without resorting to words it is quite possible to bring a coin down ever so slightly from Mount Olympus without damning it with faint praise. In a nutshell therefore I want a better way of describing proof coins without resorting to lies (nothing is 'perfect') or using a soul-less numerical method of grading (the Sheldon scale)!

Not sure I entirely agree with that. 'Unc' for a proof coin always seems anomalous because a proof coin is either perfect or it isn't. Anything which impairs the coin after production is ultimately wear and the next step down should surely be GEF shouldn't it? Traditionally the term 'proof impaired' was used but seems to have gone out of fashion now; nonetheless the term didn't say how much the coin was impaired, so was I guess only of limited use. I have been led to believe that 'Proof' was not a grade at all, rather a reference to the polished and normally superior dies used. While you might expect a Proof coin to be high grade as they are not intended for circulation, the grade of a coin is something completely separate, is it not? I have seen some low-mid grade Proof coins! Quite, and a low grade Proof pocket piece should be graded F, VF etc. Once it has lost its FDC status then its back on the normal grading system.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. 'Unc' for a proof coin always seems anomalous because a proof coin is either perfect or it isn't. Anything which impairs the coin after production is ultimately wear and the next step down should surely be GEF shouldn't it? Traditionally the term 'proof impaired' was used but seems to have gone out of fashion now; nonetheless the term didn't say how much the coin was impaired, so was I guess only of limited use.

She was selling a whole lot of top end pennies last week and I did actually buy one, an 1865. Turned out to be an absolute cracker - virtually BU, which is extremely rare among early buns, so well pleased with my purchase, even if it did take a fair while to reach me.

Reading? Have they got an office there?

Doesn't even look like a plastic reaction as in the field rather than the design which would not have been in contact with the plastic. Might just be some random gunk which may well come off with a wash.

I put a snipe on it, but came up way short. I would however consider something like that for a wide date.