Colin G.

Thanks folks.......someone please tell me it's true about life beginning at 40!!

You are certainly in the right part of the country for detecting, do you frequent any of the detecting forums? I am on a couple

I would guess at Berwick for the mint although the moneyer looks different...ROCT? Is it supposed to be Robert?

Red, George is one of Charles' names, and I also heard the same thing...that he wants to Crowned as George. There are rumors that he may "pass" in favor of his son...what do you think? Pass what? Wind? That is not how it works. Charlie will just have to have a short reign, assuming he outlives his mum Victoria 64 years.. Edward VII 9 years.. Elizabeth II 62 years and counting.. George VII ??.. I see a pattern here. Wonder what Wills will call himself? Katesman I? I understand Wills is also contemplating calling himself George...

Happy new year fellow coinies !!!

And that is my point,a quick look at CGS shows that many of the George III proofs achieve a grade of 82-88 with hardly any going higher, therefore they must be on a much stricter points scale and getting deductions at a higher rate than a currency coin.

Well that is what is I hoped someone would say, otherwise what is the point of a 1-100 scale if only the top grades can be achieved by proof coins, while proof is not a grade?Does anyone have an example of a non-proof CGS 'fdc' coin? Still feels like a bit of an oxymoron ... Edit: our posts crossed Nick, do you have a take as to how an fdc description can apply to a non-proof coin? I'm sure special dies were not created for the 20thC VIP proofs, more likely first strikes on prepared flans and PROOF is NOT A GRADE - grade by definition is a measure of wear And as we've been told by the likes of Michael Gouby, nor is UNC a grade - it's a state, of a currency coin that shows no sign of circulation. The year doesn't matter. No-one is going to judge a coin solely on the comparative state of the year digits. On the other hand,, there is nearly always a proof for that denomination type, that an UNC coin of another year can be judged against. I would suggest that the top levels of the scale should be reserved only for proofs, along with the term FDC. A currency strike using proof dies might creep into the bottom of the proof scale but no higher. 'Impaired' proofs should no longer be judged as proofs (unless still markedly superior), especially if they've circulated, in which case they should be judged as currency pieces. I do agree with your comments, however I am just trying to explain that perhaps the reasoning for 5 levels of FDC is that using the same process as the currency coins there is inevitably some difference in the quality of proofs. Therefore how low can a proof go before it would become impaired? I should imagine that a proof could drop down the ladder quicker than a currency strike will rise up the ladder, therefore if they are placed on the same 100 point scale inevitably you will get a crossover whereby a proof drops into the perceived "currency" section of the scale

Wholeheartedly agree

Welcome to the forum

...and The Daily Mail, which does all the European thinking for a vast swathe of the population. At least they do slightly more thinking on Europe than the 3 'main' parties So you say. I vehemently disagree. The likes of the Mail have turned this country into a nation of Euro-phobes since 1975 (when we collectively voted to stay in), fed by a swathe of urban myths typified by the famous Yes, Minister episode about the 'traditional British sausage'. Just to throw one single fact at you : we, in this supposedly enlightened economy, have the lowest proportion of retirement pension compared to average wage, of any EU member. That makes you happy? It doesn't me. Nor do pro-Murdoch rants from the red-tops. I have to say I was only the tender age of 1 at the time, and never got to have my input on the situation, and have never been able to since. Yet I have to vote every 4ish years to decide who I want to run the country. For those of you who voted in 1975 that is great you made your decision, for the generations that have followed should we not also have the opportunity to have a say?

No, it isn't. A quick look at the population report shows the occasional 90 or 91 for a non-proof. Oops I just realised I posted that 88 was what I thought was the highest for a currency strike, and then realised I have a currency farthing that was slabbed at 90 Out of the bundle I acquired a couple of years ago, I did submit a few that I had cherry picked as a bit of an exercise, and whilst the majority did grade at 82 or 85, I did manage an 88 and one 90. I suppose for the proofs, it is a bit tough, because I would anticipate it would be much easier for a proof to drop points than it would for a currency coin, so do you have a separate scale for proofs, or accept that a low scoring proof is potentially still going to be better in terms of detail etc that its currency counterpart at the same score. I don't have the answer just wanted to make an observation

It seems pretty odd to me that the absolute pinnacle that is FDC can manage to span 6 grade numbers at the top of the table. So that's FDC, FDC and a bit, FDC and some, FDC with knobs on, ... What's more, their top 4 numbers all equate to Sheldon 70 - would the Americans accept their absolute pinnacle can be further subdivided by 4? And strictly, should only be applied to proofs. The highest grade for a non-proof is BU or UNC. Which would prompt me to ask whether CGS 88 is the highest achievable grade for a non-proof! I believe it is, but don't quote me on that

Chris, I have sent you a bundle of farthing images through, feel free to use them if they are suitable

Can't beat an early cuppa, Happy Christmas to you all!!!

I would guess it may be taken from a specimen (Brilliant Uncirculated set).

I'm glad you didn't say beaver!

Again I emphasise that I agree with drawing a line...but it is very difficult to do once you start looking into the subject in depth. I find this topic of discussion very interesting, because as a variety collector, and also with my website I find I am constantly reviewing my understanding of micro varieties and parameters for what I consider worthy of inclusion or exclusion. With the above quote from Rob I find it fascinating that most will accept all four digits being cut individually (such as the narrow date pennies) but challenge a variety that is based on the position of a last digit. Why is it acceptable when all four digits are in a different position, but not when the last one has been cut in a different position. There are several examples through the bronze series where the last two digits were positioned, and I could probably dig out examples where three of the four digits may have differing positions....(1879 farthings come to mind)...is that worthy of inclusion? Please don't think I am being pedantic, but it is important for me to get an understanding of where other collectors think the line should be drawn, and I appreciate such a wide range of views...it makes interesting reading In the case of pennies, the so called 'narrow date versions' of 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877 and 1879 are from totally different dies to their normal or wide date counterparts, with other design changes being incorporated too. I don't think these can be considered in the same way as otherwise identical dies, where just the date position is altered. The former are separately listed in Spink and, I believe, should be included in any reasonably detailed price guide. The latter are for specialist publications like Gouby. Edit: I think Rob has just said the same. Thanks for the clarification, that's the trouble when you are housed in a farthing bubble

VS I agree wholeheartedly, a price guide should just be that, and then specialist publications should break the subject down into the deeper layers (as Rob described it).

It certainly has a ring to it

Again I emphasise that I agree with drawing a line...but it is very difficult to do once you start looking into the subject in depth. I find this topic of discussion very interesting, because as a variety collector, and also with my website I find I am constantly reviewing my understanding of micro varieties and parameters for what I consider worthy of inclusion or exclusion. With the above quote from Rob I find it fascinating that most will accept all four digits being cut individually (such as the narrow date pennies) but challenge a variety that is based on the position of a last digit. Why is it acceptable when all four digits are in a different position, but not when the last one has been cut in a different position. There are several examples through the bronze series where the last two digits were positioned, and I could probably dig out examples where three of the four digits may have differing positions....(1879 farthings come to mind)...is that worthy of inclusion? Please don't think I am being pedantic, but it is important for me to get an understanding of where other collectors think the line should be drawn, and I appreciate such a wide range of views...it makes interesting reading

There are two possibilities for the 8 over 8, one of which is to prolong the life of the die after blockage or the second is crap engraving skills, but I would have difficulty deciding which is which. The overdate on the other hand is a clear decision to reuse an existing die. And if it is done to prolong the life of a die, why is that any different to the decision to re-use an existing die. The process and also the reasoning behind the process would be exactly the same, however the overdate will inevitably always be more collectable because of its visual distinction.

I agree with Rob in terms of a standard price guide, which should just give an details on intentional design changes, but would also exclude overdates from that list. If you are willing to accept an 8/7 because it is re-use of a die, then you should also accept an 8 recut with an 8 because in terms of the process it is no different. Why would one be more acceptable than the other? I think as long as any publication clarifies what are its defining parameters then there should not really be an issue.

Very nice

I tend to look at it from a different perspective...if I choose to buy a coin that is going in my collection, I do not see any harm with trying to allocate a provenance to it, and think that as forgery is becoming a more prevalent issue and undoubtedly will only get worse, having a provenance that can show that this particular example was included in a sale prior to that point can only be a good thing. When determining scarcity of a coin, tying up provenances also enables you to get a more representative idea of the numbers of a type in existence, whilst this is only really of benefit for rarer coins/varieties, it certainly can provide vital information. Finally when I have discovered that a coin I own does have a provenance, it does add something to the coin for me, I could not put my finger on exactly what that something is, but to know that a fellow collector coveted this coin, and chose it as the example they wanted in their collection does add something. I would not pay above the odds for a coin with provenance, but it is a factor that would certainly come into play if I was looking at two similarly graded examples at a similar price...not that this scenario is likely to happen very often .