Colin G.

Fascinating stuff, I wonder how deep your pockets would have to be today to gather such a collection

I had spotted those as well but it is a bit further for me!! I had e-mailed after some info, but no response

I would agree, how do you even get a 1 out of that?

As for individual finds, the PAS and the UKDFD are good places to look for general finds. For specific time periods see the CCI or EMC, as just two examples. I agree, however PAS can be a bit awkward to search, UKDFD is a great reference for artefacts and single coins.

These are my exonumia obsession...encased farthings, did not take off as well over here compared to the encased cents in the USA. http://aboutfarthings.co.uk/Encased%20-%20Crockers%20Drapery%20Exhibition.html as an example http://aboutfarthings.co.uk/Encased%20Farthings.html my web page and list of the types, if anyone comes across any that are not Chelsea Hotel or Hooper Struves (the two most common types), let me know I am always interested.

Very nice, thanks for sharing

Many happy returns to our very own Scott and Debbie

All working fine here

I like the way Britannia is picking George out as the culprit for removing her clothing!!

But a marathon with no finish line Now I have to admit that my early approach was very much dictated by quite a limited budget, and I really wanted to learn the subject, therefore I used to buy lower grade coins and coins with imperfections (edge knocks, digs, spots etc) because I could get them at quite a reduction. This allowed me to study examples of varieties that I would not have been able to do if I had tried to purchase the highest grade possible, and the imperfections did not hinder me studying the variety in detail. I still had boundaries that prevented me buying any coins that I was not confident I could "move on" in the future and at least recoup my costs. This approach served me well, and has slowly led to my collection getting upgraded over time. However I do now feel I have progressed to the level that many of the others talk about and find myself looking at coins with a "collectors eye" ...although I do still variety hunt as well

Far right on the first group seems to have made quite an improvement to the legend

The one time I tried to do it, the only concern they had was that all their scrap ended up in china, and it was the shipping of the items internationally that caused the problems. They said they could still do it but required a quantity large enough to justify the paperwork. This was predecimal coinage. They actually ended up at a charity shop

That is a very good point

I agree it is not a large date farthing, the description is deceiving because it is the 45 that is larger than the norm..someone got seriously burnt on that one.

I have always taken the chronological approach within separate denominations

Waiting until Neil's new farthing list comes out.....so I can have a browse!!

How rude of me... ...Happy Birthday Richard

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