Oxford_Collector

I might be going on the Saturday, the Sunday would be better for me in terms of the auction content, but I have another commitment then...

I stumbled across these images of the Edward VIII proof set recently, as I understand it, only 4 sets were made, were these the only British Edward VIII coins ever produced? Not sure what the hand-cuffs on the sixpence and silver threepence are all about, mind! :-)

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks

BTW the lion's face seen in my current avatar is from an 1902 Edward VII shilling I own, and is clearly defined

Would love an Edward VIII brass 3D! I'm guessing these are rare as hen's teeth, though!? BTW I was also wondering why there appears to be no half-sovereign in the proof set, I thought this was usually included in 'long' sets? Which other countries released Edward VIII coins? I'm vaguely aware that some colonies did, but am unclear which ones or which coins.

If those images are indeed of a forgery, it's a damn good one, which is worrying...

Okay, no worries - am not in any hurry, would rather wait for the right coin

I'm inclined to agree, look like pretty nice specimens too...

Yes, I too struggle to get excited about debased coinage, most of my post-1920 coins are American for that reason (and the fact that they had great designs up to about 1947...) The modern Gold and SIlver Britannia bullion cons are quite nice, mind... See, the thing I don't like about the Britannias is that they have such an absurd premium. Amazing design and I picked them up every chance I could back when my coin shop treated them like generic bullion... Since then they've matched prices to what they sell for online... But really, the high premium makes them too annoying to use as an investment. An Eagle I can buy for ~$35 with silver at $34 an ounce, some more exotic bullion I can buy for ~$36-37, interesting mid-grade "junk silver" like standing liberty quarters, mercury dimes, walking liberty halves, Morgans, etc. for ~$36 an ounce if I shop around. But a Britannia, even a common date sells for $46+ when silver is $34 an ounce. Depends where you buy them from I guess! BTW would love to be able to get Silver Eagles for only $35, they're much more than that in the UK, but then silver coins and bullion incurs 20% Value Added Tax here (unlike gold). On Coinvestdirect (who I have used in the past for bullion coins purchases) these are the current prices (including UK VAT at 20%) per coin: Silver Britannia 2012: £30.74 ($48.17) NB: the Royal Mint shop charges an outrageous £58.50 plus p&p! Silver Eagle 2012: £28.64 ($44.88) Silver Philharmonic £28.02 ($43.91) There's not a huge difference, though I still I wouldn't buy Britannias in bulk as investment bullion though, in the past I tended to go for Austrian Silver Philharmonicas for that purpose (when they were £16.50 each, not now) or Silver Eagles (nicer coin, but a little more expensive and arguably bullion is bullion...). I did buy a single nice 1998 Britannia (which has the classic design) at the London Coin Fair recently for £30, which is more or less what you would pay for single Silver Eagles on eBay in the UK, so I thought was a decent enough buy. Hm, interesting, over here (at least in my state) coins are generally tax exempt, no matter if they are gold or silver, and even at the places that don't recognize that rule (flea markets, some antique stores, etc.) sales tax is rarely more than 7% and 9% if you are in a larger city. And of course generally buying things online make things sales tax exempt, unless you are in the state where the store was located. Not the case here - pretty much everything (apart from food, unless eaten in a restaurant, books, childrens clothing and bullion gold coins and bars) incurs "VAT" (i.e. sales tax) at 20% and this is automatically added to the cost of everything (online and offline, basically wherever you buy it) and the price you see of something on the shelf is the price you pay at the counter, usually (not the case in the USA, which has confused me in the past!) I quite like the Libertads, nice design and slightly frosted finish

Do you have any other photos of the 1860? The scan on the website shows the details, but make the surfaces looks very flat

Thanks for all the comments, so basically the opinion is: its a nice coin, but would probably grade AEF to EF, so is overpriced. Thanks for the tips about which areas to check for wear - the jewels on the crown and the plait of hair were mentioned, also of course the lions faces (as usual!) - are there any other typical "problem areas" to check? For florins, as I'm type-collecting them (for now...), I'm ideally trying to get UNC specimens of each major type, but I've not seen very many gothic florins so far in this condition (sorry Chris - yours whilst reasonably priced, don't quite cut the mustard) apart from the aforementioned v.expensive ones I mentioned before at the London coin show, which I confess I was tempted by, but had already blown my budget on other purchases by then (including a very nice, but not cheap Edward VII florin...). I think I'd prefer to wait until the right one comes along, and am guessing that won't be via eBay...

Yes, I too struggle to get excited about debased coinage, most of my post-1920 coins are American for that reason (and the fact that they had great designs up to about 1947...) The modern Gold and SIlver Britannia bullion cons are quite nice, mind... See, the thing I don't like about the Britannias is that they have such an absurd premium. Amazing design and I picked them up every chance I could back when my coin shop treated them like generic bullion... Since then they've matched prices to what they sell for online... But really, the high premium makes them too annoying to use as an investment. An Eagle I can buy for ~$35 with silver at $34 an ounce, some more exotic bullion I can buy for ~$36-37, interesting mid-grade "junk silver" like standing liberty quarters, mercury dimes, walking liberty halves, Morgans, etc. for ~$36 an ounce if I shop around. But a Britannia, even a common date sells for $46+ when silver is $34 an ounce. Depends where you buy them from I guess! BTW would love to be able to get Silver Eagles for only $35, they're much more than that in the UK, but then silver coins and bullion incurs 20% Value Added Tax here (unlike gold). On Coinvestdirect (who I have used in the past for bullion coins purchases) these are the current prices (including UK VAT at 20%) per coin: Silver Britannia 2012: £30.74 ($48.17) NB: the Royal Mint shop charges an outrageous £58.50 plus p&p! Silver Eagle 2012: £28.64 ($44.88) Silver Philharmonic £28.02 ($43.91) There's not a huge difference, though I still I wouldn't buy Britannias in bulk as investment bullion though, in the past I tended to go for Austrian Silver Philharmonicas for that purpose (when they were £16.50 each, not now) or Silver Eagles (nicer coin, but a little more expensive and arguably bullion is bullion...). I did buy a single nice 1998 Britannia (which has the classic design) at the London Coin Fair recently for £30, which is more or less what you would pay for single Silver Eagles on eBay in the UK, so I thought was a decent enough buy.

Stunning!

Please do! :-)

I was wondering how far back you could go and still realistically get an uncleaned, but untoned silver coin? I've nothing against toned coins, if the coin has toned attractively (and isn't completely black...) BTW! I was just wondering as, for example, I have a UNC 1816 George III sixpence that is completely untoned, but to my eye at least, even under a magnifier, does not look like it has been dipped - is this possible? I also have a few BU young head Victoria shillings that don't look dipped either. I guess it depends partly on how the coin has been stored and whether this was near to an area with much sulfide-producing industry, also perhaps on the relatively humidity? Or is toning inevitable with coins this old? Thanks

Drool...

I've given up trying to collect untoned lustred bronze, though, if being picky, isn't that a (small) carbon spot and the top of the back of the neck? It is and you are :-) I still think its a lovely coin BTW, I was just poking fun at Peter, as that one does have a carbon spot ;-) Its generally does seem true that unlustred bronze is less susceptible to them, though.

Very nice! I've given up trying to collect untoned lustred bronze, though, if being picky, isn't that a (small) carbon spot and the top of the back of the neck?

I appreciate that its likely that many "BU" coins *have* been dipped, but it sounds like its still *possible* that an uncleaned UNC bright mint condition coin could from 100, 150 or even 200 years ago could exist? I'm just trying to establish what is within the realms of possibility. I thought I knew the give-away signs of a dipped coin, but perhaps its not always so obvious, though I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between original mint lustre, which has quite a unique quality (and which is something I think those florins exhibit), and something that is only bright because it has been dipped. Also, coins that have more wear than AUNC, but are bright and shiny, I'm always suspicious about and in EF or lower I would usually prefer a toned coin. One related thing - almost all proof silver coins I've seen that are 100 years old (or even less) seem to be toned (though usually quite attractively), but I'm not sure whether that's because something about the finish of proof coins makes them tone more easily, or whether the padded boxes they are stored in encourage them to tone more, or whether proof coins are just less likely to be dipped (or perhaps all three?!) - what's the verdict on why proofs are more often seen toned than not?

Yes, I see your point… though I'm still wondering whether to keep the main hierarchy I've outlined here i.e.: coin series -> coin type -> coin specimen or whether to flatten this structure? Are we talking about hundreds or many thousands of coins? If the former (for me, 700 or so), Excel works perfectly well with all the fields (flattened if you like) into columns and hyperlinks to your photos either on your PC or on the interweb, I think unless you want to learn about relational database design and use (as a separate hobby almost!), they only come into their own when handling sizeable quantities of data At the moment only a few hundred coins, but growing... but only a small percentage of that is actually the "good stuff". Perhaps you're right and I'm being over-ambitious and should just try to Excel route for now... BTW it is possible to make Excel relational (sort of), if necessary - each of the "tables" could be represented in its own spreadsheet in the same workbook. The sheet names reflect the table names. The column headings reflect the field names. There's more information about this here: http://www.tushar-mehta.com/excel/newsgroups/rdbms_in_excel/index.html

Yes, I see your point… though I'm still wondering whether to keep the main hierarchy I've outlined here i.e.: coin series -> coin type -> coin specimen or whether to flatten this structure?

Believe me - if you found FMPro intimidating, MS Access is no easier, in fact it's more complex to learn. The upside of the learning curve is that once you get some confidence with it, you'll start using it for loads of things. As for the cost, yes if you buy the latest version it is expensive, but I got the previous version from Amazon (new, sealed) for significantly under £100, which for a full-featured relational database is not at all poor value. As a Mac user already there is no downside to being "locked in" to FMP (I've used it since 1994) especially when you consider there are multiple export formats including Excel. Okay, I might give FMPro another go, I downloaded a 30-day demo and still have time remaining on this. BTW does FMPro have visual tools (like MS Access, Open Office, Navicat etc.) for defining the relations between tables etc.? Is the form-buider relatively easy to use? Any other tips? Thanks The form builder has always been easy to use - you just specify which type you want (list, report, full data entry, etc), then just define fields or drag existing fields into place where you want them. You can go into Layout Mode any time and change things around, move fields, add more, delete, etc. And create new layouts (forms) whenever you want. The relationship designer I don't know about - I built mine in the days when it didn't exist. However, whenever I've looked at relationships in FMP 10 I've noticed a nice visual chart showing how everything connects together. Therefore I'd make the assumption that such a thing exists at the design level also. The good thing about FMP is that it's pretty destruct-resistant - you can make changes to most aspects of a database as and when you need or want to. But as with all database managers it helps to plan in advance as far as you can, it makes things a lot easier in the long run. Okay, had another play with FMP this evening, looks better than I originally thought, but will still take a little bit of time to get my head around, but could be worth persevering. Am starting to think about table structures, needs tweaking, but here's where I've got to in terms of tables: Specimen (i.e. individual actual coin and/or perhaps coin set) - information about condition, how acquired/sold, estimated current value, look-up for location etc. Type - one record for each coin type, each coin type could have many specimens. Am not sure whether this means having a type record per date or just per series, though probably the former as mintage and Spink prices (and varieties...) will be specific to a year Series - not sure about this, but could perhaps have many type records with shared data (e.g. same obverse/reverse info., weight, size, composition) per series - most non-year/variety specific coin type data could go here Variety - - not quite sure about this one or whether can account for varieties within the Type table Set (can contain a number of specimens e.g. proof sets). Or could possibly have a proof set as a Type in itself and a Specimen in itself, not sure of best approach here Reign (for kings and queens, names, dates etc.) Mints - location and details of mints Location (for storage locations) Dealer/Customer - dealers I've bought from/customers I've sold to Reference - i.e. reference book details - Spink, Davies, ESC, coincraft etc. Bullion - table with current bullion values per oz/gramme so can automatically calculate coin Series bullion values Obviously some of these would be combined in the layout views. What do you think? Overkill? Or have I missed something out? Will start in the fields next... Missed one... Also was going to have a table for: Denomination (including fields like common name, short name, value, value unit e.g. "Half Crown", "2/6", 30, "d" Interesting - most of those fields iI've included in my main data entry layout. Sure, but if understand it, a layout is just a "view" on the data and can be made up of data from many tables, which are necessary to avoid data repetition, which is a big no-no if being strict about relational database design... Sounds sensible, does it allow for many pictures per coin specimen, though? Here's a stab at some of the fields I was thinking of for each table, needs some work, though (and probably simplifying...): Specimen -------- TypeID LocationID (FK) DealerID (FK) CustomerID (FK) SetID (FK) Die Number Weight?? (although this can probably go in type for post-1816, unless weighing individual coins) Grade Graded by (drop-down - include self, dealer, cgs, pcgs etc.) Slab Serial No. Further Remarks (e.g. colouration, dents, nicks, scratches, patina, toning) (Variety?) Valuation Valuation Date Valuation Source Price Paid Date Acquired Where Acquired Who Acquired From - DealerID (FK) Sold (Yes/No) Date Sold Where Sold Who Sold To - CustomerID (FK) Holder (e.g. cardboard 2x2, "air-tite", "PCGS slab", 2x2 Saflip) Comments Sell? Upgrade? Quantity? (e.g. for bullion coins) Obverse Image Reverse Image (or Image filename (repeat field)) Document Filename (for PDFs of scanned receipts etc.) Type ----- TypeID MintID (FK) SeriesID (FK) Date AlternateDate (e.g. Gothic) Die Variety? Mintage ReferenceID (repeat?) (e.g. Krause, Coincraft, Spink, Davies, Seaby, Marsh, Gouby etc.) ReferenceNo (repeat) Rarity? (e.g. from ESC) Mint Mark (Drop-Down?) Values (repeating field): Spink FDC Spink BU Spink UNC Spink EF Spink VF Spink F Edge - Milled/Plain/Design/Letters (or have this in series?) Finish - Proof, Burnished, Uncirculated etc. Comments? Series ------ SeriesID Series Description / Common Name Country (drop-down) - or look-up in a country table? ReignID (FK) DenominationID (FK) Weight Diameter Thickness Composition e.g. Gold, Silver, Bronze (or may reference bullionID, so can retrieve and calculate bullion value) Fineness (e.g. 0.925) Troy Weight? Bullion Value? (calculated) Obverse Description Reverse Description Obverse Legend Reverse Legend Designer - Obverse First Year Obverse Issued Designer - Reverse First Year Reverse Issued Die Axis (i.e. coin/medal) - or does this go with type? Comments? Reference --------- ReferenceID ReferenceName ReferenceAuthor(s) ReferenceYear Reference ISBN Publisher Comments Owned? (yes/no) Location -------- LocationID LocationName LocationDescription Comments Dealer ------ DealerID Name Address Website Email Phone Specialities Comments Rating :-) Customer -------- CustomerID Name Address Website Email Phone Comments More tomorrow...

Believe me - if you found FMPro intimidating, MS Access is no easier, in fact it's more complex to learn. The upside of the learning curve is that once you get some confidence with it, you'll start using it for loads of things. As for the cost, yes if you buy the latest version it is expensive, but I got the previous version from Amazon (new, sealed) for significantly under £100, which for a full-featured relational database is not at all poor value. As a Mac user already there is no downside to being "locked in" to FMP (I've used it since 1994) especially when you consider there are multiple export formats including Excel. Okay, I might give FMPro another go, I downloaded a 30-day demo and still have time remaining on this. BTW does FMPro have visual tools (like MS Access, Open Office, Navicat etc.) for defining the relations between tables etc.? Is the form-buider relatively easy to use? Any other tips? Thanks The form builder has always been easy to use - you just specify which type you want (list, report, full data entry, etc), then just define fields or drag existing fields into place where you want them. You can go into Layout Mode any time and change things around, move fields, add more, delete, etc. And create new layouts (forms) whenever you want. The relationship designer I don't know about - I built mine in the days when it didn't exist. However, whenever I've looked at relationships in FMP 10 I've noticed a nice visual chart showing how everything connects together. Therefore I'd make the assumption that such a thing exists at the design level also. The good thing about FMP is that it's pretty destruct-resistant - you can make changes to most aspects of a database as and when you need or want to. But as with all database managers it helps to plan in advance as far as you can, it makes things a lot easier in the long run. Okay, had another play with FMP this evening, looks better than I originally thought, but will still take a little bit of time to get my head around, but could be worth persevering. Am starting to think about table structures, needs tweaking, but here's where I've got to in terms of tables: Specimen (i.e. individual actual coin and/or perhaps coin set) - information about condition, how acquired/sold, estimated current value, look-up for location etc. Type - one record for each coin type, each coin type could have many specimens. Am not sure whether this means having a type record per date or just per series, though probably the former as mintage and Spink prices (and varieties...) will be specific to a year Series - not sure about this, but could perhaps have many type records with shared data (e.g. same obverse/reverse info., weight, size, composition) per series - most non-year/variety specific coin type data could go here Variety - - not quite sure about this one or whether can account for varieties within the Type table Set (can contain a number of specimens e.g. proof sets). Or could possibly have a proof set as a Type in itself and a Specimen in itself, not sure of best approach here Reign (for kings and queens, names, dates etc.) Mints - location and details of mints Location (for storage locations) Dealer/Customer - dealers I've bought from/customers I've sold to Reference - i.e. reference book details - Spink, Davies, ESC, coincraft etc. Bullion - table with current bullion values per oz/gramme so can automatically calculate coin Series bullion values Obviously some of these would be combined in the layout views. What do you think? Overkill? Or have I missed something out? Will start in the fields next... Missed one... Also was going to have a table for: Denomination (including fields like common name, short name, value, value unit e.g. "Half Crown", "2/6", 30, "d"

Believe me - if you found FMPro intimidating, MS Access is no easier, in fact it's more complex to learn. The upside of the learning curve is that once you get some confidence with it, you'll start using it for loads of things. As for the cost, yes if you buy the latest version it is expensive, but I got the previous version from Amazon (new, sealed) for significantly under £100, which for a full-featured relational database is not at all poor value. As a Mac user already there is no downside to being "locked in" to FMP (I've used it since 1994) especially when you consider there are multiple export formats including Excel. Okay, I might give FMPro another go, I downloaded a 30-day demo and still have time remaining on this. BTW does FMPro have visual tools (like MS Access, Open Office, Navicat etc.) for defining the relations between tables etc.? Is the form-buider relatively easy to use? Any other tips? Thanks The form builder has always been easy to use - you just specify which type you want (list, report, full data entry, etc), then just define fields or drag existing fields into place where you want them. You can go into Layout Mode any time and change things around, move fields, add more, delete, etc. And create new layouts (forms) whenever you want. The relationship designer I don't know about - I built mine in the days when it didn't exist. However, whenever I've looked at relationships in FMP 10 I've noticed a nice visual chart showing how everything connects together. Therefore I'd make the assumption that such a thing exists at the design level also. The good thing about FMP is that it's pretty destruct-resistant - you can make changes to most aspects of a database as and when you need or want to. But as with all database managers it helps to plan in advance as far as you can, it makes things a lot easier in the long run. Okay, had another play with FMP this evening, looks better than I originally thought, but will still take a little bit of time to get my head around, but could be worth persevering. Am starting to think about table structures, needs tweaking, but here's where I've got to in terms of tables: Specimen (i.e. individual actual coin and/or perhaps coin set) - information about condition, how acquired/sold, estimated current value, look-up for location etc. Type - one record for each coin type, each coin type could have many specimens. Am not sure whether this means having a type record per date or just per series, though probably the former as mintage and Spink prices (and varieties...) will be specific to a year Series - not sure about this, but could perhaps have many type records with shared data (e.g. same obverse/reverse info., weight, size, composition) per series - most non-year/variety specific coin type data could go here Variety - - not quite sure about this one or whether can account for varieties within the Type table Set (can contain a number of specimens e.g. proof sets). Or could possibly have a proof set as a Type in itself and a Specimen in itself, not sure of best approach here Reign (for kings and queens, names, dates etc.) Mints - location and details of mints Location (for storage locations) Dealer/Customer - dealers I've bought from/customers I've sold to Reference - i.e. reference book details - Spink, Davies, ESC, coincraft etc. Bullion - table with current bullion values per oz/gramme so can automatically calculate coin Series bullion values Obviously some of these would be combined in the layout views. What do you think? Overkill? Or have I missed something out? Will start in the fields next...

So are you suggesting the florins I posted on this page are dipped, for example?: http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3664&st=4350 They don't look it IMHO, the surfaces look 'real', of course these coins are "only" about 100 years old, whereas I was questioning whether it was possible for a 200 year-old coin to still be "naturally" untoned