CGS and Verd...Sorry!

[Sword 1,477]

Was it a yellow label?

No, regular slab issue for this one!

I've still got the cotton bud if anyone knows of a simple chemical experiment to determine the composition of the green coloured residue on it? What can you add to a copper component that guarantees a colour change or an explosion or something?

Try adding ammonia solution. Any blue colour would indicate would indicate presence of copper ions. Copper ions react with ammonia to give blue copper hydroxide. (Further addtion of ammonia will give a deep blue copper complex but you haven't got enough substance on the cotton bud for this test)

Excellent, Sword, will give that a go! What would be the easiest source of ammonia...chemist?

I can get a 9.5% solution from boots! Strong enough, do you think?

That's certainly concentrated enough. I think the best thing to do is to add a few drops of ammonia solution to the cotton bud. If there is no immediate change, then put a bit of glass or ceramic on the top of it (to stop the ammonia from evaporating quickly) and wait for a day or two. Would be very interested to know the result!

[pies 33]

Urine is full of ammonia i think

[Peckris 579]

Urine is full of ammonia i think

Oh come on, you're just taking the piss!

[Coinery 1,156]

Urine is full of ammonia i think

Oh come on, you're just taking the piss!

[Nick 329]

Urine is full of ammonia i think

A visit to the GP might be in order.

[1949threepence 3,367]

I guess that's possible on an old hammered coin but it seems most unlikely in this case. The green/blue smudge looks more like reaction with a sweating PVC envelope. If it wipes off with acetone, it surely must be that, or just dirt?

Agreed, it surely wouldn't come off so easily if it was actual verd.

[Coinery 1,156]

I guess that's possible on an old hammered coin but it seems most unlikely in this case. The green/blue smudge looks more like reaction with a sweating PVC envelope. If it wipes off with acetone, it surely must be that, or just dirt?

Agreed, it surely wouldn't come off so easily if it was actual verd.

And that's absolutely fair enough, but haven't you ever come across a 20thC bronze with the lightest beginnings of a green 'bloom' that comes away leaving the coin as-new, before it's got more than microscopically into the metal? Or ever acetoned/washed/wiped a coin, whatever your method, and found green residue on the cotton bud/tissue, etc, etc.?

I do know for a personal fact that early onset verdigris does quite happily come away from a non-degraded (un-pitted) surface. It's altogether a different animal when the surface of the coin is no longer clearly defined. Namely, when the verdigris and the surface of the coin have started to become one.

Anyway, the coin's fine, and I'm pleased!

[Nick 329]

Anyway, the coin's fine, and I'm pleased!

Which flavour of 1922 threepence is it? Dull or bright?

[Coinery 1,156]

Anyway, the coin's fine, and I'm pleased!

Which flavour of 1922 threepence is it? Dull or bright?

Dull...a weak obverse, but the point of that mustache is just about there. Does '22 slot into that mushy-strike period, or is this a poor example of type? The 20thC thing is way out of my comfort zone, but extremely rewarding.

I've got the whole G5 and G6 series in the headlights at the moment, and really enjoying it!

Still need to pinch-up on that resizing and lighting!

Edited March 2, 2013 by Coinery

[Coinery 1,156]

I forgot to say Paulus, the background is a page of the homilies "appointed to be read in the churches at the time of Queen Elizabeth of famous memory: and now thought fit to be reprinted by authority from the King's most excellent Majesty" - I love that introduction to the homilies, you just couldn't make it up!

It's a 1683, Charles II text, I chose it because the colour and pattern gave me the least amount of colour adjustment on the coin images. Pure laziness, as well as a lack of knowledge and ability with the camera! Too much technology and not enough capacity to take it all in!

[Peckris 579]

Dull...a weak obverse, but the point of that mustache is just about there. Does '22 slot into that mushy-strike period, or is this a poor example of type? The 20thC thing is way out of my comfort zone, but extremely rewarding.

I've got the whole G5 and G6 series in the headlights at the moment, and really enjoying it!

Still need to pinch-up on that resizing and lighting!

Ah, 1922 is an interesting date. For pennies, it was the second occurrence of the redesigned portrait (which had been done for silver coins in 1920-1). However, the problem with G5 obverse strikes - 1st series - is confined to the larger denominations. It doesn't apply to the 6d, farthing, or 3d, which had no obverse redesign until the Modified Effigy, as they didn't need it. You will see the same portrait design on those from 1911 to 1926, with slight variations in 1911 : all denominations, and 1914 onwards : farthings.

Therefore I would suggest your 1922 3d is simply a wearing die for the obverse. But do also bear in mind that getting crisp detail on such small denomination dies was extremely difficult, and you will see a lot less detail on the sixpence lion reverse than you do on the shilling reverse, even though it's the same design!

Just for reference: the difficult dates in high grade for GV 3d are : 1925, 1926, 1928, and 1930 (though oddly, I've seen more high grade 1928s than the other dates mentioned).

[Coinery 1,156]

Dull...a weak obverse, but the point of that mustache is just about there. Does '22 slot into that mushy-strike period, or is this a poor example of type? The 20thC thing is way out of my comfort zone, but extremely rewarding.

I've got the whole G5 and G6 series in the headlights at the moment, and really enjoying it!

Still need to pinch-up on that resizing and lighting!

Ah, 1922 is an interesting date. For pennies, it was the second occurrence of the redesigned portrait (which had been done for silver coins in 1920-1). However, the problem with G5 obverse strikes - 1st series - is confined to the larger denominations. It doesn't apply to the 6d, farthing, or 3d, which had no obverse redesign until the Modified Effigy, as they didn't need it. You will see the same portrait design on those from 1911 to 1926, with slight variations in 1911 : all denominations, and 1914 onwards : farthings.

Therefore I would suggest your 1922 3d is simply a wearing die for the obverse. But do also bear in mind that getting crisp detail on such small denomination dies was extremely difficult, and you will see a lot less detail on the sixpence lion reverse than you do on the shilling reverse, even though it's the same design!

Just for reference: the difficult dates in high grade for GV 3d are : 1925, 1926, 1928, and 1930 (though oddly, I've seen more high grade 1928s than the other dates mentioned).

Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word!

[Nick 329]

Dull...a weak obverse, but the point of that mustache is just about there. Does '22 slot into that mushy-strike period, or is this a poor example of type? The 20thC thing is way out of my comfort zone, but extremely rewarding.

I've got the whole G5 and G6 series in the headlights at the moment, and really enjoying it!

Still need to pinch-up on that resizing and lighting!

Ah, 1922 is an interesting date. For pennies, it was the second occurrence of the redesigned portrait (which had been done for silver coins in 1920-1). However, the problem with G5 obverse strikes - 1st series - is confined to the larger denominations. It doesn't apply to the 6d, farthing, or 3d, which had no obverse redesign until the Modified Effigy, as they didn't need it. You will see the same portrait design on those from 1911 to 1926, with slight variations in 1911 : all denominations, and 1914 onwards : farthings.

Therefore I would suggest your 1922 3d is simply a wearing die for the obverse. But do also bear in mind that getting crisp detail on such small denomination dies was extremely difficult, and you will see a lot less detail on the sixpence lion reverse than you do on the shilling reverse, even though it's the same design!

Just for reference: the difficult dates in high grade for GV 3d are : 1925, 1926, 1928, and 1930 (though oddly, I've seen more high grade 1928s than the other dates mentioned).

Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word!

Agree with Peck about the wearing die on the obverse. The reverse also looks a bit weak on the left side of the wreath. Yours looks to be on the brighter side of dull than most and is certainly brighter than mine (attached). Most that I have seen are dull or even duller.

As an aside, looking at the statistics contained within the Royal Mint annual reports shows that of all the silver coins (excluding Maundy) the threepence invariably gives the lowest coins per die pair strike average. For example, in 1873 when the Royal Mint were struggling to obtain good quality steel for dies, the figures show that it took 763 obverse and 193 reverse dies to produce just over 4 million threepences (or 8,462 threepences per pair of dies).

[Peckris 579]

Ah, 1922 is an interesting date. For pennies, it was the second occurrence of the redesigned portrait (which had been done for silver coins in 1920-1). However, the problem with G5 obverse strikes - 1st series - is confined to the larger denominations. It doesn't apply to the 6d, farthing, or 3d, which had no obverse redesign until the Modified Effigy, as they didn't need it. You will see the same portrait design on those from 1911 to 1926, with slight variations in 1911 : all denominations, and 1914 onwards : farthings.

Therefore I would suggest your 1922 3d is simply a wearing die for the obverse. But do also bear in mind that getting crisp detail on such small denomination dies was extremely difficult, and you will see a lot less detail on the sixpence lion reverse than you do on the shilling reverse, even though it's the same design!

Just for reference: the difficult dates in high grade for GV 3d are : 1925, 1926, 1928, and 1930 (though oddly, I've seen more high grade 1928s than the other dates mentioned).

Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word!

George V currency is one of my main interests! But if you asked me anything at all about hammered, I'd have to confess almost complete ignorance

Ah, 1922 is an interesting date. For pennies, it was the second occurrence of the redesigned portrait (which had been done for silver coins in 1920-1). However, the problem with G5 obverse strikes - 1st series - is confined to the larger denominations. It doesn't apply to the 6d, farthing, or 3d, which had no obverse redesign until the Modified Effigy, as they didn't need it. You will see the same portrait design on those from 1911 to 1926, with slight variations in 1911 : all denominations, and 1914 onwards : farthings.

Therefore I would suggest your 1922 3d is simply a wearing die for the obverse. But do also bear in mind that getting crisp detail on such small denomination dies was extremely difficult, and you will see a lot less detail on the sixpence lion reverse than you do on the shilling reverse, even though it's the same design!

Just for reference: the difficult dates in high grade for GV 3d are : 1925, 1926, 1928, and 1930 (though oddly, I've seen more high grade 1928s than the other dates mentioned).

Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word!

Agree with Peck about the wearing die on the obverse. The reverse also looks a bit weak on the left side of the wreath. Yours looks to be on the brighter side of dull than most and is certainly brighter than mine (attached). Most that I have seen are dull or even duller.

As an aside, looking at the statistics contained within the Royal Mint annual reports shows that of all the silver coins (excluding Maundy) the threepence invariably gives the lowest coins per die pair strike average. For example, in 1873 when the Royal Mint were struggling to obtain good quality steel for dies, the figures show that it took 763 obverse and 193 reverse dies to produce just over 4 million threepences (or 8,462 threepences per pair of dies).

Interesting - it's counter-intuitive, you'd almost expect the opposite, that small coins would not wear out dies as quick as halfcrowns and pennies. But maybe it has something to do with the force of the blow applied by the machinery? I'm assuming it was equal for all denominations and therefore was higher than it really needed to be for the small ones.

I'd have to disagree about your 3d Nick - it's a stronger strike for sure, but I'd say it is actually brighter than Coinery's, not duller. Or so it seems to me, comparing the pictures.

[Nick 329]

Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word!

Agree with Peck about the wearing die on the obverse. The reverse also looks a bit weak on the left side of the wreath. Yours looks to be on the brighter side of dull than most and is certainly brighter than mine (attached). Most that I have seen are dull or even duller.

As an aside, looking at the statistics contained within the Royal Mint annual reports shows that of all the silver coins (excluding Maundy) the threepence invariably gives the lowest coins per die pair strike average. For example, in 1873 when the Royal Mint were struggling to obtain good quality steel for dies, the figures show that it took 763 obverse and 193 reverse dies to produce just over 4 million threepences (or 8,462 threepences per pair of dies).

Interesting - it's counter-intuitive, you'd almost expect the opposite, that small coins would not wear out dies as quick as halfcrowns and pennies. But maybe it has something to do with the force of the blow applied by the machinery? I'm assuming it was equal for all denominations and therefore was higher than it really needed to be for the small ones.

I'd have to disagree about your 3d Nick - it's a stronger strike for sure, but I'd say it is actually brighter than Coinery's, not duller. Or so it seems to me, comparing the pictures.

The dull or bright quality is difficult to judge. I believe that the bright finish coins were blanched and should therefore look rather silvery, whereas the dull ones should look that yellowy colour of the early 1920's silver. Therefore I tend to try and judge by colour rather than brightness, but I may be completely wrong.

[Coinery 1,156]

Dull...a weak obverse, but the point of that mustache is just about there. Does '22 slot into that mushy-strike period, or is this a poor example of type? The 20thC thing is way out of my comfort zone, but extremely rewarding.

I've got the whole G5 and G6 series in the headlights at the moment, and really enjoying it!

Still need to pinch-up on that resizing and lighting!

Ah, 1922 is an interesting date. For pennies, it was the second occurrence of the redesigned portrait (which had been done for silver coins in 1920-1). However, the problem with G5 obverse strikes - 1st series - is confined to the larger denominations. It doesn't apply to the 6d, farthing, or 3d, which had no obverse redesign until the Modified Effigy, as they didn't need it. You will see the same portrait design on those from 1911 to 1926, with slight variations in 1911 : all denominations, and 1914 onwards : farthings.

Therefore I would suggest your 1922 3d is simply a wearing die for the obverse. But do also bear in mind that getting crisp detail on such small denomination dies was extremely difficult, and you will see a lot less detail on the sixpence lion reverse than you do on the shilling reverse, even though it's the same design!

Just for reference: the difficult dates in high grade for GV 3d are : 1925, 1926, 1928, and 1930 (though oddly, I've seen more high grade 1928s than the other dates mentioned).

Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word!

Agree with Peck about the wearing die on the obverse. The reverse also looks a bit weak on the left side of the wreath. Yours looks to be on the brighter side of dull than most and is certainly brighter than mine (attached). Most that I have seen are dull or even duller.

As an aside, looking at the statistics contained within the Royal Mint annual reports shows that of all the silver coins (excluding Maundy) the threepence invariably gives the lowest coins per die pair strike average. For example, in 1873 when the Royal Mint were struggling to obtain good quality steel for dies, the figures show that it took 763 obverse and 193 reverse dies to produce just over 4 million threepences (or 8,462 threepences per pair of dies).

The images are a fair representation of the surface and brightness! Now, I'd hate to throw more wood on the fire, but is anyone thinking a mis-attribution? Unfortunately, there are no distinguishing die-differences from what I can see?

As a point of study, re the weak wreath and bust, CGS graded this one AU75 (I personally think it's a bit of an overgrade)

Your's looks fantastic, by the way, leaves mine with plenty of room for an upgrade me thinks, which is always my favourite bit!

In answer to your colouring point, Nick, mine is very lustrey/silvery, but matt???

Edited March 2, 2013 by Coinery

[Nick 329]

The images are a fair representation of the surface and brightness! Now, I'd hate to throw more wood on the fire, but is anyone thinking a mis-attribution? Unfortunately, there are no distinguishing die-differences from what I can see?

As a point of study, re the weak wreath and bust, CGS graded this one AU75 (I personally think it's a bit of an overgrade)

Your's looks fantastic, by the way, leaves mine with plenty of room for an upgrade me thinks, which is always my favourite bit!

In answer to your colouring point, Nick, mine is very lustrey/silvery???

I thought when I saw your photos, that it looked like a 'bright' variety, but I just don't know whether you can judge by the colour or not. Perhaps Dave G. (or anybody else for that matter) can enlighten us?

[Coinery 1,156]

George V currency is one of my main interests!

I mean to get as close to AU/UNC a set of the entire series as I possibly can! Usual procedure, get as much of the basic set as is possible from the 'bay, with a bit of reselling/upgrading to establish the collection. Then fine-tune with the dealer and main auction catalogues!

[Coinery 1,156]

The images are a fair representation of the surface and brightness! Now, I'd hate to throw more wood on the fire, but is anyone thinking a mis-attribution? Unfortunately, there are no distinguishing die-differences from what I can see?

As a point of study, re the weak wreath and bust, CGS graded this one AU75 (I personally think it's a bit of an overgrade)

Your's looks fantastic, by the way, leaves mine with plenty of room for an upgrade me thinks, which is always my favourite bit!

In answer to your colouring point, Nick, mine is very lustrey/silvery???

I thought when I saw your photos, that it looked like a 'bright' variety, but I just don't know whether you can judge by the colour or not. Perhaps Dave G. (or anybody else for that matter) can enlighten us?

Would be great if it was a 'bright', as I'm led to believe it's the scarcer variety?

[Nick 329]

The images are a fair representation of the surface and brightness! Now, I'd hate to throw more wood on the fire, but is anyone thinking a mis-attribution? Unfortunately, there are no distinguishing die-differences from what I can see?

As a point of study, re the weak wreath and bust, CGS graded this one AU75 (I personally think it's a bit of an overgrade)

Your's looks fantastic, by the way, leaves mine with plenty of room for an upgrade me thinks, which is always my favourite bit!

In answer to your colouring point, Nick, mine is very lustrey/silvery???

I thought when I saw your photos, that it looked like a 'bright' variety, but I just don't know whether you can judge by the colour or not. Perhaps Dave G. (or anybody else for that matter) can enlighten us?

Would be great if it was a 'bright', as I'm led to believe it's the scarcer variety?

It definitely is the scarcer of the two. Probably about the same scarcity as the ME 1926 3d.

[Peckris 579]

Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word!

Agree with Peck about the wearing die on the obverse. The reverse also looks a bit weak on the left side of the wreath. Yours looks to be on the brighter side of dull than most and is certainly brighter than mine (attached). Most that I have seen are dull or even duller.

As an aside, looking at the statistics contained within the Royal Mint annual reports shows that of all the silver coins (excluding Maundy) the threepence invariably gives the lowest coins per die pair strike average. For example, in 1873 when the Royal Mint were struggling to obtain good quality steel for dies, the figures show that it took 763 obverse and 193 reverse dies to produce just over 4 million threepences (or 8,462 threepences per pair of dies).

Interesting - it's counter-intuitive, you'd almost expect the opposite, that small coins would not wear out dies as quick as halfcrowns and pennies. But maybe it has something to do with the force of the blow applied by the machinery? I'm assuming it was equal for all denominations and therefore was higher than it really needed to be for the small ones.

I'd have to disagree about your 3d Nick - it's a stronger strike for sure, but I'd say it is actually brighter than Coinery's, not duller. Or so it seems to me, comparing the pictures.

The dull or bright quality is difficult to judge. I believe that the bright finish coins were blanched and should therefore look rather silvery, whereas the dull ones should look that yellowy colour of the early 1920's silver. Therefore I tend to try and judge by colour rather than brightness, but I may be completely wrong.

That's certainly true of Coinery's - definitely a paler and more silvery colour than yours. But yours possibly has more lustre, rather than a matt finish?

The finish of the silver series from 1920 - 1926 warrants a whole paper on its own! For example, my 1921 halfcrown (EF+) is yellowish but has good lustre. However, my UNC 1922 is 'white' with a matt finish. By 1923, it's back to lustre again.

[declanwmagee 122]

I don't even try and distinguish between Davies Dull and Bright. And this from a man who likes his microvarieties. Now if only there was a pointing, I'd be interested...

[VickySilver 830]

OK, here is a CGS verd for you!

Guess the grade??

Wait till you see the two comparos I promised, and then decide which specimen is "best for grade" - will post separately hopefully tomorrow on those...

[1949threepence 3,367]

I guess that's possible on an old hammered coin but it seems most unlikely in this case. The green/blue smudge looks more like reaction with a sweating PVC envelope. If it wipes off with acetone, it surely must be that, or just dirt?

Agreed, it surely wouldn't come off so easily if it was actual verd.

And that's absolutely fair enough, but haven't you ever come across a 20thC bronze with the lightest beginnings of a green 'bloom' that comes away leaving the coin as-new, before it's got more than microscopically into the metal? Or ever acetoned/washed/wiped a coin, whatever your method, and found green residue on the cotton bud/tissue, etc, etc.?

I do know for a personal fact that early onset verdigris does quite happily come away from a non-degraded (un-pitted) surface. It's altogether a different animal when the surface of the coin is no longer clearly defined. Namely, when the verdigris and the surface of the coin have started to become one.

Anyway, the coin's fine, and I'm pleased!

Actually, thinking about it, I did have something odd a couple of months or so ago, that I'd forgotten about, but did post on here at the time. It was on one of my shillings, and appeared greenish in colour, but when I dabbed at it with a cloth, it came away as a powdery substance which left absolutely no trace. I've no idea what it was ~ I wondered if it was the very beginnings of a verd deposit which hadn't yet had time to "establish" itself as you say. Hence the reason I was able to eradicate it so easily.

Coins are kept in a Peter Nicholls cabinet in a warm dry room, however. So I see no reason why I should be verd affected.

[argentumandcoins 70]

OK, here is a CGS verd for you!

Guess the grade??

Wait till you see the two comparos I promised, and then decide which specimen is "best for grade" - will post separately hopefully tomorrow on those...

Having seen examples of their grading I would guess VF55 or something similar. They seem to be excessively harsh on coins and I mean EXCESSIVELY, but when you arte on £11.99 per coin and you get no bonus payment for the size of the grade you CAN be excessively harsh! I just wish that they would apply the same standard of grading to coins in LC auctions, but being cynical the higher the grade in their auctions the better for them?