Sylvester

Ha gold, gold was nice ten years ago when you could get half sovereigns for £35 each. Those days are long gone i'm afraid! Pity I sold all mine in 2004 really, shot myself in the foot there me thinks!

I started out on shillings but got fed up of having to get two for every year after 1937! Sixpences are worth a look, they tend to be cheaper in higher grades than most other silver coins, tends to be fewer varieties in most instances so easier to put together a date set. Don't overlook farthings either.

The designer of the Morgan dollar was actually an Englishman, who studied under one of the Wyons. Given the Wyons reputation for flattery, I would have hated to meet this lady in real life! Poor woman!

The designer of the Morgan dollar was actually an Englishman, who studied under one of the Wyons.

I always thought that too! Actually moving into the early milled period, well the reverse designs of the coins from 1663-1813 might not be overly artistic and bland, but the obverses more than make up for this. The Charles II, William & Mary and George II Young Head coinages are beautiful. Although I have to admit my collecting bias is here as this is the period I spent several years totally focused in, the sixpences of these years will forever be my favourite British coin series. Like these two that I used to own: Those are the only two coins I sold and regretted it, I think i'm going to have to save up and try and find two like them.

I know what you mean, I can't wait to get my Martin Van Buren dollar either. I blame the state quarters for most of the mess in the US coinage system at the moment. Although I have to say the decline in quality in US coinage was noted even before they entered the fray. I'm sure you've noticed the progression to what is commonly referred to as 'spaghetti hair', particularly evident on the Nickels and Quarters, look at them in 1964, the late 80s and then the late 90s, the relief gets lower and lower and lower and as such the lost design elements has to be made up through extra lines! As for all the commemoratives, well the US and the UK have much in common there i'm afriad, the shift towards 'stamp syndrome' (as I call it), commemoratives for every event (including the sky being blue). I have to confess that as a rule I despise commemorative issues and tend to avoid them like the plague (unless they are Gothic crowns). You should see all these awful clip art 50p commems for the Olympics we've got, what a load of rubbish. Mind you the ever increasing debasement of the alloys these slugs are made out of I suppose it makes the argument almost irrelevant anyhow. You don't have to say anything to me about SLQs, I love 'em. Teddy Roosevelt was a man with vision when he decided to overhaul the US coinage designs. Don't get me wrong i'm not knocking the Barber designs which can look superb in higher grades, but where else would you get Ultra High relief $20 (a beauty to behold), the incuse $5 and $2.50 (which are wonderful little coins), the SLQs, the Walkers, the Mercs, heck even the Buffalo nickel? There's a lot to be proud of about past US designs.

Oh yeah I like the William IV coinage (except the shilling and sixpence), the halfcrowns were beauties. The groats were pretty cool too.

The large 10p was demonetised at the end of June 1993, I have a faint recollection (but I may be wrong) that the large 50p was demonetised in 1998.

My personal fave is the shield and wreath reverse of the Vicky Young Head (as on sovereigns, crowns and half crowns). Love the gothic coins and the Edward VII florins. I also really like the overly fussy ornamental shields of George IV! I always thought the Wyon/Baptiste Merlen era of George IV (c.1826-1830) was the pinnacle of modern designs, closely followed by George V's 1910s issues. The first 50 years of Victoria's reign on the whole was fairly insipid but only because I have little liking for 'wreath with value' reverses.

To be honest I hadn't actually spotted that, that's not one i've heard before! You don't tend to hear much cockney rhyming slang round these parts.

See proved it! So no there is no definate list. I don't own any Churchill crowns either, although I used to have one, unfortunately it was so ugly I had to get rid of it before it traumatised me. I actually really like the George VI florins too, not necessarily because it's the great design (which it isn't), but because I used to like getting them in change, being born in 1984 I missed the joys of predecimal and thus the florins were the only ones I encountered in their natural environment (strangely I never saw predecimal shillings circulating alongside the old 5ps), and of course the George VI florins were more interesting than the Lizzie florins because they had a different monarch on them.

Talk about the law being open to interpretation, hence so many unexpected convictions/or failed convictions!

This no doubt means that converting sovereigns into jewelry is actually illegal. As all sovereigns dated 1838 or later (that are the minimum circulation weight or above) are deemed legal tender and thus covered by the said acts. Where does all this leave forgotten denominations such as the double florin, which as far as I recall were never demonetised?

The answer to that question is no then. I've been collecting coins for over 20 years and well i've I don't have any of the first four coins. I do have some 1967 pennies but they were a gift, there's no way on earth I'd actually buy one! I suppose it shows our collecting bias. Every coin you list is copper or bronze and I've never collected copper or bronze coins. If I had made the list it would look more like this; Elizabeth II florin George VI florin Bun Head Penny Brass Threepence Wren Farthing 1967 halfpenny Elizabeth II shilling And the only reason I list these is because these are the coins most people in the UK who aren't collectors are likely to ask the question 'i've found an old coin, what's it worth?' That and most of us probably have a few of them lying around (unspent change in the case of the florins and shillings from about 20 odd years ago), even if we don't actually collect any of them per say.

I saw a few for sale in the now closed York Antiques centre a few years back and if they hadn't had holes in the reverse side I would have bought one! Really pretty coins for sure, I'd like one eventually!

I have my uses! A wise move i'd say. My philosophy is that grading is entirely subjective, I mean take the 'scientific' US grading companies whose goal is to make it as objective and precise as possible, one of their grading criteria is 'eye appeal'! Eye appeal is entirely subjective. I've seen coins described as 'beautifully toned' that I think 'eeewww, what a vile colour'. Especially those with rainbow colours (oil spills) or mustard yellows. Grading isn't objective, it's entirely subjective. For example; buyers tend to undergrade (looking for problems), sellers tend to overgrade, it's amazing how a coin's grade can slide slightly upwards once you own it and see it in hand, you suddenly start looking for the positives rather than the negatives. Often without knowing it either.

I tend to agree with you. I have to say though I'm not all that fussed about grades of coins these days, I tend to not bother grading coins anymore (or even looking at the book price for an issue), I just buy based on eye appeal now, if I like it and find the coin to be an attractive specimen (or one of a type I want and can afford) then I tend to just buy it. I suppose the days I spent dabbling in hammered coins had more of an impact upon my collecting habits and attitudes than I first realised. I certainly enjoy collecting coins more than I used to now I'm buying on eye appeal rather than 'grade' (the two of which don't necessarily go hand in hand). The only exception to this is my decimals which I expect to be pristine.

It's weirder than you think; Following coins were struck in coin alignment; 1826 £5 1823-1826 £2 1831 £2 1761-1786 £1/1/- 1817-1887 £1 1762-1786 10/6d 1817-1887 10/- 1818-1834 5/- 1844-1853 5/- 1820-1887 2/6d 1849-1887 2/- 1763 1/- 1821-1887 1/- 1821-1887 6d 1762-1786 Maundy 1822-1887 Maundy 1838-1887 3d 1797 2d 1797-1808 1d 1770-1807 1/2d 1771-1807 1/4d 1821-1825 1/4d 1842-1868 1/8d Following coins were struck in medal alignment; 1839 £5 1787-1799 £1/1/- 1787-1813 10/6d 1797-1813 7/- 1804 $1 Bank of England 1839 5/- 1811-1816 3/- Bank Token 1816-1820 2/6d 1811-1816 18d Bank Token 1787 & 1798 1/- 1816-1820 1/- 1787 6d 1816-1820 6d 1792-1820 Maundy 1836-1888 4d 1825-1860 1d 1825-1860 1/2d 1826-1860 1/4d Notice the 1839 proofs tend to be medal alignment. As for the rest, well I could never figure out why they switched back to coin alignment in George IV's reign for the silver but then changed the copper coinage from coin alignment to medal alignment! Most of the mainstream silver from 1816 was turned out in medal alignment during George III's reign, all except the crown that is. Why? Who knows... The gold swapped from coin alignment to medal alignment when the spade guineas arrived, but then reverted back to coin alignment when the sovereigns were introduced in 1817. The groat seems to follow the pattern of the base metal coins rather than the silver of its era.

No it can't be a proof, according to Coincraft all proofs have plain edges for 1839. Perhaps I ought to check through my groats, I never thought to look for plain edge coins!

I have spent halfpennies as 2p before and post-47 shillings as 10p coins, merely hoping some kid would stumble upon it and catch the coin collecting bug. Haven't done it in a long, long time though (about 1998). I should buy some 50% silver shillings and see if I can sneak a few of those into circulation. I think there's a lot less things of interest currently in circulation to grab a child's mind and turn them into collectors. I know it was the predecimals that did it for me.

Not often you see one of those in change! For this particular issue medal alignment is standard, no idea why they should be the opposite to most other coins in circulation at the time but there you go. Is the edge milled or plain? If it's plain you've got yourself a proof, if it's milled it's the bog standard circulation variety. Cool find nonetheless! Oldest circulating coin find on the forum?

It's either a late Edward I (Class 10C-10E) or an Edward II, really difficult to tell with this one, the face being worn, if it is an Edward II it's not Class 11, 12 unlikely as centre fleur looks more curved than wedgeshaped. Class 13 onwards more likely. Pictures in Coincraft really not very helpful for this. As my North catalogue is unavailable at present time I really cannot be more specfic than this, sorry! Difficult ones London and Canterbury as they were the main two mints and they minted most classes.

That's an Edward II penny, however, it's difficult to tell which class due to the E being worn away and the nose being indented. It could be any of class 11B/11C or 15A/B/C. I haven't got access to my North catalogues at this time, so I can't be clearer than that.

Well in effect that's probably what we've got, in all but name.

This is perfectly normal. They basically mean this is the best coin of its type 'submitted to them', it doesn't mean it is the best in existence. It'd be embarrasing if they'd given it the top grade and then something better was submitted afterwards! US coin grading companies have MS70 as the highest grade possible, and MS60 as the lowest grade considered UNC. Most coins fall into the MS62-MS65 category, a tiny percent grade MS66-MS68 but grades above this are uncommon (except for modern BU strikes) some of which are graded MS70. However, there has been much discussion on US forums as to whether MS70 is actually possible, since 70 is absolute perfection (no marks, dings, blemishes, scratches, hairlines, minimum of 100% uninterrupted lustre, full strike no areas of weakness, sharp well defined details and lettering) and thus no coin can be considered perfect due to the way they are manufactured. So the argument was MS69 should be the highest grade possible. I suppose CGS have decided that 100 is perfect, no coins (at least as evidenced yet so far) will ever reach that mark. 90 will probably be the benchmark for top quality UNC, if anything comes along that is a BU strike but is almost prooflike (deep cameo) and has all lustre and no marks or any other minute imperfections I suppose that it could be graded higher than 90. The only coins that would fall into this category though are going to be 'first strikes', the first hundred or so coins from a new die pairing where everything is fresh and sharp.