VickySilver

I have always been disappointed with the absolutes that we see thrown about in descriptions of proofs. I think there are tendencies and some characteristics more in line with proof status. I also have come to be of the opinion that the Royal Mint was not always that careful with dies or planchets and so we get polished die pieces, and coins that appear superior to the usual circulation strikes but not quite proof and designate them "specimen" and what may have been employment of proof dies in striking circulation strikes. Proofs from the George V series beginning in about 1922 or so (depends on who is counting what) were many times not stellar and not always clearly superior to the best first strikes off the dies. Of course the Wreaths are perhaps best known for very nice currency strikes with a few being quite prooflike and some appearing to reach what seemed to be proof quality at the time. I have seen a few certified/slabbed as proof that I am fairly certain are not despite relatively squared sharp edges and crisp milling. Somewhat analagous to the Victorian currency/Maundy 3d discrimination and in requiring definite status as currency before being accepted as such, I think a particular coin can not be considered proof unless it meets all of the general criteria. These are interesting but from the photos and despite their impaired status, I do not think can be accepted as proof and could not buy or sell them as such.

Ditto on that one. Send us pictures if you can. In the meanwhile, going only on what you told us, simple mild dish detergent/soap with hot water would be a good start. Then an acetone bath with these. To tell you more is quite difficult at this stage.

I am not convinced that oil application is the best idea as there are all sorts of oils, some with mildly acidic properties. Another issue is that in this polluted modern environment that most of us live in features many organics that may utilize the oil as a solvent and gain a better access to the surfaces of the coin - this even in paper envelopes, 2x2s or mylar holders as these are airborne. I remember being amazed by the concept of vapor pressure exerted even by seemingly inert substance such as metals or plastics, and so we know that everyday exposures to our coins (let alone ourselves) occurs with such compounds as the bonding agents in carpeting. How important are they? Probably nobody knows for sure and varies a good bit.And different from place to place.

Well, I am definately not on the other side of the fence on this one, but one aspect of added value afforded by the slabbing (and I mean NGC, PCGS, or possibly CGS) one has at least some sort of backing to declaration of grade or type to a "sight unseen" coin.

Gary, I guess we are getting a bit off the topic, but is your picture of the coin(s) the one you are contemplating sending off? There are two pictures of 1970 reverse penny, so I must be missing something unless you are wondering if it is a "double reverse" coin you are trying to authenticate. Can you give a bit more information?

The 1860 1/4d pieces listed in that catalogue were long since disposed of and the records on the site were kept so that readers might refer to essentially a library on all of the known pieces. The 1864 as best is known was held back, and is truly a tremendous piece (or at least appears to be and would love to hold it in hand). Interesting to see what any of these pieces might bring in London auctions by a major house these days....

Well, that is a rather difficult question to ask as the alternatives are not quite connceted. I think at least in the States that the slab if PCGS or NGC will raise the price over a raw coin that is unslabbed. That is not linked to the difficulies of photography of the coin however. A great coin for sale in the UK may not have a higher price in the slab, and so there is a difference in venue, so thus the conditional in my answer.

Now that is a thought, but never have heard of anyone doing it. Most probably do not check their collections by the day or week, so whatever corruptive influence at play will have begun to run its course before the collector is able to do much. In other words, the naked copper as you put it will show some evidence of these oxidants and the like but may not be all that helpful in that what chemical activity taking place has already taken place. It should not be able to "sacrifice" its own oxidation and spare the collection although a "lesser" metal in close confines to a more "noble" metal will be consumed by the oxidative reaction first; on the other hand, this process is not like an infectious disease - that is, if the copper exposed begins to turn it will not increase reactions to the coins about it. Many people put dessicants in with their coins and this will draw some of the moisture away from the microclimate about the enclosed coins. As you know moisture will tend to accelerate chemical reactions (as will heat), and so that is a good idea. The Intercept Shield idea incorporates some of this, but I must confess that I do not have knowledge to the exact details of this company's products.

Very interesting...It looks as though the rim area may have been the result of impact (drop or?) after the net results of strike and whatever else may have been done to the coin. It definately is not as I first thought possible that this was an area of incomplete milling [off] of the obverse. It is still possible that the obverse was milled off and then abraded irregularly by whatever means and then suffered the rim bruise from contact. If only 0.8 gm. is short from the standard, then there should be some image left; it is only a guess but I think to completely remove bust device and all lettering without a seeming trace that removal of more than this amount of metal would be required. Perhaps if we were better at math we could estimate the minimum amount of metal removal required but 10% loss would be 1.13 gm, so it appears that something less than 7% of the metal is short from the standard. The coin is not specimen which is obvious and yet I have known a 1937 matte specimen reverse florin with a blank obverse (don't know the weight of it). I have a 1970 10 P with no obverse and it is genuine with slight waviness to the obverse side. Also the Colin Adams sale had two pennies from I think 1965 that were in the striking chamber likely at the same time, one with blank obverse and the other with blank reverse with one coin being some 0.6 gm. short of standard. They also had a bit of waviness to the unstruck side and not as smooth as yours - I think that is the slightly bothersome aspect although the matte coin precedent is mentioned. Well, without seeing it I can not really comment further...

Mat, I would not completely condemn the coin just yet as it should be seen in hand perhaps at Baldwins or maybe Neil Paisley or other expert. I can not say as I really would have to see the coin in hand. The amount of material lost compared to the usual flan is not very large and would not itself be an huge issue. The reeding overlap is a bit curious and would think that careful examination of this area is shere I would concentrate. I would suggest a stereo dissecting scope of 30 power to start. Obviously, post mint milling marks could be disguised, but at L4 you do not have much loss if it is false.

A bit of a harsh assessment I would say there. I think Scotish, that you should cite the service who placed your coin in the TPG, perhaps with pictures for the benefit of the rest of us. Also, as you may know there is technical and market grading. PCGS may give a coin an uncirculated number (60 through 70) to a coin that is mint state in that it is preserved essentially as it left the mint, even not fully struck or on a faulty planchet, etc. An old Glendinning or Spink GEF can come away as a 65 many times, I have found. I will freely admit that I do not have the capacity to send out pictures but have a 1926 ME penny bought from an SNC cantalogue of nearly 10 years ago listed by them as "GEF with considerable lustre" that graded as 65RB by PCGS and will say that is a fair grade as the coin is without blemish and fully unmarred surfaces and devices with NO wear whatsoever. I will say that I have seen quite a few graded bits by PCGS and NGC and find that their certification as to type in 19th and 20th C. coins (with bronze hypervarietals being excepted) to be generally quite accurate. I do have some quibbles on occasion with the evaluated number but then again I have differences by the non-numerical assessments of UK dealers on many occasions and have definately found there to be grade inflation a much more common phenomenon. Nitpicking and finding extreme exceptions do not, in my opinion condemn the service provided by these companies. I also see that no shrift is given by other posters to the value of preserving coins within these tombs. Bad, but also good that we can not get our grimy fingers on the surfaces of many of these coins. I think that if a coin is particularly rare and uncirculated or proof, especially those from the last 150 years or so be considered for slabbing on that basis alone. As for the circulated bits or gold, well, I do not see the pressing need for these slabs.

Perhaps this is a rehash of topics broached previously, but Gary might it be a bit unfair to have a sample size of one or two coins and then condemn the whole lot of US grading firms? I definately do not think they are the endall or that they are infallible but generally NGC or PCGS have been relatively fair in grading; that having been said many series are fraught with grading difficulties with Wreath Crowns being amongst them. Even to this day we have lively discussions about whether some of these crowns are proof or just prooflike as production runs were rather short and actual proofs being somewhat less than stellar cameo contrast beauties. Another series that presents problems are the Victoria 3d proof versus currency coins. Many are borderline cases with legitimate differences of opinion and I have seen many UK dealers make mistakes with both these and the wreaths. Not to pick on CGS but I have seen in their featured display case an 1875 (Heaton) farthing labelled as its London cousin of the same date, and I have seen (indeed own) a 1935 Specimen crown in "85" with less detail and luster & strike than an NGC 65 of the same date and type. Perhaps a bit of openmindedness may go a ways when it comes to these slabs and companies?

OK, I am a bit on the fence as perhaps some others are. Circulated coins probably generally do not belong in slabs, although there is some credence to "genuineness" in that there is a guaruntee by the company. This might come into play with a coin like the 1905 halfcrown. On the other hand, I have seen mint red pennies held by dealers twixt thumb and index by the OBVERSE AND REVERSE, and not by the edge. Also numerous drops, and the very bad staples ( I have an 1856 penny that is mostly red and well struck, superior in every way except for a hairline scratch across Victoria's visage - uggh!). I have had coins slabbed where extreme rarity is involved as I do feel it provides a measure of protection, and as was stated earlier in the thread we are hopefully but temporary custodians of these coins and are responsible for their upkeep.

I guess that a pound just really does not buy anything anyway so you have to have a handful to get anything. Really a shame that this once proud denomination is really not much to value.

Please do not use the term "forge", but rather "strike" for the minting of coins. Forging is what they do with the one pound coins when counterfeiting or in China to make items for ebay....

The reason for asking was that Amazon was out on checking. I too would like a copy so will try to check back there again.

OK, what would be total with shipping to Maryland, USA? Would like to see this and the price seems in the real world too!

Mat, You know I was thinking the same thing even though these are a bit out of my dates for collecting - sure seemed like a lot of them coming up. I noticed that you can have an 1851 halfcrown if you don't mind the spurious Chinese origin! They are evidently also making things like late date Isle of Man crowns that one would never think they would touch...

Yes, please have mercy on us "newbies"! A weight at least would be crucial if the picture is not possible. I have seen quite a few QE II uniface coins that were correct weight and not struck with obverse or reverse. Not seen a George yet (excluding the prohibitively rare MODEL pieces, and these are generally reverse only).

I must say that I am rather perplexed by the current market for English coins. I can not imagine that they will not peak out soon - if that point has not already been reached. On the other hand we have reports such as we have recently seen on this forum of the Warwick and Warwick sale where items not even considered saleable in some years were bringing big prices. In the US, the market appears split up in that really exceptional coins from the standpoint of absolute rarity and the mysterious (at least in terms of why) condition rarities still do mostly well with middle ground coins beginning to suffer and lower sort of holding their own, at least in my surmise. Bullion, which seems not to be numismatic is doing very well. What say you readers, with examples of where you think the market is going for English coins?

Yes, very good catalogues to have. Need a reference number, or??

As they said in the Forrest Gump movie: "Run, Forrest, Run". Scary and crazy, what was the point of listing the coin?

Yes, and not immune from slabbing errors either as I had to show them that their 1875 farthing was actually an "H" (Heaton). As per above I had been under the impression that the grading service was a part of the company per se. This is somewhat similar to the USA company David Hall and PCGS where he has coins on sale certified by his own company.

London Coins have now posted CGS certified coins for sale on their website. I was struck by the numbers of coins now listed, but then noted that most were of a more common sort that have now been encapsulated and priced upwards in most cases rather aggressively. Rather scarcer examples struck with the same (editorial) malady would be the 1868 florin at 1500 pounds, and the 1934 crown at 6000 pounds. I had thought that this new grading scheme was not going anywhere and perhaps being abandoned but evidently this is not the case, at least for this firm. I am just not at all sure that the product is worth the premium and it seems inspired by the American "third party grading" (TPG) firms. BTW, I can not see how they are third party since they sell coins that they grade and this might represent a conflict. What say you?

Well, another issue I was trying to bring up is the slabber of these coins is also selling the coins he/they slab and that seems a conflict of interest - would there not be some temptation to add a point here or there?