Sword

I think you are just being diplomatic and I think the word is "won't" rather than "might". Any toning on bronze and copper coins is considered by collectors to be negative, and an untoned example with full lustre is much more desirable and expensive. Let's use the 1970 proof set as an example. They have gone up quite a bit in price during the last few years and are now selling for £15+. I have finally got round to buying one quite recently and it was difficult finding one with untoned bronze. Once a set is opened, it will start to tone for certain. Proof coins can easily lose their brilliance and appear misted. Don't get me wrong. I like love coins with eye catching toning. But great toning can take decades to form and it's much more likely to happen in the original case or in a cabinet than in a plastic flip. Our ideas of what good toning looks like do change as we become more experienced. From a money view point, it doesn't matter much if you do split a 1970 set. (But it would be a real shame to split one with untoned bronze!). Lots of them got split and are sold separately anyway. There is no shortage of 1970 proof set for sale on eBay. 129 are on offer now.

I meant it lack the intricacies of the traditional designs which we admire. It doesn't come across as cutting edge or innovative like a good modern design should be. The reverse is a poor rip off of the William IV half crown. The obverse is a rip off of the 1977 silver jubilee crown. I won't pay spot for it either. In fact I would much rather own a bullion bar than that coin.

Doesn't do it for me. I think the design has somewhat fallen between too stools, and is not particularly inspiring. It doesn't look traditional or modern.

I think it is best to store proofs in an air tight system to maintain lustre. 2x2 self adhesive coin holders appear safe to me. Many 1927 sets have been split already. If stored properly, I don't think there is any great risk.

Thanks, that's reassuring.

I had a quick look at the lots and quite a few has been "wiped" in addition to a those more harshly "cleaned". I can understand your frustration . One thing which has always surprised me is that Davies (English Silver Coinage) mentions that "surface grime can be removed with a clean piled cloth, gently rotating the coin between the cloth and fingers until the original toning is reached". This is something I have no inclination to try.

Was it sold as a 1* or did you spot that yourself?

Indeed. GEF-UNC examples don't come up very often. But looking out for one is the fun part. Does look it has been dipped unfortunately. Too white and lacking in lustre. I find grading tricky in this series due to weak striking. Hence, it is so much better to wait for a well struck example. Just out of interest, are you referring to my coin or the one that Peck has posted. (They are not from the same seller).

Just brought this 1918 halfcrown and awaiting delivery. It is very well struck for both obverse and reverse and is one of my best examples of the series. I am just missing the 1913 to complete my date run of George V sterling silver halfcrowns.

They are on sale on etsy or eBay for a few pounds. But that doesn't stop some from trying.

I have never found their preview to be helpful as it normally only contain a few (random) lots. DNW's approach of showing the catalogue in progress gives a much better indication of what will be coming up.

I thought so when you said Cromwell coinage would have been your preferred choice. One doesn't need any excuse to go for Charles I coins!

I agree that the reverse is much less appealing. The weak striking (esp the date, top shield and centre) has really reduced the eye appeal for me, and has no doubt affected the hammered price. (The technical grade of the reverse is still rather high as reflected by details such as the interlocking Cs). Having said that, the obverse always has significantly more weight than the reverse for early millled coins. I do like the coin in the OP. Well balanced coins without weak patches appeal to me. At the end of the day, the grade assigned by a dealer or auction house is not the main issue. It is whether the coin has good eye appeal to the individual and is at the right price. This is rephrasing Rob's opinion that there are often only two grades: acceptable and non acceptable.

Quite. But Churchill crowns would have considerable potential if a proof was issued in silver with a mintage of less than 50,000. I personally think the portrait is OK if it wasn't for the tasteless and in your face CHURCHILL legend. It would be nice if the Royal Mint would consider making a better attempt instead of making more coins on rabbits, diasaours and Gruffaloes.

Nice coin Chris. Is it yours?