Sword

Yes, he does take decent photos. Brought from him many times in the past.

Nice specimen! It would be good if you can get rid of some of the scratches on the slab to see it better.

I was thinking specifically the difference between a matt "specimen" and a matt "proof". In my mind, a specimen coin is generally not quite the standard of a proof coin but accept the line between them can be somewhat blur. As far as I can tell the 1935 matt specimen medal looks to be to be struck to a very high standard and I would not say it is an inferior in quality to the 1902 matt proof.

I admit I am somewhat naive in this topic. My understanding is that a proof is sharply struck (done with multiple strikes using special dies) on specially prepared flans. The flans were handled carefully to ensure that there are no contact marks. The question is whether there is a requirement for the flans to be highly polished for the item to count as proof. I think the answer started off as being "yes" to "normally yes" after the 1902 matt coins appeared. This would be consistent with the 1902 matt being initially described as "specimen". With regard to the 1935 Jubilee medal: a) was it struck with multiple times using special dies? In my mind, a definite yes. The obverse details are amazing. With such a large medal, the force of strike would probably be too great if only a single strike was used b) was it prepared on specially made flans? Undoubtedly. But the flans were matte rather than mirrored. If one were to accept the 1902 as proof (and I assume this was done by 1935), then I think it would also make sense to call the 1935 medals also as matte proof also (unless the matte finish is somehow not judged to be as high standard as the 1902). If a 1935 crown was made in the same way as the medal, would we consider that a matte proof?

I did meant the matt specimen. But what exactly is the difference between a matt "specimen" and matt "proof"?

They do make a real effort in those days for coronation / jubilee medals. All of them were attractively designed (except for the 1935 reverse which I am not a fan of). I do particularly like the 1902 showing the majestic portraits of KE VII and Queen Alexandra. I remember my Art teacher telling me that the reason Queen Alexandra wore pearl choker necklaces was to hide a small scar on her neck. The matt proof finish on the 1902 and 1935 was a nice touch too.

£3 in 1952 is under £70 in today's money. What a fine investment.

29 and choice judging from the ones you posted. That's enough to make a decent montage image.

I agree with Copper that the current spike in price is temporary. It was selling for much less previously. I have never got round to getting one. The big medal take up rather too much space for me.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/05/23/prince-william-appears-on-new-5-coin-to-mark-his-40th-birthday-16690511/ A good likeness and a nice change from the elderly royal portraits. I think the eyes are particularly well done, and have no objection in the designer giving him a bit more hair. I think the inclusion of his monogram was a mistake and the coin would look better without it.

Sorry, you are right. Only past catalogues are available but not featured collections.

It's working for me now.

There was no need for them to apologise. A simple "Thank you for your feedback. Our technical team will be looking into it" could be the polite and noncommittal response.

Result: sold! not!

The latest LCA catalogue is now online. https://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?category=9.1&page=Catalogue&searchtype=3&viewrange=0 I noticed that under certified coins, there are six wreath crowns on sale. All have been graded as proof crowns by CGS. Quite surprisingly, LCA does not totally stand by the CGS attributions but merely describe them as just "Proof or Prooflike".

I just don't understand what is going on with the new ESC. Someone has left a review about the stupidity of having two different "7th editions". https://www.amazon.co.uk/English-Silver-Coinage-Maurice-Bull/product-reviews/1912667495/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews Why would Spink want to do that in the first place? Strangely, the Spink website only has the apparently abridged "Gothic Crown" version. If having the two different versions was an error, then surely Spink would now be selling the full version only.

Any idea why that might be the case? The wreath proofs don't have the same standard of mirror image of earlier 1911 proof coins or the slightly later 1935 RE proof. There is no frosting either. Compared to other proofs, they are somewhat below par.

Last Christmas at Dunham Massey:

Although wreath crowns were struck in very limited quantities each year I don't think they can all be regarded as proofs. It's widely accepted that only a very small number of proofs were struck presumably using special flans resulting in sharper edges. One would expect that proofs were struck multiple times. The Royal Mint are selling 1951 crowns (at inflated prices) and does not describe them as proofs. As far as I know, they are described as specimen by respectable dealers as the consensus is that they were struck to below proof standard.

These issues aside, is it worth getting the 7th edition if you have the 6th? From what I have read about the book, they are now including current prices. Are these simply based on the Spink catalogue with guess work on the less common varieties? Considering that the 6th edition came out not so long ago, it can appear that they are milking it somewhat.

It's easy to understand why you love it. The legend is very well struck in particular and I like the triple struck "R" on the obverse. Very nice toning too. 😀

Believe me, I am very sympathetic and am annoyed with unnecessarily tight deadlines. The right approach is not to set such tight deadlines unless essential. But once a tight deadline has been set (as in this particular case), then it will create uncertainty if it's not met. And I agree that it was both self imposed and arbitrary on this occasion.

To be fair to Noonans, they had a deadline to meet and were very keen to have the new site up after the bank holiday weekend. Let's wait at least a fortnight / month and see if they will solve the teething problems?

I can find it on the site now. "A BUYERS PREMIUM OF 24% OF THE HAMMER PRICE (PLUS VAT IF LOTS ARE COLLECTED OR DELIVERED WITHIN THE UK) IS PAYABLE BY THE BUYER ON ALL LOTS."

The change is complete. https://www.noonans.co.uk You will get redirected immediately if you use the old web address. They have also done a makeover of their site, and as Mike has pointed out, they have changed their logo too.