Sword

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.

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.

This video clip of the White House press dinner is worth watching: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-61290695

I think the onus is to show that it was done at the mint if one were to convinced others it isn't graffiti. My view is that the minting of a coin is over once it has been struck. Even if the lines were done by someone at the mint later on to illustrate something, it still wouldn't be part of the minting process. Other members might disagree of course. For the coin in the OP, I agree the lines were deliberately done but they don't look very straight. If submitted to a TPG, I assume it will only get a details grade with the descriptor "scratched" as they won't give any benefit of the doubt. The photo you just posted is some sort of pattern? What was it graded as just out of interest?

For what it's worth, I think any kind of intentional change to a coin post mint is graffiti unless there is convincing provenance that it was done at the mint itself for a serious purpose. Perhaps the most practical approach is to assume that all post mint changes to be graffiti unless proven not to be the case. Otherwise, there will be endless attempts to explain why damage on coins was done for legitimate purposes.

There are so many huge companies with multiple names. E.g. PricewaterhouseCoopers is known as pwc; Marks & Spencers is also known as M&S. No one have issues with their names. It's just creating some hassle for no real reason.

None of the three are leaving: "In relation to the shortening of the company name from Dix Noonan Webb to Noonans, Nimrod Dix commented: “There really wasn’t much to debate when it came to which one of our surnames to run with. Pierce had the more suitable one of the three of us and was also by far the youngest, so that was an easy decision to make.” With regards to the future, Nimrod went on to say, “It did cross our minds when we decided to shorten our company name that some people might see it as a sign that Chris Webb and I were taking early retirement, so now is probably a good time to say that this is definitely not the case. I am still working full time heading up the company’s medal department with no plans to retire any time soon and Chris spends most of his time on the road seeing clients. We are excited for the future and still have a lot to do, so it might be more accurate to say that we are only just getting started!”