Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook


The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.


Accomplished Collector
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Michael-Roo

  1. Catalogue condition grading determines state of preservation POST minting. If a coin has left the mint with areas of design less sharp than intended due to a poor striking process then this is not wear, and should be considered as such.
  2. And once again, agreed. Once you confuse the two, you're lost.Yes, but a fine isn't how the coin looks, it's how the coin has worn! If an EII 1953 penny never had the hair, or whatever (most things, actually), in the first place, when first leaving the mint, it's not a coin you can look at and say "ah, yes, no hair over the ears, and no jewels on the crown, must be a VF"...it's uncirculated, and hot from the mint!My point, but much better put. I have a 1675 Charles farthing. (I use it for my ident pic.) Its as crisp as you'd like. No wear. However; its weak on the hair and the corresponding globe area on the reverse. The coin has seen little or no circulation, but these areas are a tad flat. As C says: this is basically how it happened to come from the mint.
  3. Is a fine for, say, a 1697 halfpenny the same for a fine 1940's of the same denomination? Should we not consider the metal. The striking process etc? How about the tin series? I have several which would rate as fine or better, but they'd look rubbish compared with a modern coin described as such.
  4. So, as an interesting slant, now knowing that your image was a CGS submission, I can confirm that that was my coin, which I subsequently broke out and resold for what I thought was a fair price, as did the buyer I'm guessing?You'd really have a big battle with the CC farthings of this period, which I've heard have been over-graded on occasions, but not to the extent that CGS have under graded the early milled material IMO! Just sayin' Re: the CC collection on line. Sometimes the gradings, when compared with the accompanying photos, do leave me a little confused.
  5. Comparison with all those other coins pictured on line which are in the same 'ball park' I suppose? If you look closely at the reverse on mine there isn't as much wear as you might think. Is it something which is often referred to as 'soft strike'?
  6. I'd be happy to accept that assessment Colin. All I wanted was to show something I'd bought this week. Peter piled in with his comment. Then all this kicked off. Heavens. what a to-do (laughs)!.
  7. Wow, this feels strange, I really can't agree with you on this one! That's a first for me! C. For what its worth; I don't agree either. If a dealer was grading Chas farthings like mine as fine, and pricing them as such, he'd be beating people off with a stick…..
  8. Which would mean your 1672 no obverse stops has an obverse which is less than fine. Even though graded for you as GF?
  9. Sometimes CGS are way too conservative, and that's one of them IMO. I agree with you P. This coin Paulus has is better than GF. I'd be happy with near very fine. Good for him considering its a 1672 no stops!
  10. Thanks for your kind comments Paulus. In my haste to knock off a quick reply I neglected to say how much I like the no obverse stops example you have used to illustrate your point. I have one too, but its not as nice as this one. I do have a 1673 no obverse stops which, if not as good as your 72, is certainly getting there.
  11. I can see at a glance that the obverse of my coin is superior to this one. Compare the eye area, ear, laurel wreath etc. Granted, mine is a weaker strike on the reverse than your is (face, sprig, mid torso), but allowing for this is in a similar state of preservation. LondonCoin Auctions are well respected on this forum. Please compare my coin with Charles II farthingings they have graded as fine in the past. Either way no big thing. I was pleased to get this for £40, and wanted to share it with my fellow members.
  12. Better than fine, surely? Here are a couple of (slightly) more successful photos…..
  13. You'll have to excuse my poor photography I'm afraid. I can never get the images as sharp as they should be. I have 45-50 Chas farthings in all grades from VG through to GEF. This 1674 is certainly better than fine. Its a strong VF on the obverse and approaching VF on the reverse.
  14. If you can get more at that price I will add a premium on top. Seriously, I mean it. Not sure if these natural light pictures are better. Maybe just different. Anyway: Yes indeed. A great price. It came from an odds'n'sods place (not a coin dealership). There were a small number of coins for sale. Mostly modern junk, but I got this and a couple of others.
  15. Thanks P. Actually, it's even sharper than it looks in these photos. Ill try to get better ones in natural light (if the sun ever comes out here today). Three figures eh? Don't want to rub it in or anything…..but I got this for £40. Did you notice the wide gap between the first two and second two digits of the date? Is this of any consequence?
  16. I bought this recently. A decent grade for one of the scarcer dates.
  17. Nice idea. I would have thought, in that case, the portrait of Charles II would be the target of the defacer's anger, rather than poor old Brittania? Maybe the damage was done by the queen. After all, it was one of Chas' mistresses who modelled for the image of B! 1673 no obverse stops is rare. Unfortunately, so severely damaged, its all but worthless. Good find though!
  18. Unusual damage to the halfpenny. Any idea how it was done, or if its supposed to represent something? The farthing is a little too far gone to be able to make out a possible date overstrike from the photo. It actually looks like 1676 on screen (which it isn't). If it is an overdate it would be 5 over 3. Interesting, slightly misplaced, large C in Carolvs.
  19. Birmingham Mining and Copper Company halfpenny. Payable at Birmingham, Redruth, Swansea. The 7 of the date is clearly punched over a 9. Does this overstrike make it a rarity?
  20. P is right. A lion. It features on the silver coins of George II too.
  21. This is all very true. In that case, maybe its time for the unresearched varieties thread to be put out to pasture? For me, finding these little differences will remain fascinating and fun. I first became aware of this kind of thing when regularly receiving sales catalogues from Colin Cooke and Farthing Specialist in the 1980s. At that time the standard price guides didn't include them, so they expanded my collecting potential. I wonder why William and Mary and Wm III copper varieties are so extensively listed and priced in the guides these days, when similar differences from other reigns are not? Is it just a fashion? Maybe these will become redundant if collectors lose interest.
  22. Michael-Roo

    1869 Bun….

    Are the penny collectors fancying this one?…. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1869-VICTORIA-ONE-PENNY-VERY-RARE-HIGH-GRADE-EXAMPLE-A-UNCIRCULATED-/161397918412?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item259410cacc
  23. Re: again (sorry to border on boring!): It would be fun to think the 1718 N over A would eventually become a recognised variety. 1718 R over B is in Spink. I have one, and its no where near as clear/dramatic as the N over A overstrike is. BTW: One for Scott (fellow early milled copper fan): This evening I bought a couple of things from ebay which you'd probably approve of. A Wm & M 1694 farthing with unbarred A's in Maria (near VF), and a Mary pattern/medalet farthing (near VF).
  24. That's the problem with quoting known populations. Once someone has an unrecorded coin it achieves fame in its own lunchtime as a rarity. By tea-time everyone has an example. The best recent example of this is the 1893/2 1d, or a few years ago the no-date 20p. Only a six-figure quantity out there chaps, so fill your boots before they become unavailable. Well, I've had my lunch but I've still to hear if anyone else has an example of the 1718 N over A halfpenny, photos of which I uploaded a few days ago. Tea might be a long time coming at this rate….. Whilst you and I might appreciate halfpennies, most of the rest don't. I have been ploughing a fairly lone furrow for almost a decade on this forum. If it was a penny, then that would arouse much more interest. True. Maybe there being a DNW auction example, a Nicholson (highly regarded), and now my own, which is superior to either of these, may go some way to establishing this as an excepted variety. I mean, we're not talking the difference between a half and a full border tooth here (hello penny collectors! ), but a clear and unrecorded overstrike. I'd prefer the early milled 1/2d and 1/4d varieties to the tiny differences in bun pennies any day. So much to look out for!