Oxford_Collector

There's nothing wrong with MT coins as long as you realise they're simply a way of acquiring silver bullion, not a numismatic rarity, though I would argue that if you want to acquire physical silver primarily as bullion you'd do better off buying tubes of 1oz American Silver Eagles, Austrian Philharmonicas or Canadian Maples (though with VAT on silver at 20% in the UK and silver prices having probably peaked for a while at least, am not sure this is a good idea either at the moment).

I just came across this latest rip-off from the Royal Mint - The Double-Florin Anniversary Set "This beautiful limited edition of just 125 presents a ‘very fine’ condition original double-florin coin sourced by Royal Mint experts together with a 2012 silver 20p coin" and all for "only" £145! According to my Spink 2012 guide, a VF double florin should cost between £40 (for an 1887) and £55 (for an 1890), except for the rarer varieties, so in effect they're charging £90 to £105 for a silver 20p... I pity the "normal" public who have no idea what they should be paying for a VF double florin...

Thanks everyone, great input, I'm really interested in this stuff! BTW is it correct to assume that the with/without hearts coins are as common as each other, so all things being equal, for a similar condition coin, the value would be the same either way? Or is one of variety considered more desirable than the other? Pre-1816 silver is really outside of my main area of knowledge (not that I'm an expert on even the post-1816 coinage...), but I've started to take an interest in the earlier Georgian silver recently, I guess I should really get hold of a copy of "English Silver Coinage"....

Sorry if this is slightly off-topic (though a sovereign is arguably a pre-decimal coin still, whichever the year), but am I the only one to think that the ultra-shiny finish on modern (well, post-2000, if not earlier) gold sovereigns is horrible? I don't know what they do to sovereigns these days, but I have a 1970s sovereign and the finish on this still looks more like the "traditional" finish seen on much earlier sovereigns, so I'm not quite sure when (or why?!) this change-over happened, as my only other "modern" sovereign is a 1980s proof one. The ultra-glossy finish on modern bullion sovereigns I think actually makes them look "cheap", rather than proof-like. The slightly matt finish on modern US bullion gold eagles, for example, is much nicer I think and looks less susceptible to finger marks and the like.

Interesting, I didn't know that the die finished had changed, its a real shame about the effect this had had on the finish of the coins, really makes modern coinage minted in this way look unappealing!

This very true - for example *why* is the 1989 proof sovereign so expensive? Yes it has a one-off (and rather nice) design, but the mintage numbers are higher than some of the later proof sovereigns and the price is way more than the other one-off design years (2002, 2005 and now 2012). The reason - demand! People like the coin...

On eBay when a coin is described as being in "collectable condition" this usually seems to mean "ungradeable" in reality...

Indeed! :-)

My hovercraft is full of eels!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17229794 "The world's most expensive coin is going on display in London at the Goldsmith's Hall, as part of a high security tour around Europe. The 1933 Double Eagle coin needs three security guards to accompany it wherever it goes. Curator Karen Lee told Breakfast that the 1933 coin was never supposed to make it into circulation, which is why it is so rare."

The limitation on the file size, not dimensions, I think, if you up the JPG compression a bit you can upload some reasonably large images. From what I can tell from the tiny photo and description, it sounds like a silver (or maybe nickel?) plated ordinary penny, though.

I went on the Saturday, spent an interesting morning mostly attending some discussions about the CGS (Coin Grading Service), introduced by a collector, Bill Pugsley, (who I also had a very nice chat with later in the day after the auctions had finished, along with Andrew Wide of AJW coins). Was interesting to see what everyone had to say and I did end up submitting a few of my nicer coins for grading/encapsulation. I spent quite a bit of the afternoon looking at the auction lots and watching the auction proceed - was interesting for me as was the first time I think I've actually been at an auction in person! Unfortunately most of the lots I would've been interested in were being auctioned on the Sunday, which I couldn't make. There were are a number of US coins I was quite interested in, however, though the bidding for most of them started off too high for me and there was a keen US phone bidder. I did end up bidding on and winning a lustrous uncirculated 1936 Buffalo Nickel, however, a common date, but the coin really is in superb condition and I'm not disappointed with it. Anyway, I found the whole day very educational and would certainly consider going again.

They're ahead of you. Philip Skingley's foreword to the 2012 Spink says, "It is our intention for the next edition to split the catalogue into two volumes, separating the decimal coining into its own stand-alone volume." He goes on to say that this will allow both sections to expand. Good news for those of us with only a passing interest in decimal currency! But not for those of us whose interests cross the divide. Just get a copy of Check your Change for the new tat I don't think you'd find gold or even silver Britannias in your change, though

Hi -I have a small number of Edward VII & George V shillings, on the Edward shillings the Lion's face looks well-formed and distinct, yet on the George V shillings it looks less well-formed more indistinct, though the coins look otherwise near-UNC, so I'm unsure if this is due to weaker strikes for this reign (as with the upper lion's faces on the first series of George V florins) or just wear. Is it known that the shillings of George V have a more weakly struck reverse or is wear the more likely cause? I also have a 1914 sixpence of George VI that looks a good UNC overall (the obverse being particularly well-struck), but again the lion's face is not well-formed and am wondering if this is due to a weakly struck reverse or not (though also, I guess you will get less detail on the sixpences anyway...)? Am still learning how to grade these coins correctly...

I think the only silver pennies (and Fourpence and Twopence) issued during George VI's reign were maundy issues. Mintage for Maundy money is always pretty low, there's some mintage figures and indicative values (for the sets) here, but I don't know how up-to-date this is: http://www.maundymoney.info/26064/14115.html According to this the mintage for the 1938 set was 1,275 pieces. BTW the coin will be 50% silver, not sterling (92.5%), as maundy money was debased along with the rest of our coinage in 1921, though was restored back to sterling silver in 1947 when silver was removed completely from our circulating coinage . Hope this helps! Sorry, I've just read your post again, you've said it has Britannia on the reverse (which the maundy penny doesn't) - I don't know of any British silver penny of 1938 with Britannia on it - sounds more like a 19th century groat! Is it British or a colonial coin?

I think the only silver pennies (and Fourpence and Twopence) issued during George VI's reign were maundy issues. Mintage for Maundy money is always pretty low, there's some mintage figures and indicative values (for the sets) here, but I don't know how up-to-date this is: http://www.maundymoney.info/26064/14115.html According to this the mintage for the 1938 set was 1,275 pieces. BTW the coin will be 50% silver, not sterling (92.5%), as maundy money was debased along with the rest of our coinage in 1921, though was restored back to sterling silver in 1947 when silver was removed completely from our circulating coinage . Hope this helps!

BTW I'm definitely going to be there tomorrow (Saturday), hopefully quite early, is anyone else going then?

"Weak strike" is not quite the right term I think. Even early strikes from new dies can show weakness on the reverses where the obverse portrait is highest. It's a phenomenon unique to the early series of George V and is often accompanied by a 'ghost' of the portrait appearing on the reverse, especially halfpennies, pennies, and shillings, and to a less extent sixpences. It's not a weak strike so much as an imbalance in the two sides of the design, which saw the portrait of George cut much too deep. For 'lion's nose' on shillings, read 'Britannia's face and chest' on the bronze. I would say that the ME coins are better struck, but whether that is purely down to the new portrait I don't know. I don't think the metal composition is the reason as that was .500 silver from 1920 onwards and there are plenty of weak 1920-1925 examples. Perhaps the new metal composition, being less dense, allowed the striking pressure to be increased. It's difficult to say as the reverses for ME coins are a single-year type, given that the entire coinage was redesigned for 1927, drastically so for silver. But I've seen many 1926ME shillings, they lack ghosting and seem to be pretty well struck up. Thanks for all the information, I feel like I'm slowly learning about things - this sort of information doesn't seem to get mentioned in any books I've read

I quite like the Britannias too, especially the "classic" look ones (maybe because they look similar to the design on Edward VII florins...), though wouldn't pay the outrageous prices the Royal Mint asks for! In the USA the US Mint doesn't seem to rip off the public quite so badly with its issues, though maybe the RM tries to justify it with lower mintages?

If you register with Heritage (www.ha.com) you can get access to their auction archive. The archive is searchable and you will be able to find images of many high grade coins (mostly certified by PCGS and NGC). The images are fairly huge and mostly show good detail. I'm already registered with them, as have been in interested in some of the US coins they have on there (though the prices can get scary...), hadn't thought to look for British coins, but will have a look for reference purposes!

I've been looking for a nice gothic florin to add to my florin type collection, most of my later florins are BU (as far as I can tell uncleaned, but I guess its not always possible to be certain...), but I've been pondering this attractively toned gothic florin on eBay and was wondering what people on here thought of it? Not sure I'm actually going to buy it, but would be good to have an idea of people's opinions to try to get a reference point at least. As far as I can tell, it looks AUNC to me - there is very little wear as far as I can tell, though the lower lions are not as clearly defined as the upper ones - am not sure if this is due to a weak strike or wear, though. In the photo it looks like there is a horizontal mark on Victoria's lower front neck/upper chest, I asked the seller about this and they said: "The Horizontal mark on Victoria's lower front neck is nothing (shadow I think). But with a magnifying glass only, you can see 2 small marks vertically. But not without using a magnifying glass" Has anyone got any images of a top-notch gothic florin I can compare for reference? I saw some better specimens at the recent London Coin Fair (I think in the Dix Noonan Web stall, though I could be mistaken), which had more details on the lions and we're apparently BU, but they were asking over £600... Spink 2012 has the following guide values for an 1852 Gothic florin: EF - £250, UNC - £600, an the 2011 Rotographic guide gives: EF - £200, UNC - £300, so I guess its priced for around AUNC (if using Spink as a guide). The 1852 seems to be the first year of major issue (1851 is reported in Rotographic, but very rare) and is perhaps more common than some of the later issues, if the prices quoted in Spink are anything to go by, though I don't have the English Silver Coinage Seaby book, so am unsure what relative rarity is listed there. Another thing I'm aware of is that counterfeits of gothic florins exist, this one looks genuine to me, but I'm no expert... Anyway, any feedback welcome, decent gothic florins don't come cheap, so I want to make sure I don't get fleeced when buying one! Thanks

No choice BU gothic florins then? ;-)

Btw if thinking if getting the US Coin Red Book guide, the new one comes out in April, so you may wish to hang on until then. I collect both US and British coins (no bronze currently, just silver and a little gold), though my collections of both are still very small as I tend more and more towards quality over quantity, which limits my number of purchases! For US coins, most of my collection is pre-1965 (i.e.real silver) but post-Barber, though think some of the modern stuff is okay - I even bought a (40% silver) 1976 Bicentenial set (quarter, half and Ike dollar) recently on eBay - was in great condition and only £4.99 (less than the silver spot price, I think!). I don't think I'll be collecting Susan B. Antony dollars, though...

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era. So for George V shillings and sixpences, missing details for the lion's nose is more likely due to a weak strike, rather than wear, if the rest of the coin looks UNC? BTW what do mean by the "pre-ME George V era"? Thanks again. ME stands for modified effigy which was first used in 1926. Ah, makes sense now, thanks! So do the coins with the modified effigy tend to be better struck? Though these of course are debased 50% silver, though I guess the metal composition will have an impact here too

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era. So for George V shillings and sixpences, missing details for the lion's nose is more likely due to a weak strike, rather than wear, if the rest of the coin looks UNC? BTW what do mean by the "pre-ME George V era"? Thanks again.