My Latest Acquisition

[Nordle11 564]

I'd go as far as 04, 05, 06, 07, sometimes the 09 is a bit mulshy too. There's a stark contrast in quality from the design change using the veiled head to Eddy's bust, they really couldn't get their heads around it for many years after.

[1949threepence 3,366]

31 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Most of the 1905,1906 are weak to the reverse Mike even if BU.

 

25 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

I'd go as far as 04, 05, 06, 07, sometimes the 09 is a bit mulshy too. There's a stark contrast in quality from the design change using the veiled head to Eddy's bust, they really couldn't get their heads around it for many years after.

I know many aren't good, but this one is exceptionally bad. The "wear" on Britannia looks like 15 years worth.

Anyway, it just kind of proves Colin's point that the look, is not indicative of the grade.  

[copper123 1,352]

TBH that 1906 penny looks cleaned as well are you sure its near unc?

Perfect example of a badly struch edwardian bronze coin

Obverse of the 1888 groat lets it down big time though the reverse is great

[IanB 175]

7 minutes ago, copper123 said:

TBH that 1906 penny looks cleaned as well are you sure its near unc?

 

What indicates that it has been cleaned?

[Nordle11 564]

25 minutes ago, IanB said:

What indicates that it has been cleaned?

I'd guess he's referring to the dark red colour. However I don't think it is and I'd have faith in Mike's opinion as he has the coin in hand and is a seasoned collector.

[IanB 175]

15 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

I'd guess he's referring to the dark red colour.

Maybe. I am always just amazed how these things are recognised. I would have said it looks okay, and its never easy telling from a picture what the real colour of a coin is.

I am going to put it out there and make a point that I often see on here someone put a coin up for others to see and sometimes the reply comment is just "cleaned" or "dipped" with no further explanation. 

It would be good if the person replying gives a bit of a reason why. I enjoy learning from everyone on the forum, but I think it can put some people off from posting if things are explained rather than just cleaned or dipped.

Edited November 4, 2016 by IanB

[PWA 1967 1,841]

I dont think its cleaned for what my opinion is worth 

[Nordle11 564]

7 minutes ago, IanB said:

Maybe. I am always just amazed how these things are recognised. I would have said it looks okay, and its never easy telling from a picture what the real colour of a coin is.

I am going to put it out there and make a point that I often see on here someone put a coin up for others to see and sometimes the reply comment is just "cleaned" or "dipped" with no further explanation. 

It would be good if the person replying gives a bit of a reason why. I enjoy learning from everyone on the forum, but I think it can put some people off from posting if things are explained rather than just cleaned or dipped.

Fully agree with you there. Sometimes one forgets that people don't necessarily know what you're talking about (especially when it's your area of knowledge) and it's unintentionally assumed, but if you see any like that, question it like you did  someone will hopefully elaborate.

[1949threepence 3,366]

39 minutes ago, copper123 said:

TBH that 1906 penny looks cleaned as well are you sure its near unc?

Perfect example of a badly struch edwardian bronze coin

Obverse of the 1888 groat lets it down big time though the reverse is great

No, it's not cleaned - that's for definite. The coin is lustrous, but just worn looking. As Matt & Pete said, many of the Edward VII pennies have very poor reverses, probably due to inferior dies.

I first uploaded the pic of that coin back in February 2013, when the issue arose on the first page of this thread 

 

[Nordle11 564]

1 minute ago, 1949threepence said:

No, it's not cleaned - that's for definite. The coin is lustrous, but just worn looking. As Matt & Pete said, many of the Edward VII pennies have very poor reverses, probably due to inferior dies.

I first uploaded the pic of that coin back in February 2013, when the issue arose on the first page of this thread 

 

I knew I had seen that coin somewhere! Thanks, that was niggling at the back of my mind  

[PWA 1967 1,841]

52 minutes ago, IanB said:

Maybe. I am always just amazed how these things are recognised. I would have said it looks okay, and its never easy telling from a picture what the real colour of a coin is.

I am going to put it out there and make a point that I often see on here someone put a coin up for others to see and sometimes the reply comment is just "cleaned" or "dipped" with no further explanation. 

It would be good if the person replying gives a bit of a reason why. I enjoy learning from everyone on the forum, but I think it can put some people off from posting if things are explained rather than just cleaned or dipped.

More often than not Ian from my limited experience a cleaned coin (on bronze) will show even colour and shine that is different than lustre .

Also the letters maybe different as not cleaned inside/around  etc.

Overall though the coin will be shiny if thats the right word or dull but all the same colour.

Alternatively you will spot small patches were the coin has been worked on specific parts.

Under 20X magnification and gently moving the coin will show residue or signs such as rubbing ,minute scratches.

Hard to tell from pictures sometimes 

You will also notice dark patches or alternatively the coin being a pink colour were it has been treated with an acid based product (vinegar)or patches from something like verdicare.

Pete.

Edited November 4, 2016 by PWA 1967

[Nordle11 564]

If you have the time Ian, buy some cheap cleaning supplies and get to work on some crappy QEIIs, you'll get to know what they look like using different methods and also the limits of cleaning a coin. Here's a pic of one I had where you can see around the legends where it was cleaned a while ago, it has that 'halo' look to it which you just don't get from natural toning.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

As an add on some coins show signs of things that are due to storage issues and one side a different colour.

These have not been cleaned but will show as greenish colour /lines, marks and oxidisation mainly with copper .

Suppose this needs a thread of its own but signs of blue on bronze or sheen from laquer are better looked at twice.

Edited November 4, 2016 by PWA 1967

[IanB 175]

3 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Suppose this needs a thread of its own

I like the sound of that. Maybe members could post examples of cleaned / dipped coins such as Matt's halo coin above and then take some of us less experiences collectors through what to look for.

[Colin G. 147]

18 hours ago, Paulus said:

What do you reckon on this one Colin? @Colin G.

Looks good, all the usual places for initial wear seem okay. The edge at 9 on the Obverse looks a bit tatty, is that excess metal or damage to the edge? It is the low tide year as well for farthings.

[Colin G. 147]

19 hours ago, UPINSMOKE said:

Another new one for the 1888 set. Not sure I am quite as happy with this one, another eBay purchase. My pictures don't really do this justice, it does look better. I have graded this as Near EF. Your input welcome please.

Don't forget this one also has small coin syndrome compared to your last, but I agree the Reverse looks much better than the Obverse.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

2 hours ago, IanB said:

I like the sound of that. Maybe members could post examples of cleaned / dipped coins such as Matt's halo coin above and then take some of us less experiences collectors through what to look for.

Yes agreed Ian,although could go on forever 

Another pointer on copper is the high points having a silver colour is a give away that its had a good rub 

[Paulus 1,942]

7 hours ago, Colin G. said:

Looks good, all the usual places for initial wear seem okay. The edge at 9 on the Obverse looks a bit tatty, is that excess metal or damage to the edge? It is the low tide year as well for farthings.

Just a bit of excess metal I think

[copper123 1,352]

As we are on the subject of farthings heres one  my edward collection 1909

the obverse is close to perfect

 

[Michael-Roo 777]

1 hour ago, copper123 said:

As we are on the subject of farthings heres one  my edward collection 1909

the obverse is close to perfect

 

It might be worth your while comparing this with Paulus's coin (above). The hair detail looks to be worn away on your coin, though I suppose it may be that it was struck from a knackered die?

[copper123 1,352]

yes that is more likely , as you can see its got almost full black lustre

[copper123 1,352]

a nice reverse well struck dark finish

[1949threepence 3,366]

6 hours ago, copper123 said:

As we are on the subject of farthings heres one  my edward collection 1909

the obverse is close to perfect

 

 

It doesn't look it, to be honest with you 

Edited November 5, 2016 by 1949threepence

[Colin G. 147]

Those images have been taken with a scanner by their appearance which will make the coins look quite flat in terms of hair detail etc. You can see that there is wear on the Reverse of the 1909, however it would be difficult to call the other two on the individual images alone, without seeing them in hand. There is definite loss of lustre and what looks like wear across the ear on the 1909 Obverse. Whereas the 1901 could just be some rubbing that has led to the loss of lustre at the highest points.

[UPINSMOKE 456]

At long last the final few coins from my 1899 set the Maundy coins thanks to @Colin G. for supplying them for me.all have been entombed and graded. Let here what you think guy please.