All Activity

I concur, especially if you were dealing with a mint state piece, which in this state looking at the rims clearly isn't. However, it could be that it was being electropolished to remove crud and toning marks - in which case, a beautification project. As one of ebay's 'must have errors', the condition is probably irrelevant to a great extent. Road kill status is likely to be the biggest impediment to value, when the knocks are impossible to disregard.

the crock clip biting to the coin is of concern, I use tweezers that are plastic, rather than metal, .....just an observation, 👍

yes pretty sure you are right

isn't that where Bowie played his final Ziggy Stardust gig (and hadn't told his bass player and drummer)?

the left hand coin - no brainer

I do have a wash a coin disorder🤔 however I don't polish them, obvious circulated damaged ones get slotted in until like on this occasion they get rotated and then the lesser quality will finds its way onto ebay, its quite therapeutic and if I'm honest this should of taken place ages ago...I just didn't have the time back then....many thanks for the assistance I can mull these things over and on occasion ended up keeping duplicates....I sure I'm not the only one..👍

For me it would depend on whether the brightness indicated by the one on the left is a result of polishing to within an inch of it life. I can live with faults if the coin is sufficiently rare, but it isn't. Personally, I would bin (sell) both and put the proceeds towards something better, which would be easy given the number extant. The detail visible has been covered by the previous posts.

You might know, but that 1693 shilling is the 9/0 variety, also signalled by the distinctive reverse die break. I had one of those once, it's not that rare though.

Duplicate post below.

It's always seemed the case that the 1897 high tide variety is an experiment to see how much they could enlarge this relatively new Britannia type - hence all three corners, trident, foot and shield are closer to the edge than in the standard variety. The 1895 2mm was conversely a slightly smaller version, deemed too small before slightly enlarging for the main 1mm issue of that year, which was the standard size.

1675 farthings are more often than not weakly struck on the hair and middle of Britannia. This year suffers more from that than the other years.

Arrived today. The cleaning doesn't look as harsh in hand as it does in the photos.

Definitely the one on the left. As well as @Coinery's comments, the detail on the reverse is far nicer.

The right one has obverse gouges across the neck, and a reverse edge nick, that’s the decider for me. The right hand coin may also be pitted, hard to tell from the photos.

whilst sorting coins out I tend to find that there's already a dated coin in the "keep" folder, then its a case of weighing up what is the better grade of the two..... most I have (as you know 🤔) do come with circulation damage, but I always take a closer look at duplicates and see if there is a better option to keep... the (1816 Shilling) one on the right was in the folder, the one on the left is a contender to be an up grade..... it looks better to me, so I would appreciate a second opinion... before committing to swapping them around. 👍cheers

The year shown on the coin (above the wreath being offerred by Tyche) is ΒΚΦ = 522 Seleucid Era so 210/11 CE. As Vologases IV died in 191 CE the coin is not his but instead is Sellwood's "Vologases VI". The month (found in the exergue on these tetradrachms) is off the flan so it's a Sellwood 88.5 variant. Too bad the month is off the flan.

Living proof that the education system is broken. I guess that makes Charlie's coins post-medieval, or maybe it is something to do with the date, given we are in the AH1400s. Too much detail to be hammered, but has certainly been through the mill. Unless it was one of Elon's ice-picks to blame for the obverse dent. I am not from Manchester.

Not a medieval coin I've ever seen before...

well you have to be pretty good to play the hammersmith its quite big

You've answered your own questions/observations perfectly.

That obverse is such an obvious repro

I used to keep a few, purely for amusement.

Nearly scrolled…honestly, just stick with the enquiry…I really hope you get your answer or, better still, a B over R coin 🍻

No, it’s not an R over B; unless it’s the same coin, I’ve seen this flaw mis-described before, even major auction houses are chancers at times. Jerry

I'm aware that the difference between the example images can be/is the amount of wear, if the letter B is worn down enough you would see the straight section of the of the R shown in the top right corner of the bottom loop of the B creating the straight section.