All Activity

Thanks Rob. Apologies for the quality of the photo.

Have a word with Dave Symonds. He used to be looking after the coins in the Museum before they decided they didn't need him any more. He might be able to help with a contact.

Colours seen aren't very helpful. Is it a bronze currency piece or a cupro-nickel proof? I assume the former, but the colours don't tell me. If the former, then it has seen so much circulation that cleaning wouldn't change its value by much. They are quite common in mint state.

Thanks for posting, that's an interesting history about the societies. I haven't had much experience of the numismatic academia personally though the BNS journals from start (~1903) are all now freely available on the internet. Peter Mitchell produced an entertaining description of many of the personalities in numismatic life, including museum staff and dealers, which is here: https://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital BNJ/pdfs/2003_BNJ_73_21.pdf I am saddened but not surprised by the Leftward tilt of academia - this has happened over the last several decades and is in general anti-any celebrating or pride in Western history, culture and achievements, though I'm sure there are many honourable exceptions. The social pressure to conform to versions of this mindset will be strong. So parts of academia will exhibit an underlying anti-Western bias and this includes pre-20th century Western achievements (which includes our coinage, both from an artistic point of view and the great technological creation of modern coinage via Soho), as it will be lumped with "elitism, colonialism", etc etc, whatever buzzwords they need to fit the ideology of equivalence i.e. every society's culture/art is the same. An example of this is in the BM's Money and Medals (formerly Coins and Medals) gallery. The display has chronological descriptions around the walls of the history of coins. Now, coming to the late 18th century/early 19th century one would expect a big emphasis on the introduction of the steam press to machine make coinage, which was of a higher and more uniform standard to anything that had gone before. Boulton and Watt essentially created modern coin manufacture, which was then exported/copied around the globe. But instead GB is lumped in with Russia (!) in the title. Reading the small print revealed that we made some coins for them, but at first glance it looks like they were equals in coin manufacture/technology! No other country in the world would so underplay its own glorious heritage. The staff are of course wonderful as I have visited the reading room on several occasions over the years to view their collection, and they couldn't have been more helpful. I made another depressing discovery when I phoned Birmingham Museums a few years ago to ascertain if it was possible to see Peck's Soho collection which he bequeathed to them. Result - I ended up talking to someone who obviously knew nothing about coins (or Peck for that matter). She told me that their last official numismatist lost his job in 2014, and access to the collection was now impossible as it was all locked away and inaccessible. I don't think Peck would have approved somehow.

It seems to me that British history is filled with “Brexity” events, and this goes back to the very start of British written text. I could list quite a lot of them that involve money and thus coins. Has anyone else given thought to this matter in general, or is willing to mention historical examples of it that spring to mind? Meanwhile I am new to this group and still trying to find my way around. Recently I tried to raise a matter somewhat linked to this, by reviving a very old thread in the members only section. Few seemed to notice it, so I hope moderators will look sympathetically if I repeat it here, as I am still hoping to get (any) response. It concerns events in 1903 when several committee members at the Royal Numismatic Society resigned to create the British Numismatic Society, having concerns about “continental bias” at the RNS. I wrote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here are some details about the past and present relations between the Royal and British Numismatic Societies. I select what seem to me the most important facts, and I do it because I think past events throw a light on current predicaments. This story is primarily selected from the Official History of the Royal Numismatic Society here: https://numismatics.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/a-history-of-the-royal-numismatic-society.pdf The RNS was founded in 1836, and was a mix of officials (BM, Mint, Academia) along with with coin dealers and coin collectors. It was wide ranging, with of course a lot of influence from the aristocratic grand tour inheritance – coins of Rome and Greece - along with an interest in Oriental coins, especially of India, due to Britain’s Imperial context back then. The RNS went into crisis in 1903 in a row over a paper by W J Andrew about the coinage of Henry I, which was aggressively attacked by two officials from the Public Records Office. Andrew resigned and other members backed him stating that the Public Records Office writers were “not members of the Society and that they confess with an air of superiority, that they have no knowledge of numismatics” That paper was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Two further members of the RNS council resigned, having been accused of telling tales in public about what had been said in private at RNS committee meetings. They created a new breakaway society, the British Numismatic Society. Prominent amongst them was Carlyon-Britton, the new BNS president who published this paper in 1904 https://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital BNJ/pdfs/1903_BNJ_1_17.pdf Where he complained about the condescending and self interested positions taken by the British Museum. Whilst personal animosities were not made explicit we should note a BNS view that “British numismatics were inadequately catered for by the Royal Numismatic Society with its classical and continental bias”. That at time when Barclay Head was the curator at the BM, and an editor of the RNS Journal. He published exclusively on Greek coinage, and a RNS tribute on his death noted that of the thirty contributors to his Festschrift, “ten wrote in German, five in French, one in Italian, and one in Greek”. Moving forward now to my own lifetime, having become a member of the Yorkshire and Oriental Numismatic Societies in the 1970’s, I joined the Royal Numismatic Society in 1986. I was struck by a general and genuine camaraderie that existed at that time. Both between the two societies themselves, and also between senior society officials members (Professors and the like) towards ordinary collector/dealer members. Correspondence was entirely on first name terms. In my own experience that camaraderie began to break down around 2000. Prior to 2000 official/academic posts seemed to be recruited from trained historian, many of whom had developed in interest in coin collecting itself at a young age. After 2000 we started to see the jobs going people trained in archaeology, a culture which was largely hostile to private coin collecting and very often noticeably politically left leaning (the two matters being somewhat linked). Today I see a landscape where RNS and BNS are joined at the hip, but isolated from the world in their ivory towers. Members of the same small elite group run both societies. The attitudes of condescension voiced in 1904 have re-emerged. However the will of individual collectors to band together against it has evaporated. 2026 is a fractured world. Collectors and elite professionals hardly seem on the same planet. Others will no doubt differ, and of course I would welcome comment. Robert Tye

Try and get some more capsules for them like the one the Jubilee head Victoria is in. Those PVC ones break down over time and leave a sticky green residue on your coins.

Thanks Citizen H. Your help is much appreciated.

maybe its been washed, to remove grime it will tone down in time, its been circulated so expect scratches, wear, and dings. 👍I must dig out some of mine...

Thanks everyone. The help is much appreciated. This is the coin in question.

just chipping in.... I tend to wash mine, warm soapy water, ultra soft brush to remove all the hand grime, some of my circulated Maundy's have improve immensely ....I tend to leave tarnished one's alone and never used silver dip,..... as mention by others gentle sympathetic washing wont harm the coins, rinse with cool clean water and pat dry, it works for me👍

Maybe. It all has to be looked at in context, but is one of the things you would check. A band of parallel lines would likely be cleaning with a cloth, but you would only see that on a proof or a coin with otherwise good surfaces. Thankfully, the application of a Brillo pad is blindingly obvious. Interpretation is everything.

ah! these are some of mine, the better ones.... to heavy to put in a folder so left in pouches 👍

If a coin has straight lines across it, is that a good indicator that the coin has been cleaned?

Thanks Rob. Your help is much appreciated.

This is a close up of my George IV crown I got from a large collection that was a gift. It is a lot worse condition than yours Paddy.

I think people get a bit worked up over the question of cleaning as the topic is somewhat nuanced. Every coin in circulation showing signs of wear has effectively been cleaned because the act of circulation ensures that contact is made with other surfaces which rub against each other. i.e. nothing different to taking a the use of chemical cloth to a coin and rubbing. That just speeds up the process. The only thing that is offensive in the eyes of most collectors is a case of a polished coin, with or without the use of chemical substances. Personally I love toning for the fact it gives added confidence that the surfaces have not been messed about with, but even that has a few caveats because silver dip will leave a residue on the coin which over time will give the piece in question a typically pinkish hue. Any coin in someone's pocket will end up from friction with lots of faint parallel lines, because they were there. Without polishing chemically, I defy anyone to see the difference between pocket rub and a soft cloth, though clearly it would be possible in the case of demonetised coins to use your loaf and conclude that not being in circulation any more, the only option left is deliberate. In the case of the Morgan above, if the surfaces aren't reflective, probably not other than 'cleaning' from circulation, because there is clearly wear to the high points.

I hadn't realised GIV Crowns had got so high! This is my best, picked up about 15 years ago as part of an old family collection:

Very true. But a decent EF example is now well over a thousand pounds. I don't particularly like that George IV portrait and so didn't want to pay so much. As for William IV, I would eventually settle for a halfcrown which is of the same design.

I have noticed that this Morgan Dollar in my collection has a few small scratches (hairlines) on it. Do we think it has been cleaned?

Thanks Paddy. Charles II 1667 and William III 1696.

A nice selection! What dates on the Charles II and William III?

These are the crowns in my collection. The George V is a Jubilee Crown.

Thanks for the help everyone. Apologies for the delay in response.

Some very nice collections here.

I usually turn them down when offered, because I have never looked for one for the collection, and they are way overpriced for what they are. I was offered a couple of cleaned examples 6 months ago, but declined on the grounds that I don't like cleaned coins when much better alternatives are available, and the questions of iffy ones, abused ones and the rest are a bit off-putting. Give me a florin any day. Only problem is, if I get a type example of everything else I will have to eat my words. Not looking forward to the expense when I can buy fish and chips for a few quid.