Leaderboard

Aren't all the 2015 coins bearing the new effigy, I'm definitely missing out if both effigies are on the 2015 coins? I haven't actually checked the busts, but have been salting away any and all new 2015 coins in collectable condition, as I did for 2014 and 2013! A fractionally more sensible loose change "pot" akin to the one everybody else has stored in a bells whiskey bottles!

Dave, football (like politics) should be left off a coin forum as Chris may give me a red card for my language if I start to vent my spleen about the absolute FROMAGE disgraceful shower of FLAMIN' sugar at The Toon...................

I have just completed a survey on ebay and 89.93% of coins grade as "UNC L@@K VERY RARE" with the remainder being anything from accurately graded to forgeries......I was tempted to examine the 89.93% to try and discern what UNC actually is but the first worn VERY RARE 1967 Penny stopped the project just as it was about to get off the ground!

Just to add to this post without contradicting my earlier comments. One part of a coin that is useful for grading high grade coins is a careful examination of the condition of the milled edge to check if it is sharp througout and right at the edge of the coin. As many coins are poorly minted flat areas on the design exist on the highest parts of the design due to poor mint quality. A nice crisp edge and reeding to the milled rim may help in estimating a coin's true grade. Unfortuneatly for many encapsulated coins the edge is not visable and this cannot be used for grading perhaps an argument against many 3rd party graders although NGC show some of the edge for their encapsulated coins.

I would but I already have two ... oh, hang on. I think I ate one at Christmas. It is a chocolate coin, isn't it? .

I was going to bid but when I realised that Coppers was in the market I just knew that I didn't have the financial legs to compete Will just stick to a couple of sixpences I have in my 'Cabinet'.

Examination of archived (pre 1950's documents from the Royal Mint and its branches reveals that officers interchanged the terms specimen and proof even in the same document. One retired Mint officer I spoke to mentioned work instructions were issued for 5 levels of "proof" production from (1) selected business strikes through to (5) polished planchets, special die treatments and different press set ups (striking conditions). Unfortunately I havent been able to track down these documents - any one here know ? My view is all proofs are specimens but not all specimens are proofs. The meaning of the words has changed over the last 150 years as have many other English words. The words in scientific context have different meanings again. As an example for the Mint using the terms; in 1955 The Melbourne branch Mint struck both proof and specimen coins and charged 2/- and 6d premium respectively. The difference was subtle as the specimens were struck from fresh "working" dies and not subjected to normal handling (hand picked) the best way to discriminate between the strikes is by the higher level of reflectivity in the fields and definition in the rim decoration i.e. beads, egg/dart features and flatness of the rim for the proof strikes. Given proofs are essentially hand made the quality will vary from year to year and should one look back at say 19th C. pieces dated 1839 and 1887 they reveal many variations in their finish over the years they were issued, - as they were made in small batches with different dies and press set ups. One real plus numismatically for these specimen / proof strikes is their special handling at the Mint and no wear from circulation make die research on the as struck coins straight forward.