Leaderboard

No good picture to show, but I just got on the Bay of E, a 1984 Belize Specimen set that was heretofore unknown (as are ANY other FM specimen sets of 1984). This looked to have just had a spot in Krause for convenience but had not seen one since issue!

A bit late into the conversation...that's the trouble with this place you walk away for a few days and you miss such a lot!! It is surprising how many people grade these artificially darkened farthings incorrectly. That coin had the darkened surface in place across virtually all of the coin. Don't mistake weak aspects of the design for wear. Many of you would not do this with a bright lustred penny/farthing but people continuously do it with artificially darkened farthings. If the surface coating is in tact the coin has had very little (if any) wear. Even once the coating starts to be lost, it can in actual fact be just a case of lost lustre, and not specifically wear to the coin. I would gladly stand by my assessment of the coin having seen it in hand which I think was at AUNC.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states God Bless Queen Elizabeth, she has deftly offered to liberate us here in the United States from our ruinous politicians. I do believe she may well get my vote.

Thanks Colin, I did check your site the other day (of course!) I'll check periodically

A new addition bought to fill a gap but primarily for the toning....

I would say toned NEF. Slightly weak strike possibly from a well used die, but shield is fully intact, and the fields are absolutely clean. No issues with the coin whatsoever, as far as I can see. Only worth a few quid at most, so not really worth having it slabbed IMO, but I'd be interested in their grading when you get it back. A respectable piece in any farthing date run, or year set.

I am a bit unwilling to enter into this thread as there seems to be a lot of unnecessary testostorone behind some of the posts. My feeling is that any opinions on coins are valid but should be espressed in polite and respectful tones. Not all of us can afford perfect coins all the time and the joy for many of us is in the acquisition, not the possession. Being derogatory about other people's coins here certainly risks putting them off using this forum and may risk putting them off coin collecting all together, which is in nobody's interest. IMO the coin posted is around VF+ bearing in mind that farthings of this date were darkened by the mint so the tone is appropriate. Value is more difficult - in the end it is what someone is prepared to pay for it, so if the OP was happy with the price they paid, then that is it's value to them. As to grading, personally I don't go for that at all - I prefer to keep my coins in the raw so I can examine them when I wish to. Equally I have few coins that are good enough to warrant grading and having some of my coins in plastic coffins would throw off the balance of the others. But I completely understand other's desire to have their coins graded, so don't let me put anyone off!

The pearls in the collar are only beginning to appear flat at the top. The garter is in quite detail, so are the jewels in the crown, the fold of veil is still in higher plane than the ear... Britannia's fingers on the trident are quite fine still... But yes other areas suggest weak strike like Britannia's helmet. It is only my interpretation of Mr. Perkins' manual is that this coin would be NEF and would make EF if it wasn't a common one, or if it had lustre or a stronger strike.

It would get an EF from me. I wouldn't pay to get it slabbed either, but I fully respect your right to do so and understand why you might want to. Anyway - where to next, Mick, once you've completed your 1899 and 1951 sets? Keep buying whatever takes your fancy, or are you going to focus on something more specific?

Not that exciting but another addition to my 1899 set of coins. Views on grade welcome as I am having it slabbed so any feedback would be great.