Leaderboard

Judging by the spelling, you drank at least all four, and probably more. Repeat after me - Adnams Broadside, Adnams Broadside.......... Then say it again in the morning.

Been a difficult Christmas capped ( I thought ) this morning by finding out my car's turbo needs replacing. Great. Then........got news of Neil Innes dying. This has really knocked me back. I met him four times after his shows- such a lovely lovely man. My first album was History of the Bonzos ..... Anyone else feel kicked in the stomach?

Yes, your coin is the said F/P. It is the same die pairing as my coin, Freeman obverse 6 with reverse G. I have attached a picture of my 6+G Halp coin. I also have a Halp coin of Obverse 7+G. I have heard rumours that other die pairs of Halp coins have been reported, including Reverse E !

Such things are wholly subjective, as you say, and would be almost impossible to quantify as opinions vary from person to person. All TPG's can do is grade according to a chart. It's up to individual vendors to point out eye appeal, quality of strike etc. Then for buyers to decide what appeals to them personally.

Absolutely. There are some appallingly poor strikes - for example many of the WW1 George V pennies. An UNC example, can still justly be referred to as UNC, or "practically as struck". But in such cases an EF (or even GVF) coin with a good strike (ie complete breast plate and decent hair detail), is going to be far more desirable than an UNC coin with 100% lustre, but no sign of a breastplate, and a slaphead King (for want of a better expression).

One problem is that the TPGs have been producing tables with prices for different grades. This help to promote the believe that prices only depend on grades. Things get much less scientific when they try to incorporate subjective things like toning, eye appeal, great provenance etc (which obviously affect value) into the grading number.

Then there is the issue of strike v wear which can be very hard to determine.

Absolutely - it is totally scientific in its approach. It's also great for pennies as it concentrates on them. I do agree that sometimes an EF coin with residual lustre, no marks and even toning, can look better than a nominally UNC example with uneven toning and marks. But that is actually separate from degrees of actual wear, which is what grading is all about. Derek is a member on here @Red Riley, but hasn't posted for some time.

I have very much enjoyed reading my copy. I doubt there will be a second edition due to the work involved. But if a second edition were to happen, one major improvement is to ensure that each of the coins featured have large size UNC photos of the entire coins. Telling the difference between UNC and GEF is often the hardest.

1896 florin 2+A. Posting it here as it is one of my top two coins in terms of toning. Toning is better than what the photos would suggest.

Couldn't agree more. I use it all the time. On the Ipad Kindle app you can magnify the image to get an even better view of the coin .

Curiously, like many tomes that have a hell of a lot of work hidden behind a simple façade, it's actually quite interesting, when one is curious about 'how things wear out', often involving denominations that have never appealed.... Strange thing, grading. "Eye appeal" or "better in the hand" or "toning" etc. etc. could make all this a referenceless minefield, whereas this books is a good attempt to create a reference frame that's needed.

Yes, it's a great book.

I think auctioneers deliberately set low estimates with "exciting lots" to generate more interest. Then will be brag about how many times it sold above estimate. But to be honest, the coin doesn't do anything for me. It is just visually very unimpressive. An "unloved" series as VS has pointed out. I would much rather own an Edward VIII threepence if both are the same price. (But in reality, I will of course never own neither!)