Chris Perkins

It's not evasive!

I'm simply suggesting that it was never made with any evasive intentions. It was made to commemorate something, probably the life of George II, or coronation (I thought I saw a death date on the back though). Had it been pseudo-commemorative, about halfpenny size or more resembling regal coinage and crude in execution, then yes 'evasive'. This is none of those. What do the others think?

3.5cm is far too big to be a halfpenny or a farthing and there were no pennies then so it would have circulated at it's rough copper weight. It's not an evasion piece the quality is too good and now the size data also supports my theory. Evasion pieces are always crude in terms of workmanship. Some aren't bad, but none are as good as this medal would have started life. The value is next to nothing though as it's very worn. Couple of quid to someone that wants it.

I wouldn't have called this an evasion piece, the quality of the workmanship looks like it would have been too high when the medal was struck. I think this was struck as a commemorative medal with no evasive intentions. The fact that it probably got spent as a copper coin shows how desparate people were for change. What's the size in mm if you're still there Jow_Mander?

It's not a penny. It's not even a coin. It's a little medal or medalet with George II on it. It may comemmorate the coronation or something political. From the heavy wear I imagine it probably circulated as a coin, either a farthing of a halfpenny (depending on size) when no one would have been able to read it and just accepted it because the King was on it!

"The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins" from Rotographic should put a stop to all that!

This'll do it: http://www.rotographic.com/britishcoins2005public.pdf

Liberty Street software use my price data in their UK Coinmanage software. You can download a sample of that, perhaps it has a spread sheet, csv or something similar that comes with it.

Steady, you're not much younger than me! Thanks for the comical cow pictures. You simply can't beat comical cows for humourous effect.

It's a little halfpenny, the decimal type that was stopped in 1984. You're obviously too young to remember them! I was 6 in 1984 and just about remember them. I remember in the road where we used to play, there was one set hard into the road surface. None of us could free it and eventually it was worn flat by the cars.

One of my old books is in the public domain as an ebook: http://www.rotographic.com/britishcoins2005public.pdf The prices are out of date but there are lots of pictures etc.

BU 1983 £1 coin, yes must be worth at least £3 now. Probably more than you'll get for an average Cumberland Jack I'm afraid.

It's the thought that counts isn't it! Our old next-door neighbour Maud (who had long since forgotten how old she was, and no one knew) gave my little sister a 'sovereign' when she was born in 1983. It was of course a shiny new 1983 £1 coin! To Maud it was a sovereign, which is sort of correct in a way.

Yes, UNC means no wear but BU (as introduced by the Royal Mint in the 80s I believe for their UNC year sets) has come to mean no wear and full lustre. A tiny weeny bit of toning could possibly still scrape in as BU if the mint bloom is still there, but a coin with a finger print or any other area where there is no lustre or uneven lustre cannot be BU. There are some coins on that list that are practically completely brown with lustre in the lower parts and they are still described as something involving the term 'BU'. I hate to moan about it but I've had issues in the past with 'Colin Cooke' grading. Don't complain Neil, it's just an opinion and I'll leave the link to your website above!

Yes lustre can be hard to capture, but I noticed a 'BU almost as struck' with a finger print. That can't be right. Nice coins though, as you say.

Really! Oh dear. What they bounce and you get a bouce message? Usually I have to manually inspect my spam emails and am able to release real ones. I'll get the books sent to you.

Nice stuff and excellent price data for me. There are an awful lots of coins there described as 'BU almost full lustre' that I would call UNC because they have toning or marks preventing them from being BU. Does anyone agree that the term BU seems to be used a bit too frequently there?

Thanks, I'll put that right in the next one! Always have the heart to tell me about these things. It may well have been the same coin, I quite often monitor London Coins auction prices.

That looks like a weak GVF too. I'm not sure where the £110 came from, some of the values don't change unless a newer price is noticed (on a sales list, in an auction etc). I have a feeling that the price quoted is pretty new. I'll take your worn one for £12 and sell for £20 if you just want to send it without faffing around.

In CCGB2008 this is the 'L' in Florin points to bead type. Price there is £110 GVF. That one has to be worth £20 surely. I think that's where I'd price it.

It doesn't really matter how it looks in the image, you simply can't trust that an otherwise common proof is the matt version unless the seller is highly expert and offers some kind of guarantee.

No, I don't pick values out of the air. I imagine I somehow didn't notice that one and it's remained like that (and the big difference between it and the EF price) from a previous edition. I'll make sure I make a note to change it and check that more carefully next time.

Doubled letters and die breaks are not usually considered as varieties, merely mishaps as a result of mass production.

You better post some pictures to clarify the date, type and grade! All too often an EF Sovereign can turn out to be a Fair farthing, but I imagine you're better informed than that!

Sounds good Dave. If you do need help publishing (and marketing, which as you say, is the hardest part) then let me know.