TomGoodheart

OK, bit late in the day but ... can anyone explain spammers to me? Time and time again we get someone with an IP address from somewhere in the Southern Indian continent quoting an earlier post in an attempt to seem like an interested new member. Why? Firstly, I can usually spot that it's a quote since they are rarely quite in context. Secondly I delete them as soon as I spot them. But even if I left them active ... what do they hope to gain? Do they then put their login details into a spambot so in a week or so we get dozens of adverts for Russian brides and Viagra? And who would click on those anyway? So why do they bother? Apart from the fact that I presume they are paid to do so. Yours sincerely, Puzzled of Buckinghamshire. .

Happy Birthday Sir! .

Sadly quality control at the Royal Mint is poor, so off centre isn't a definite sign it's counterfeit. Double struck would be odd. Though I'm afraid I can't see enough detail in your photos to say .. a more detailed bigger pic might work? But the bottom line is, if it is a counterfeit it's of slight interest (I still have a few really poor ones such as a coin made of lead and painted gold and some with the wrong reverse for the date and legends that don't match either side!) But it won't be of great value, except numismatically speaking and few people bother to hold on to the things. Of course if you take one to the bank they won't give you a quid for it. Which perhaps partly accounts for why there are still so many fakes in circulation ... .

Hi there. I'm afraid I can't see from your photos what it is that concerns you. The reverse is correct for the year, which is often a tell-tale sign if it's not! And the colour does vary a bit from bright to a dull brass colour. Modern coins aren't always well struck-up, frequently with blobs of extra metal or weak areas. Which I guess is all to the fakers' advantage I guess ... .

Welcome Steven. And in case you wondered, I've moved your questions to the appropriate section and deleted the duplicate post. I hope you find it interesting and helpful here. Victorian base metal coins seem quite popular so you'll find other enthusiasts I'm sure! .

Welcome Daniel! Try here: http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/7880-posting-pics/ .

Images are going to be essential I'm afraid. If you upload them to an image hosting site such as flikr or photobucket then you can then put the links into a post here. In the meantime ... there's an article (pdf) here about a find on the Island .. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britnumsoc.org%2Fpublications%2FDigital%20BNJ%2Fpdfs%2F1963_BNJ_33_9.pdf&ei=d5P4VIuGOMfwaJa3gYAB&usg=AFQjCNGaHh_jL6cbR9GoRTEeNA272WMYKA&bvm=bv.87519884,d.d2s that might be of interest? .

Very nice. Though I'd be happy with just a regular Tower mint shilling in that condition ... there's simply nothing decent about it seems. .

Setting aside this particular seller for a minute, I think there are a number of factors at play. Firstly, my strong suspicion is that we all grade by experience. And that means that if you don't tend to see really good examples regularly then you might overgrade as you've little to compare a 'better than average' example to. The other thing is grade creep. It isn't difficult to find examples of coins that sold at VF in the 1970s that more recently have been rated gVF, nEF etc. I think perhaps grading was broader back then and buyers relied on their own knowledge. But also price was not quite so tied to small grade differences. You only have to look at the US market where the difference between and MS63 and MS64 can be substantial to see optimism could easily colour peoples assessment of a coin they hope to sell. There are sellers that I consider to grade conservatively and others that are .. generous. In the end education is still the key IMHO. If you're going to make a purchase, particularly if any decent amount of money is to be involved, it just makes sense to do a bit of research before hand. As has recently been said on here .. None of us has the ability to save people from themselves Best we can do is educate ourselves and provide advice if asked... .

I think the one you already have is quite nice. Jolly good reverse from my inexperienced milled coinage perspective... .

Welcome! Feel free to post a few photos of any coins when you've the time. We always like to share! .

Good stuff. I like mixed genres. I enjoy music with some Lively in it. Though usually it's more Viking Metal Deathstep in my case! .

I should have been clearer. I wasn't suggesting my coin was an equal to the London/CGS one. Just that if I were in the market for one I'd want a stronger reverse. That makes the 1918 unappealing to me, irrespective of the amount of wear CGS have decided it has been subject to ... .

Really? I know it's not my area but here's my 1916. Graded nEF by the seller and I paid £27 .. including post from New Zealand. My personal view is the reverse shows less wear than the London example. My lions at least have noses! No way would I rate theirs worth the money ... be interesting to see what it sells for. .

Not sure about the wealth of knowledge. But I'm happy to voice an opinion! As for hammered, only really Charles I Tower mint shillings I'm afraid. And most of that I've leant from other people... .

None of the three you've posted are lis mint mark though ... so I'm guessing that ticket belongs to another coin? First is a halfcrown, mm Tun Quite a decent example. Number two is a shilling Spink 2799, Michael Sharp's G1/1 Clear triangle over anchor mark on the reverse. G1 reverse (small cross ends) is scarcer than the G2 reverse (large rounded cross ends). Third is a shilling of James I, mm thistle I think from the bust. But I don't have my Spink to hand at present so someone else will need to confirm that. .

And a final word from coinageofengland "Since your email this morning I took the coin to DNW for their opinion. They said there is no doubt it is genuine, which is re assuring and confirms my opinion. I ended up entering it for the June auction, I wanted to add this so people do not assume that as I have removed it from sale and am condemning it. It is in fact the opposite, due to DNW liking the coin so much I felt it would do better with better pictures and in auction." And he was kind enough to send me the original photos in case they are of interest to anyone here: .

Coinageofengland's reply concerning his coin: "Thank you for your email. I will respond in full regarding my 1763 Shilling and the copies I have seen. My example was purchased at a top London auction, it is an extremely nice example fully struck with good fields, it is also struck as opposed to cast which the copies seem to be. My pictures of the coin does not reflect the high quality it is and therefore it looks rather one dimensional. The copies I have personally seen are all generally vf-gvf, they are cast and look like copies to the trained eye. My example is far nicer in real life and is clearly not a copy. I guarantee all my coins as genuine and I stand by this coin fully." .

Given that coinageofengland's coin has been mentioned I have invited him to visit. Personally I now slightly regret selling the Northumberland I bought a few years back. Would have been interesting to still have it for comparison ... .

I've bought from Guy (coinageofengland) His coins are genuine afaik. .

Hmm .. I've only ever use web-based mail. And I prefer to use my mobile ... trickier for people to link my home address to coin purchases. Of course I'm honest. Honest guv!

Back again... 251840834396

Rare? I suspect it's unique Polly. Unfortunately unique doesn't necessarily mean worth a fortune! It's interesting (and there are some people who collect such things) but falls a little outside mainstream coin collecting. Making it very difficult to suggest a value I'm afraid. If it has any family history I'd personally keep it as a memento. I hope that helps a bit? Oh, and welcome to the forum! Edit: Must learn to type faster or keep my answers shorter! .

Obviously I don't collect mint state coins. But I too am surprised by the percentages. To me a grade is surely entirely down to wear (surface preservation)? A sharp-as-you-like coin that has bag marks should to my opinion still grade the same as one that has no marks. Clearly if the surface is damaged in some way by natural wear or by cleaning, some percentage of the original surface has been removed and the grade drops. This is where lustre and strike come in, to allow determination of whether a coin is worn or normally poorly struck. In theory I think a BU sharply struck coin should grade the same as a BU weakly struck one. If there's no wear at all it should attain top grade. Of course that doesn't happen in practice because people generally favour more sharply struck coins, as we know. Hence 2,3 and 4 which I rather feel all fall into the catch-all of 'eye appeal' Oddly 'eye appeal' is what I (almost exclusively) go on when buying coins ... strange that. .

Not a series I'm familiar with. However with Charles I coins, some die sinker's errors do sell for more, particularly if recognised in a publication such as Spink, or an example having been part of a well-known collection. However, general legend variations are perhaps not so sought after. Certainly with that series, my feeling is that the number of collectors who specialise in errors is very small. And the general trend is, with most everything else, errors and rarity take a very much second place to condition these days. However rare it might be, if the coin doesn't have 'eye appeal' I doubt it will command the premium that it might have a decade or two back ... .