TomGoodheart

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 ... .

Best to warn you now, that if you get into hammered half crowns then Maurice Bull has written an epic tome (well six actually, given there is a Price Guide To Hammered Half-Crowns (1526-1662) as well as a five-volume set on the half crowns of Charles I) on the series. (I say that because I started collecting British and World shillings but for the last 10 years have bought little except the Tower mint issues of Charles I. Hammered coinage can be addictive!!)

Well, OK. Let's say Fair/Good ... but not as nice as the newer one!

Morning! And welcome Kevin. Hopefully you'll find it both fun and helpful here. Chris, the forum owner, published Collectors Coins GB. You might find that a reasonable start as it can be bought as a download (see links at the top of the page). Saves on postage and readable from a mobile device so some people find that convenient. Myself? I like real paper and ink! Quite a few members here are also dealers. Most have links to their sites in their signatures. Again, worth a browse to get an idea about grades and prices ... Grading? As you know UK and US grading differs. There's a book about that too! And of course .. we love pictures of coins and giving our opinions here. So don't be shy to ask!

My current scratched coin was graded Fine in the Grant Francis (1920) and Lockett (1956) sales and 'almost VF' when sold by Mark Rasmussen in 2004... .. the earlier one .. Poor(ish) .. Unless you compared it to the Eddy VI shilling in the current Spink, in which case it might also make Fine!

OK, just for discussion this is my old coin which the dinted one above replaced: Good provenance and (mostly) unscratched but ... personally I'm not disappointed with the upgrade. But it's a personal thing I think. In the end, we all have to decide whether we can live with a coin or not. But when the number of coins known to exist at all makes finding a decent example a challenge it's either live with a gap or compromise. In this case I took a liking to the thing, dint and all. That someone else would find it difficult to live with doesn't really worry me.

As with the official piercings for early Great Recoinage pieces, in that case the damage is part of the history of the coin. Plus when you get into the realm of 'when will you possible get a chance to find another' .. .

Meh ... I think it will depend on the coin and collector. For example years go I bought this: Not cheap, but reasonably scarce (I've see 11 others come up for sale in as many years) and an upgrade on what I had. I decided that the improvement to the grade was worth compromising on the dirty big dint and I could live with it. Then more recently I was browsing the digitised BNJs and found ... .. my coin! With the dint! In Grant Francis' 1918 article (which was used to classify Tower shillings up until Michael Sharp's comprehensive review of the series in the 1970s)! OK, it's still a coin with a dint. But it's a provenanced dint allowing me (well, Rob actually!) to track it back to the F A Walters collection sale of 1913 and forward to Lockett (Part IV). And to me, that makes a difference! .

But there are of course more expert experts than me by far out there! .

Yes. I'm afraid that double striking (where the flan moves a bit between hammer blows) is common enough with hammered coinage as each coin is individually struck. On this example you can also see signs in the right hand arm of the cross and first quarter (with the Scottish lion) that this is what has happened here. While double strikes, providing they aren't too dramatic, are acceptable to many collectors, I don't know anyone that would pay more for them. This is different from when the die itself has been incorrectly made (mis-spellings, letter transpositions or even details such as the mark of value upside down have been found!) Some collectors like such errors, particularly if they are recognised in a major collection or as varieties in a coin price guide. .

The photos aren't the greatest but I'd say nVF/VF. Value? Based on these pics, I'd expect to to go for between £50 and £80 on eBay. Good photos will help. Maybe try a Buy It Now at around £80 with 'make me an offer' and see how it goes? The current Spink would suggest more, but that would be if it were on a fuller rounder flan. They aren't too difficult to find I'm afraid. Spink 2797, Sharp F5/1 Tower issue 1639-40 Hope that helps. .

Happy Birthday both! I hope some coins come your way as gifts! .

I think we all have favourites and dealers we trust. However different dealers stock different coins so it depends on what you're after. Most of my bookmarked dealers specialised in late hammered coinage for example. So as Coinery says, you might be better posting details of coins that you like for comment rather than getting lists of dealers whose stock doesn't interest you, or is priced or graded outside what you're prepared to consider. .

I too block Flash. I also block active-X and most add-ons. It's easy enough to switch them on if you want to watch a video or whatever. The thing that bemuses me about eBay adverts is that they are often for things I've just bought or searched for. I buy something from Amazon then I get the same thing popping up for the next few days on eBay. How stupid is that? Can they not see that if I've just bought something I'm rather unlikely to want to buy it again straight away? Do they employ idiots or .. oh, wait ... .

42 What? I wanted to play too!