TomGoodheart

Why don't they just stop issuing all the commemorative tat? And buy back those Churchill crowns at 25p? That might work.

Yes, but .. what? If a coin was struck in 1640 and handed straight to someone who put it in a box, it's clearly uncirculated. Same as if Bolton handed a halfpenny to someone in 1797 or a mint employee pocketed 20p tomorrow, the amount of wear those coins have been subject to is zero. So ... why aren't they the same grade? As for using proofs for benchmarks, well that suggests to me that the grading is less about wear and more about how well a coin measures up against an idea. The idea of what a 'perfect' coin will look like. Seems to me to be a bit of arbitrariness here ... which brings me back to .. why do we grade coins? If it's a measure of 'perfection', well, OK. Though there are problems with that, I can accept the concept. But if it's to do with wear, why are we using different grade ceilings just because a coin is older? Yeah, I know. Not strictly about CGS is it? But I'm curious now what people think.

I think hammered coins present their own unique problems for graders Vicky! But I agree that early milled coins are different from, say, Victorian ones. Just look at William III. Weak strikes, haymarking, sometimes all the edge rim, sometimes not. Should those detract from a numeric grade if that is how the coin left the mint? I guess I'm still not quite sure what a grade is for. OK, coins have for a very long time been described at least in part as being 'very fine' or whatever. And certainly when dealers issued typed lists, that helped buyers select coins they would like to inspect. But nowadays most coins are illustrated and (providing the picture is decent) buyers can surely make up their own minds whether it meets their requirements? ... sorry. Just wondering aloud here.

Hi John. To be honest, it doesn't matter how you store coins so long as they are not going to be physically damaged from other coins (so a jam jar is not ideal!), they are dry and not exposed to noxious chemicals (some of the older pvc plastic envelopes can degrade, but modern ones should be safe). These steps ensure, as far as is possible, the coin will not change too much in appearance from when you get it. Capsules are quite popular as they allow you to look at the coin without touching it. But some people use acid-free paper envelopes as an alternative. I and some others here use traditional coin cabinets. They are made from seasoned wood (usually mahogany) and the coins are stored in recesses in trays. Which if you have any coins old enough to have belonged to a collector who wrote details about the coin on a 'ticket' (small paper disk) is nice, as the ticket fits under the felt cushion in the same recess as the relevant coin. Here are some of mine in their tray: You will see they they are toned (or as Americans sometimes say 'tarnished'!) so I'm not too worried about picking them up to inspect them. Perhaps if I collected modern coins, particularly proofs, or BU copper or bronze, I might be more inclined to use capsules ... Oh, and welcome to Predecimal! What sort of coins do you collect?

£8.50!! I'm sure I only bid £8.50!!!! Bloody decimal points ..

See, I could see the benefits of a service that researches the provenance of coins. Sure, it's a bit specialised. But for a few of my coins I'd be curious to know more about where they were bought or sold over the last 100 years and who owned them. Doesn't even need someone to sit with a pile of books any more. Nowadays it should be possible to scan pictures from auction catalogues and sales lists and design software that will compare a coin to those images. Trouble is, I can't see that being a service that could be offered at £11 or whatever per coin!

We need a 'cynical squint' smiley, I think. Or maybe that's just me ...

Just out of interest I decided to register as you can't look at much information on the CGS website unless you do. 'League Tables'? 'Hall of Fame'? I'm sorry. Is this a professional service for numismatists or a video game? I don't get it.

Hmm ... unfortunately rare coins that are easy to find is a bit of a contradiction, I'm afraid! And any coins that have been identified as being common but rarely encountered in top condition will probably already be sought after by those in the know. That said, it's still worth getting the best possible examples you can. The coin making standards at the Royal Mint these days mean that finding undamaged (no bag knocks or finger marks), well struck (no crud/ metal 'bleed' and crisp details) coins is increasingly difficult. But modern issues are unlikely to attract the sort of collecting interest (and so price) of older coins for some time. You might be better off looking a few years earlier? As others have commented here, the coins of Edward VII, George V aren't too pricy for most years and might be worth looking at, ... depending on your budget of course. Oh, and two threads that discuss 'rarer' modern coins here for you to look at in answer to your original question: Beginner series Coins you've never seen

I'm just curious that there seems to be a diference between ... well, differences! The table for example suggests that there is no discernable difference (to the rest of the world) between a 100 and 97 coin. But the same three step difference between 96 and 93 drops two grades on the Sheldon scale. A difference some people will pay good money for ... SO I'm not sure how this helps matters either ...

Oh, well, if we're talking those kinds of wants, I think a time machine would solve a lot of our problems Rob!

A good grade Charles I shilling with the (P) mint mark would be nice ...

Oh well, that's a good result! Both for you and in customer service terms, for them.

And yet yesterday I arrived home to find a glossy copy of Spink Insider magazine(?) on my door mat. Seems like maybe they are spending money on the wrong things ...?

No problem. And welcome!

This one? Looks like the reverse is based on a design by A Toft that was first used for the coronation medallions for George V. Ah, here you go: "This is catalogued in the book British Historical Medals 1760-1960 by Laurence Brown as BHM 4443. Minted in Silver and bright Bronze, 37mm in size. The obverse was engraved by G. H. Paulin and the reverse by A. Toft and manufactured by the Mint, Birmingham Ltd. Both the silver and bright bronze are listed as very common.The obverse is described as: Crowned, draped bust of Queen Elizabeth II, right.The reverse is described as: The Imperial Crown in the ship of state sailing left, two females standing in the stern blowing trumpets. On a narrow border around, above: ELIZABETH II Below: 2 June 1953The obverse design was used on several different coronation medals and was supplied by the Royal Mint from designs by G. H. Paulin. The reverse design is similar to designs produced by A. Toft for the coronation of George V and George VI."

Yes. Ive emailed a number of times since August last year to do with the website and in particular search and archive search functions. But still the problems remain. Having said that, I believe the internet has been slow generally today. BBC: Global internet slows after 'biggest attack in history' So it may not be entirely down to Spink ...

No. Having tried out the exciting website experience I don't want to risk my blood pressure thanks. But I sympathise with all of you that were thwarted by the technology. My I suggest an email to Berdia Qamarauli (bqamarauli@spink.com) Head of IT? Or Mike Veissid. If enough people complain .... ... or not.

Sorry pigpig. I think you're going to have to post some photos. If for no other reason than to stop this thread derailing altogether! You can upload photos of up to 150kb in size directly into a reply through the 'Attachments' bit below the reply box, or if you have them on a photohosting site, by using the 'Insert image' icon (little tree) above it. Ideally make the coin the majority of the image and as in focus as you can manage. If the lighting makes the colour look off, best tell us what metal you think your coin is made from (silver, gold, brass are most likely).

And, I would add, grades possibly also vary with 'eye appeal' (which as discussed before is in part at least, related to where the wear on the coin is worst). Interestingly a dealer's catalogue dropped through my door just this morning and (unusually for me) I decided to have a look at the grades given. Two coins in particular caught my eye, the first (from the photos) has a slightly less full flan (we're talking hammered here) and fairly clear wear to the bust. The other is fuller and the bust is nice and crisp on the hair and crown and correspondingly on the shield on the reverse. The point being that they are graded the same (both VF) but I can't help being swayed by the fact that, to me, one is 'prettier' than the other. Where am I going with this? Not sure! Just that I suspect I'd be swayed to 'upgrade' the nicer looking coin and would perhaps struggle to even out assessing the % wear and liking the coin. And probably if it was an ugly but very well struck example, .. the reverse would be true. So on the one hand I can see that a consistently critical approach (if possible, sticking the thing in a machine and getting a number out the other end would perhaps be the most logical method) would be ideal. But on the other .... do we not all get a degree of pleasure from the 'look' of our coins (the patina, design, sharpness of detail, 'artfulness' or whatever) that, although related to grade (since better struck coins show off the engraver's skill and intentions better) is not something someone else can necessarily gauge for us? Sorry. I shouldn't be allowed to post think before I've had my morning coffee!

Sounds good Bill. Companies need to be responsive to their customers and potential customers and if that happens then this has been a very useful debate here. Not that it wasn't interesting already, but I suspect there are few other places than here where you can 'meet' as many experienced collectors of British coinage, possible BANS apart. And certainly being able to hear views over ... how long have these threads been going ... just under a month? The opportunity to see people's views develop (and in some cases change), where points are raised and discussed and coins looked at and compared, would be difficult to duplicate in any other format, so I just wanted to offer my thanks go to everyone who's contributed. And if that sounded like me trying to wind up a thread, not so! Please do go on everyone! I'll be interested to hear more about CGS 'rethink' too, in due course.

Probably not rare I'm afraid. Photos will help. And also if you could measure the diameter, so we can work out what value of coin it is.

Quite. And don't forget the fava beans and a nice chianti! I have to say I am unclear on whether it's the French or the buntings wearing the tea towels. Either image is slightly disturbing. But as for strange races, I doubt (in culinary/gastronomic terms) the Chinese can be beaten. How anyone can derive pleasure from eating gristle or chickens' feet I cannot fathom ... .. says he tucking into his lentil, bean and quorn cottage pie. With a nice chianti of course!

What was that other photohosting site again? I just tried to use photobucket. Well apart from 2/3 of the page being adverts and only a fraction my actual photos it was so slow to move through the images (I only have one album) that I just had to close it down. I simply can't navigate at all around my own pics with this new setup. No bloody use at all!

Well, as I've said elsewhere Bill, I don't pay much attention to what someone else grades a coin as. In the end, I'm the one that has to live with it and I'm the one that needs to be happy when I look over my collection. But I admit I am in a minority here, collecting hammered coins. To me the main thing is the coin 'in the hand'. Yes, I do inspect them with a lens, to either examine finer detail, check for differences, or damage. But very few hammered coins are perfect to the extent I'd worry about a carbon spot (not in my price bracket, anyway!) if overall the coin was the hammered equivalent of your "stunning UNC ... Sixpence" Plus, to my eye at least, with hammered coins the amount of wear a coin has suffered is only one of many factors that makes a coin desirable or undesirable. This for example is still one of my favourites. Struck from dies on the point of falling apart, on a flan that is thinner in some parts than others, leading to weaknesses in the strike, I'm not at all sure how I'd grade it ... or whether someone telling me that it's nVF or gVF would help me decide whather to buy it or not. But that's just me. I still find the discussions around grading of interest!