Coys55

That’s what I thought. I wonder what the chances are of getting all that stuff off? Difficult to know without knowing exactly what it is unless we’re sure it’s degraded foam.

Would silver dip even get under the foam if it's covering most of the surface? I've been googling the "degraded foam" issue and some people suggest bathing in acetone. I can see why that may work if the fone is plastic based and I believe it's safe for silver coins becasue it's not a polish or abrasive. Any comments?

Ah that’s a thought; I once had a nice set of technical drawing instruments in a foam-lined case and when I opened it after about 40 years in storage it was a horrendous mess. It was so bad I just binned the whole lot. But no, I wouldn’t clean it myself in anything other than soap and water, and I assumed that silver dip would fall into the cleaning category and be a non-starter. Do you think that silver dip get that stuff off, if that’s what it is?

It’s a 1932, mintage 2,935. I don’t own it, but am thinking of bidding if it’s probably OK (although I’d be covered if it wasn’t) and recoverable from its present state. it would be a pity if it is OK but not restorable.

Anyone know what the uneven, patchy discolouration on this wreath crown could be and if it may be possible to rescue it (i.e. clean it) from its present sorry state? It doesn't look like normal extreme toning to me and if it had been left in a draw for almost 100 years I would have expected the discolouration to be more one-sided than almost completely even. Although it looks horrible like this, beneath the crud it looks pretty good. Maybe even EF+? Oh and I'm assuming it's OK...

Test has appeared ever since the new site was launched, so I don't think that's got anything to do with it.

A bit like all those fake round £1 coins that flooded the market before the 12-sided bi-metal ones were designed to combat forgery. Apparently 3% of pound coins in circulation were estimated to be forgeries at one point.

I can assure you I was not being patronising and was definitely not accusing you of being evil, stupid or trying to avoid tax; I was genuinely curious about your question regarding CGT and wondered if you belived (or knew) of a legal workaround that could be beneficial to others. If you look at my posting record I have always been welcoming to newcomers and have tried to help them with their questions. I have never been rude to anyone and don't intend to start now. But whatever, I'll refrain from replying to this thread again.

Just out of interest, are you going to attempt to convince HMRC that (for instance) an 1847 proof gothic crown is only worth 25p for CGT purposes because it's legal tender and you could use it in Tesco to buy a couple of spuds?

I agree that halfs and quarters are often in almost perfect condition because they were easily lost soon after they entered circulation. I too look for nice examples, scarcer mints, errors, etc. and enjoy the challenge of identifying them. This is one of my favourites. Walter (Waltier error) on Northampton, square E's on obverse (round on reverse), class 1a2/1a5 mule, possibly Mass 148, although the X looks different.

That's amazing. Very good spot.

I think the half is Brand dies 2540; the offset halves of the O are quite distinctive.

That's a very nice find Stu; I'm really annoyed to have missed that one. I used to check daily for Rhuddlans and picked up about 30, mostly halfs and quarters and one full Halli, but got fed up with the quality and asking prices. I'll definitely start checking again now. Steve.

It's definitely a London coin, but not class 1 or Henry II because the N and D are ligated (joined together). If memory serves me right that feature first occurred on class IVa, which was issued under Richard I, but the lettering style isn't right for that. My guess would be class V or VI (so John or Henry III) and judging by the position of the O of ON probably a moneyer with five letters in his name. A bit more research could probably tie the class and maybe even the moneyer down a bit. Edit: you beat me to it Ukstu; I was glancing through my copies of Mass and Slevin for inspiration, but we seem to broadly agree on class 5 or 6.

Personally I'd lay the coin on the (transparent) ruler on the coin with the zero point at the coin's widest point. I'd also use the mm scale rather than inches.

The 2024 Salmon 50p is actually selling for £22 at the moment (ignoring the silly prices people are asking for) and around £50 for a full set. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next six months or so.

I use Irfanview, also free.

Ah yes I see it now.

I’m intrigued by the 2024 mintage figures of sets (25,000) vs circulation (0). Does this mean that the 2024 definitive coins will be highly collectible because of such low mintages or that they will be considered alongside commemorative issues such as Star Wars 50p’s, etc, so of little interest? And how would anyone differentiate them from the set coins (maybe apart from condition) if the mintage of, say the 2024 20p, was 1,000 for circulation rather than 0? I accept that 2023 was an exception given that the set coins had the privy mark on the obverse, which I believe would clearly define them as not intended for circulation and akin to commemorative issues. If the 2024 coins are considered non-circulating then surely the same logic should have been applied to coins such as the 1950 and 1951 pennies (which I’m pretty sure all penny collectors will have in their collections, but were only struck for circulation in Bermuda and the Bahamas) which were not meant to circulate in the UK, and even more so to the 1933, which was obviously never struck for circulation? I’m just curious as to what would make a circulation vs non-circulation strike of an otherwise identical coin (obviously I’m discounting proofs and/or precious metal versions).

Are you sure that the second isn't TAS/CIVI/LON/DON? That's a known class 9b pernny error reverse legend. The diameter would help of course

H, Obviously I don't know what type of scales you have but "1 gram each" sounds a bit rounded to me and could mean anything from 0.50 to 1.49g. . Do your scales not display 100ths of a gram? BTW, diameters are also important for aiding ID, preferably in tenths of a mm. For reference my Edward pennies weigh between 1.24 and 1.43g each and have diameters of 17.8 to 20.4 mm. With Short cross pennies a cut half could weigh 0.53g (so 1 gram) and a full coin 1.43g (also 1 gram). You'd be surpised what we could come up with given as much infomation as possible, some of which cannot be gleaned from a photo. Steve

The article mentions "Norman" and "dates to just after the Battle of Hastings" so I'd have thought more likely William I. The few I can read seem to bear the legend +PILLEM, which would indicate that to be the case.

It's a sixpence with 50% silver content. And without wishing to appear rude I'd say it's worth the scrap value for the silver content.

Sticking my neck out even further, looking again at the third short cross I think that the first letter of the moneyer isn't an R (it doesn't look at all like the R of NOR), but it looks (more) like a W. Then the letter before the cut, which would probably be the third letter in the moneyer's name) looks like the foot of an L. So that leaves Walter and Willelm, with Willelm class 1a or 1b being the most likely because the L of Walter usually occurs in the second quarter of the coin rather than the first. Oh and it's Henry II. I don't think I can get much further with this one...

I decided to have a quick look at the long cross after all. I think the reverse legend is ERO/NEV, so the full legend would be REN/ERO/NEV/ERW (RENER ON EVERW) That would make it moneyer Rener, York mint. Class IIIb-IIIc