Madness

Yes - The first one is very nice and I'm very happy to own it. Good extremely fine? The die looks to have been in good shape when it was struck. Found it on eBay and paid 60 GBP, which I'm guessing is probably better than a reasonable price.

I've collected five varieties of 1787 Sixpences so far. Not happy with the condition (of coin and/or die) of any of them, so will be looking to upgrade as funds allow. NS6 (No Hearts / Serif Type 1 / 6 Strings) NN7 (No Hearts / No Serifs / 7 Strings) NN6 (No Hearts / No Serifs / 6 Strings) HS27 (Hearts / Serif Type 2 / 7 Strings) HN7 (Hearts / No Serifs / 7 Strings) The variety designations and naming scheme are just my method of identifying the examples of 1787 Sixpences that I want to collect. The serif type relates the "7"s in the date and the number of strings refers to the harp in the Hibernian shield.

Never mind...

Just wanted to say thanks again to everyone who's helped out by providing images. I've just emailed each of you a copy of some prelim findings re reverse features. Please let me know if you missed out or have trouble opening the PDF. I'm happy to answer questions about this document, just not publicly at this stage. Please contact me via PM for this purpose. Nathan

Every coin photo I have ever taken looks like crap. The images I take resemble the coins in the same way that this painting resembles the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra: I've taken an initial step to improve things by building an ugly-looking rig in an attempt to remove shake-induced blur. I lay my phone (Sony Xperia XZ Premium) flat on the platform with the lens resting over the chiseled-out hole It seems to have achieved its purpose, but I'm finding it hard to get the lighting and settings right so that all the details are captured and the colour looks natural. Could you please pass on your tips and tricks to de-stupidfy me?

@Peckris 2 There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold.... Perhaps the descendants of Randy Wolfe, Spirit's guitarist, see something glittering http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-29/stairway-to-heaven-retrial-ordered-by-judge/10320680

Both clips are examples of artists "crossing over": A rock musician singing folk and an Early Music ensemble performing 70's pop. I find these performances moving.

OK. The database now has, frustratingly, 493 coins. I'm at the point where each coin I see is ultimately from a source I've already searched. It would be awesome if forum members could contribute images of 7 more coins. Thanks!

Yep. Not happy with the 1787 Shilling I bought from Davissons, so have listed it for sale on eBay: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1787-Shilling-with-Hearts-George-III-Proclamation-Coin-Good-Extremely-Fine/263960640253 Do you think my description is fair, not a cop out and not misleading? Regardless of the grade, I'd like a semee-of-hearts variety to match the quality of the no-stop-over-head variety I already own. This one isn't it, despite the quality of lustre. Will just have to cut my losses. In the meantime I'll put the money realised from the sale towards 1787 sixpence/s for my die study.

You don't like unnecessary tautologies?

Would you grade it, then, as "almost practically as struck"?

My guestimate: Extremely Fine Is the lustre "natural" or do you think it's been dipped?

Thanks Jerry I think I'm part way to learning to differentiate between die flaws/wear/deterioration and con wear. I'm working off the following assumptions: 1. Generally, if there is coin wear, it will exist on at least three points of the face. Just a stool needs at least three legs to stand, so a coin will rest on a level surface on its three highest points. 2. Coin wear will result in a flattening of the surfaces when coming into abrasive contact with a surface 3. Wear will affect the coin's toning/lustre on the points of abrasion, although I imagine time could ameliorate some of the differences between the original surface and worn surfaces Please correct these assumptions as I'm just putting my ideas out there. On the obverse face of this coin there are small flattened surfaces on four curls, some drapery, the edges of two laurel leaves and the extra metal extruded from a die crack. These places have a lustre that's brighter than the surfaces in other areas, the same lustre, in fact, as the area affected by the coin adjustment. I assume that these pieces of evidence work together to indicate these are points of coin wear. Yes. the coin lacks some crispness and details that I'm seeing on a number of coins, which I attribute to die wear. But there's also coin wear in my opinion. This is why I question the grading. The bright lustre described by the auctioneer corresponds in location to the adjustment marks and I'm assuming that these two features are somehow related. Sorry, but I'm incapable of taking better pictures. You'll have to teach me how!

Never mind. There's a time limit of three days on claims and they don't guarantee their grading: "Any claims, other than claims of authenticity, must be made within three days of receipt of lots. N.B. Attribution and condition are the opinion of the cataloger and no warranty is expressed or implied." I suck at buying coins. More practice needed I suppose.

I won this coin at the recent Davissons Auction. They graded it as Good Extremely Fine, but there seems to be more wear than I would have expected from a coin in this condition. Do you agree? If so, has anyone tried returning a coin to them based on incorrect grade? I have a basis for comparison in the form of an EF+ 1787 Shilling purchased from Michael Gouby, to which it doesn't compare favorably. I took the images above with my phone. Here is the link to the Davissons listing: https://davcoin.com/lot/e-auction-26-lot-89

Thanks Chris! I have a long way to go.

My guestimate: gEF I was almost going to give this an aPAS, if it weren't for the lack of detail in the two curls as circled in the lower image. Mind you, I can't remember having seen any detail yet in either of these curls with the exception of the September proof, which was double struck. Given the seeming ubiquity of the lack of detail here in the circulation coins, I'm not sure whether it's the product of coin wear, die wear or the result of something else in the minting process (such as slightly too little pressure applied by the press). The fields seem relatively clean, although there are a couple of hairline scratches on the reverse. The obverse has less of the pitting that plagues many (I'm a little hesitant to use the word "most" at this stage) of the circulation 1787 sixpences. There is a small die crack at about 5 o'clock. Please critique my grading and comments.

Thanks again to everyone who's contributed so far, especially @seuk for his many images. The database now stands at a bit over three hundred and thirty 1787 sixpences. More representative images welcome! If I can find more than five hundred I'll be a very happy chap.

@Mr T This is probably of no value to you now, but I've found two Australian Universities that hold a copy each: Macquaire and The University of Western Australia. http://www.worldcat.org/title/numismatics-witness-to-history-articles-by-members-of-the-iapn-to-commemorate-its-35th-anniversary-la-numismatique-temoin-de-lhistoire-articles-de-membres-de-lainp-pour-le-35e-anniversaire-de-lassociation/oclc/18712890

I can't help but think that David Gilmour is singing this song to me and about me, particularly the first verse. I love it, but it makes me sad.

Have you checked with your local library about an inter-library loan?