Sylvester

Christianity has done some good in society. It's left some stunning architecture, nice paintings, some beautiful manuscripts and alot of entertaining history... beyond that though i'm going to keep my gob shut.

Slab/ornot varies from collector to collector. It all comes down to 'how they collect', 'what they collect' and 'why they collect'. Take for example these two coins; 1) Proof 1969 Kennedy half in MS67 Versus 2) A circulated Denarius of Trajan dating to the 2nd century CE. One has value in grade and condition which, if not encapsulated somehow (be it slab or airtite) many be prone to knocks or damage. The other has more value in history and archaeology than in grade. Big difference. As for my own personal preference i disagree with slabbing not so much on the fact that the coin is encapsulated (true i physically have to handle my coins to get any pleasure out of them), but more on the fact that emphasis is placed upon grade. There's more to coins than grade and i believe slabbing is making many collectors miss the bigger picture of the whole joy of numismatics, of which grade is only part. Secondly slabs infer "objective" grading, indeed this is misleading there is not such thing as 'objective' grading, all grading is in the eye of the beholder and thus 'subjective'. What i think is pretty might make Oli choke on his laurels.

Yes Aidan we are aware of the many different types of spam on this forum. Oh and hi JMD nice to see you around again!

Ah the perpetual 'to slab' or 'not to slab' debate... that goes around.

Hey i missed it! I'm quite a fan of James II, i dunno why but i always have this uncanny habit of backing the Catholic side of an argument. I had no idea Aidan was a bible person, if he doesn't like homosexuals, then what's his take on pagans? Hmm i read recently that it was actually 616 that was the number of the beast. Now 13 is a good number! I love 13.

That's different that's accent/dialect. I think regional diversity and accents should be promoted. So it doeasn't bother me when i hear someone speaking like that. Nor would it bother me so much if they spelt like that either. I think the standardisation of the language in the late 18th century was a very bad move. Spoken discourse changes with each generation, it always has (and every previous generation frowns at it!).* The written discourse prior to standardisation wasn't far behind with the adaptation. When you standardise you're in danger of doing a Latin. That said English isn't bad in that respect. The French well they are their own worst enemies. The crux for me is not whether it's 'proper grammar', but rather is it understandable? If it's understandable then has it not served it's purpose? I knew what you meant though. *In the 1967 there was a big uproar about the degradation of the English Language. The catalyst was, wait for it... Star Trek. William Shatner's uttering at the beginning; "to boldly go where no one has gone before" didn't go down too well. Back then it was a sin to split the infinitive. Today no one thinks twice about it. Fings change t'otherwise we'd be using the medial 's', þ, ð and à still, to say nothing of connexion and shewn.

I'm not arguing against that Rob, i think it has it's uses as far as that goes. Why i said it was pointless is because universities just don't recognise it like they do other A-Levels. It all depends why you do A-Levels, if you are doing them for their own sake and you don't intend to go further (and what with the new University fees i can see this becoming more popular), then general studies is fine. If you do A0Levels as a passport to university, like i did, then general studies is almost on a level with key skills. Do it for fun (or torture where key skills is concerned), but don't expect it to go anywhere.

Ah General Studies well... that figures! Every year people complain about how pointless that subject is, most universities don't take it as a qualification either. Yes critical thinking, rather you than me, i went to an open day on that and came out totally baffled. Not my strongpoint at all.

I agree five is too much, but for Geoff's example i'd be willing to pay it. It's the perfect example of everything being wrong. Other than that i don't actually intend to buy (or attempt to depending upon his answer) any more fakes, as i'm gonna harvest them from change.

Congrats Oli! 6 AS Levels? Jeeze... that's alot of AS levels. Back in my day we did four. Although actually my day and yourday is still the same, because i was in the first year to take these new A-Levels. Experimental batch you might say. I didn't find them particularly easy, regardless of what people say about exams dumbing down 6 AS must have been tough timewise! How many are you taking through to A2? Four i presume?

In that case you'd love mine. It's dated 1995, but the reverse, instead of the Welsh dragon, has the Scottish thistle, and the edge inscription is the English "Decus et Tutamen". Or least that's what they were attempting, because what it says, in crude and uneven letters, is "DECUS EE L TUTAMEN". On top of these blunders, the reverse is totally out of alignment with the obverse and both sides have a dent in the centre where the surface metal has worn away to show the (lead based?) alloy underneath. A real beaut! Geoff

Actually i thought there were alot less fakes in circulation than there used to be. 2001-2 was the period when fakes were here, there and everywhere. As it stands i'm actually putting together a date set of fake £1 coins, currently i have 2004, 2002, 1994 and 1988. I haven't seen any others in a few months though. The 1988 one came as a surprise, i thought that was the only design to have escaped it as of yet! Unfortunately they are all 'correct' forgeries, i haven't seen any wrong reverse for year, or wrong edge inscription for design ones in some time. I've still yet to find one with all three wrong, but one day perhaps!

Kuhli you're da man! I never thought of looking there! Thanks.

Okay chaps we all know that the small 10p coins debuted in 1992. The question that i can't seem to find an answer for though is what month did they arrive? Presumably some time between April and September? Anyone know?

Flemish coins would come as no surprise to me from this period. Bearing in mind the English wool trade was the staple export commerce of England during the period and the place we usually dealt with was Antwerp. France wouldn't come as much of a surprise either because the mid-fifteenth century was the back end of the Hundred Years war, and we still held Calais (until 1558), and thus French coinage would enevitably find it's way in. Spanish coinage surprises me a little. Where did you find it Mark? (Near a port/sea town?) Which is what i'd expect. Or somewhere on a trade route. Obviously if you say somewhere landlocked like i dunno Leicester i'd be even more surprised.

I'm cringing at that thought. I've never tried to grade one of those yet. I dunno if i dare. With hammered i gave up with grading. I figured it's alot simpler to buy on eye appeal. That takes me straight back to a Queen Anne Shilling, MS63... never believe everything you read on the packet. The coin was a bog standard EF. (Which in the slack US grading should be AU/MS60)

You hit the nail on the head there. What really irks me is two things; 1) Know it all collectors that can distinguish between NT (Natural toning) and AT (Artificial toning). The question is, the difference is very shady indeed. Point in case, a coin that was in a collection say 80 years ago was stored in a sulphur envelope. It has developed colourful toning, this would be regarded as natural. I can see why, it was not intended. But yet modern day collectors purposely putting coins into these envelopes now to get the desired effect and it's still considered natural! I would say that's Artificial because they know what the results will be if they store them in Sulphur containing envelopes and they're doing it on purpose. It doesn't matter how long it takes! In my mind it's the 'motive' of doing something, toning to increase value/eye appeal, that is the benchmark between NT and AT, not 'length of time taken' as everyone else seems to measure it by, which frankly is ludicrous. How anyone can tell the difference between AT and NT is therefore a mystery to me. It would have to have a provence of over 50 years in that toned condition before i would class it as natural. Still makes it ugly in my opinion though. 2) The thing that really annoys the hell out of me is the hypocrisy of it all. There seems to be an implicit understanding that 'toning' a coin or putting it somewhere where it will tone 'naturally' like in a high sulphur envelope in a warm attic for ten years is instantly preferable and completely 'natural' and yet different from 'cleaning' a coin which people should be shot for. Unless of course they are only dipping it to remove unwanted unattractive tones and dirt which is undesirable and is affecting the eye appeal, so they can then retone it to more current tastes. And yet these people are the same people that often bash newbies for cleaning coins saying "coins should never be altered! Originality is paramount!" Now this seems like a very flawed ideology to me, is that not Orwellian doublethink in action there? It's against something (cleaning/AT), for something similar (dipping/'NT') and yet not standing for either at the same time (retaining originality at all costs). And they wonder why i have a problem with it, there's just no logic in it. And they say i'm mad!

Yep i was 19, that was a while back. There are alot of coin folks birthday around this time indeed, i had noticed that. May-August seems to be the buzz period. Anyhow thanks guys i had a lovely day down in Winchester, i've been meaning to pay it a visit for several years, finally i got the chance. The cathedral's particularly interesting, a bit weird though being stood in the same building where the physical remains of kings; Egbert, Ethelwulf, Eadmund, Eadred, Edwy, Canute, Harthacnut and William II are! Not to mention Emma of Normandy, and former Bishops of Winchester; Stephen Gardiner (who married Mary Tudor and Phillip II of Spain, incidentally in the same building), Richard Fox (who worked for Henry's VII/VIII) and of course my old favourite Henry of Blois. Word has it that Jane Austin is lurking there too but i missed that one. Although Alfred the Great was buried there he went missing. So yeah it was a weird day packed full of actually 'meeting', or rather sharing the same building space as a whole ton of dead people i've spent years reading about and studying.

Thanks Coppers! Just to treat myself i'm off on a day trip to the deep south of England, so whether i'll be back on before tomorrow who knows?

I was speaking generically there, i didn't mean every single American collector. I knew a few who don't care for it. Conversly i know some British collectors that like it.

George VI florins are anything but rare there's probably still a heck of alot of them out there sat in people's drawers as they've only been out of circulation for the last 13 years.

Question, Britain went back onto the gold standard after the FWW, around about 1925? and remained on until 1932, i have a feeling that it was possible between those dates to go into a bank and demand payment in gold. Would i be right to think this?

Two things; 1) Medieval/Ancients are indeed cleaned often, the reason for this is that most are from hoards that have been dug up, and often they are encased in soil etc. and they have to be cleaned to be identified. That said some are cleaned for collector's 'benefit'. 2) With the example you give above there is a difference. The important difference being CONTEXT. The act of an unscrupulous medieval individual clipping a coin to pass it on is part of historical context of the period, it is in no way aimed at collectors. Likewise cartwheel twopences were sometimes converted into smuggling tins, that is they'd cut the coin in half so the obverse and reverse were separate and then they'd hollow the coin out and install a screw type mechanism in the recessed part so that you could unscrew the obverse from the reverse hide small messages inside and then reclose the box and it'd look like an ordinary coin. This might seem like mindless vandalism, now if a coin dealer did it tomorrow to one and the tried to pass it off as a genuine article it'd be very wrong. A genuine 19th century engineered piece for use in the Napoleonic Wars would be quite sought after for it's potentially valuable role in history. Cleaning/recolouring a coin on the other hand doesn't have any of the context, infact altering a coin is removing it from it's historical context. Under normal circumstances (i.e not buried) dirt accumulates on the coin over many years, removing this dirt and then recolouring is removing it's history. I also strongly agree with Oli's point about the flippant use of dipping, as far as i'm concerned coins should never be meddled with, they should never be cleaned or altered. With the following seldom exceptions; 1) When cleaning is required in order to identify the coin 2) If the coin has verdigris 3) Any other chemicals on the coin that will cause more damage if left. PVC residue for one. You'll note the reasons i provide are never for æsthetic purposes but are in cases when the coin's well being or identification require it to be so. The number one rule, if you don't like the way a coin looks then don't try and alter it just sell it and buy one you do like, better still don't buy it in the first place. Oh and Hussulo just for the record i think your halfpenny is actually naturally toned that way, i don't think it's a case of doctored at all, i just think poor storage is to blame. Did it come from the US by any chance? Because some of their storage methods leave alot to be desired, many of the older methods particularly so because they cause alot of damage to coins. Actually i think that one is probably natural, copper can sometimes pick up light colouring, if you look at the bottom picture of the coin in it's coffin you'll see it looks fairly normal (although very dark to me due to my screen colours being a tad off), however, the top image looks like it's been shall we say enhanced? Someone turned the colour up?

Toning a coin to sell is no different than cleaning a coin to sell. It's an altered coin and thus of no interest to collectors. (Except Americans)

Nasty if you ask me, reminds me of an oil spill in the road. Hence why i call coins of this nature 'slickers'. With reference to Coinpeople, ah it's not just there, you'll find wherever there are alot of Americans there seems to be almost a cult following of coins of this nature. Personally i wouldn't touch it with three barge poles bolted together with titanium, but our friends across the pond seem to view it differently and actually drool over such toning. To me silver should be bright or grey and copper should be bright or brown, anything outside those parameters and it's been mucked about with as far as i'm concerned.