Sylvester

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.

I WISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha that's only one third of the collection!

Ah i always buy lace up trainers/shoes i wouldn't have them any other way... although after a few months i generally resort to slipping them on and off without undoing them... which is a typical kid thing to do.

When you get to my mental age Chris sitting down on the sofa will be the least of your problems, getting up will be another matter though.

Mad definately mad, conversely you could say by going somewhere hotter than you are now, you'll be able to feel the benefit of the coolness of 85F when you get back out! It is exceedingly warm though.

I certainly hope Portugal don't win! During the match with England they tried a few dodgy tactics to get one up on top, that's not to say England were blameless, the whole Rooney fiasco was proof that England were just as bad in that respect.* No what really turned me against Portugal was the way they played against the Netherlands, it was disgusting, they were throwing themselves all over the pitch and playing what i call 'yellow card tactics', the ref being card happy only helped to set the unsportsmanlike tone, as far as i'm concerned the Netherlands deserved to win that match. Now that might sound pretty passionate for a person who generally couldn't give a stuff about football, but i hate to see people cheater and get rewarded for it! * Honestly i don't know what all the fuss is about with Rooney, he's quick to anger and he's not as good as the media would like everyone to believe. Lampard, Hargreaves and Gerrard are the heroes of the match, notice how much better England played after Beckham and Rooney left! Of course England always go out on penalties, it's a tradition, we're lousy and we didn't deserve to go through, we're just not up to the standards of France, Italy etc. As for Italy well after watching them against Australia i wasn't too keen on them as they too were happy to throw themselves about too much and take dives, but after the game yesterday with Germany they redeemed themselves in my eyes, despite all the nasty comments in some of the German newspapers and the somewhat obvious dislike the two sides had for each other, they went out there and they played good some damn football, as did Germany. So France or Italy, i would prefer France. I have to say though it's a pity about Germany going out, i would have liked to see them win it, since they were hosting it and all.

Hope you are having a good day!

Incredible! Did it end up with a dealer or a collector? It wasn't me, my bid of £50 was rejected. Well at least you tried!

Oh don't get me started on Wimbledon or on Cricket... 'paint, dry' comes to mind for both. As for the football, come on Portugal! You can do it! Nah i have to say i would like England to win that match and get to the Semis, which i think is do-able, but they'll have to play better than they have done and watch their defending, which is sloppy at best. If they do scape through to the semis then Brazil or France will tidy up and our boys can come home. Of course it'd be nice to see England in the final, but i don't it'll get to that stage. Now if it should then they've got to lose, it'd be awful to destroy the importance of 1966 after all these years. Germany will win.

It's not Hussulo I'm complaining about, it's the peddlers of non and stale news. Press sites reporting 2 week old news tells me they are struggling to find anything to write about. The forthcoming sale of the double leopard was mentioned on Spink's website a few months ago. First i've heard of this, interesting. So there's three of them now then... interesting, one day perhaps, one day.

I can't help wondering if increased demands overseas for British coins might be pushing the market up somewhat? I know the US coin market has priced alot of collectors right out of it and thus a significant number have turned their attention to cheaper fields such as the World coin market. Britain is one of the favourites and i presume it's only a matter of time before an increased demand over there see's coins migrating over to the States and leading to a reduced supply over here.

Welcome (although you might remember me as Ætheling from Coinpeople).

Could it be a mount mark or something that's been filled in? I know it was common to mount coins in this period. Coins when cast often leave a protruding lump of metal (leading out of the mould) which is then filed off. Leaving something like that but it wouldn't be that small i wouldn't have thought. How's the edge of the coin look?

Not bad at all, but the eyes and mouth bear a close resemblence to George III!

Although i can't resist saying, there is alot of mint bloom don't you think? Design (ignoring the date) is pretty spot on.

Hmm odd. I reserve further judgement until i see the other side.