Sylvester

Wasn't it Mark Davidson? (one of the Coincraft people).

Sounds like a sixpence to me. Mintmark should be a long cross which should be visable directly above the Queen's head and also on the reverse at the beginning of the legend. The value varies greatly depending upon the condition, in the very worst you might get £5 for it, top grade specimens that look as good as the day they left the dies could be £100 or more. Creased specimens, or clipped specimens will be worth less.

Wow you have been busy!

I was thinking Chris perhaps the obverse changed during a year. Making a possible 4 varieties in a year. Or maybe the older less defined hair obverses might turn up accidentally later on (like the 'New Pence' reverse did). It might be worth keeping an eye out for them. How can this be you say when the date is on the obverse? Maybe they could have wiped the date a redid it?

It could be a number of things, a threepence, a sixpence or a shilling. A picture would be useful it possible, a picture would be needed to determine value as value is entirely based upon the condition the coin is in. Number 2 rule don't clean it. Lastly how big is the coin?

Is this just for the large 10ps? Or just the small or both?

This is before we get to the obverse changes. If anyone's ever noticed 1970s obverses are diffeent to 1980s obverses. Take a 1971 2p and a 1980 2p. The hair changes.

The ruff makes me think it's Spanish.

Or maybe Spain. If it's a Henry then it might be Henry IV of France. If it's Spain then the H in the legend might be part of HISP.

I don't think it's British. Does it say Henricus? (or something similar?) I've no idea what it is, but you might want to try France.

I'm gonna say i have seen 1992 20 pences many times, certainly much more than say 1988 £1 coins. So they can't be that rare. Although i never noticed the obverse change. Took 13 years and then only when someone pointed it out. Whichever issue is in the BU/Proof sets there's not much point hoarding that variety. Unless of course it's more complicated and both exist in BU/Proof sets (just that one is rarer), or perhaps one type is proof and the other is BU. Even if there is only one variety in the sets, there's no way of being able to tell which it is until you see a set. Generally you might be inclined to think the new version would be the one in the sets, however looking at usual mint practice it's usually the older variety, thinking of the bronze 1992 coins here. I have a feeling the small head variety is the one in the set (which presumably could also be the rarer of the two). Meaning the common varient is entirely in circulation and thus will be more common in circulated grades but very rare in UNC. (How confusing could that be?) This is exactly what's happening with the 1992 10p pieces. The type 1 with the wire edge predominates but none of them are in proof or mint sets. Whereas the uncommon type 3 variant is what's in all the sets. Type 4 and 5 are rare and in no sets. 1992 was one year of major change. Anything to report on the 5 pence piece, any varieties of that?

Ah well Chris you didn't actually tell me where you'd got the info from, so i just stuck in the usual, 'must have read it somewhere'. I must admit i've never actually heard of the guy, but then again i've never even seen a copy of Peck's book as it lacks a certain silvery quality to the contents.

Thanks to Chris for pointing this on out to me. Well i seem to be devoid of 1992 20ps. Chris asked if there were two varieties known of the 1992 20ps thinking he'd read it somewhere. So i took a look at the ones i have, unfortunately the only ones i could find were dated 1989, 1993 and 1995. Comparing the 1989 to the 1993/5 examples the obverse portrait on the latter specimens is clearly different (how had i not noticed this?) the obverse is bigger on the later ones. The Queen's crown is much nearer the inside edge of the pentagon. The question is when did the portrait change? I have a feeling it might be 1992 and this would back up Chris' initial question. I'm going to have to go looking for some 1992 20ps.

Seems half the forum has birthdays in the June-August months.

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday! (Yes Early Milled is still on but has slowed due to other commitments on my part, sadly not girls, but work).

Oww how un...fortunate.

I saw a few at Ottakers in Lincoln, haven't checked their Huddersfield branch yet. W H Smith's at Huddersfield have the Roman one only, WHSmiths of Barnsley have nothing, not even a Spink. But they do have the Stanley Gibbons attempt!

Yesterday i got my first 2005 dated coin in circulation, a 5p nonetheless. I've got to admit 2005 just looks really odd. 2001-2004 looked pretty much as i expected, 2000 took some getting used to, but this 2005 is weird, i think it's because a 5 is a bit like a 2 flipped on it's head. (Not rotated but flipped).

Same with that Ducat of mine, they say AU, i'd hedge my bets on AEF again. Maybe EF on a good day, but i honestly seem to think it needs the A.

I don't generally agree with grades on slabs all that often. I saw one Queen Anne shilling graded at MS63, personally i wouldn't have graded it above NEF, infact it was a slider between GVF and AEF. Bad day i'd say GVF+, most days i'd be nice and have said AEF.

My biggest gripe at US grading is two things; 1] They grade considering eye appeal. Which when all said and done is not actually anything to do with the grade. Personally i wouldn't find any Churchill Crown eye appealing in any condition does this mean that because i find them repulsive that they really shouldn't get grades above MS63? A grade of a coin is it's condition not how nice it looks afterall one man's idea of beauty is another's idea of a coin that needs a good long dip to get rid of the fake looking rainbow tone. 2] Net Grading; We're not talking sensible net grading here the likes of which are practiced in much of the coin collecting world. Normal net grading would be something like giving a coin a grade of VF when the obverse grades aVF and the reverse grades gVF. Instead of classifing them separately they average it out, that we're used to. US net grading also takes into account cleaning and edge knocks amongst other things. Instead of grading as follows; gVF Cleaned with slight edge knock. they grade thusly, VG-8; VF-35 details. Which means dealers sell the coin at very low VF prices (as per damaged coin) but buy at VG price. The US grading and Slabbing industry is set up with the dealer in mind. Doesn't help the collector much. Of course they peddle off a ton of rubbish about how it's good for authentication and all that twaddle. But lets face it Slabbing companies have slabbed fakes by accident and people have also make fake coins with fake slabs to go with them.

I know i love that reverse, i always have though. I'd definately put it down as one of my favourites. Shield, eagles, crowns, swords. Reeks of royalty and power... add into the mix a guy in a wig on the other side and you know it's the kind of thing i'm going to buy. They are alot nicer than the gold coins Britain was peddling out at this time, i.e Spade Guineas. Although i must say i always liked the ornamental shield reverse guineas of George II. George III less so (the earliest portraits are damn good, thinking 1761-4) but by the late 1760s they began deteriorating... by the 1770s they were quite hideous.

I'm sure i'm getting dyslexic... that should be 1786-B not 1786-D. I've put D one every post so far, even on omnicoin. I think it's because my French coin i got the other day is a D mint one. But then again i get B's and D's mixed up ALL the time. I can think and say out loud to myself B and mean to write B and I'll still write D. (I had to concentrate writing that sentence)... Yes i have had a dyslexia test and they found no problems... so dunno what the B/D thing is about...

Joseph II 2 Ducats 1786-D got it for £335 (which amusingly is Krause value!) A fellow member on another forum who specialises in gold coins of this period and in ducats in particular said that 2 ducats ain't as common as the 1 ducat and that it was a very well priced specimen being sold at/near Krause prices was a steal. Graded by ICG at AU53, which to me means it EF at best. (Although if memory serves correct ICG was considered one of the better ones on world coinage). I really like it, not keen on the tomb though. I've wanted a ducat a long while ever since i got an imitation ducat of Francis (Either Francis I or II), Maria Theresa's husband. That was a gaming token of a 1 ducat piece (i still have it actually), and i wanted a real one of the period. Joseph II isn't that far away being only a generation or so down, same century, although i'd have to confess i wasn't looking for a 2 ducat piece but beggers can't be choosers! It was there, it was nice and for once i had the cash... so that's my 21 birthday present to myself, well one of three...