Rob

Not sure if this is the right place to post, but it sure is helpful. http://augustusmath.hypermart.net/fakesellers.html

You gave the answer. There is damage around where the 7 should be. Any coin struck from a die with only 18 8 would have perfectly smooth fields at that point because the number wouldn't have been punched in. It is also highly unlikely that such a coin would have entered circulation, not impossible, but very unlikely. You would expect it to be EF or better, or alternatively lower grade in appearance on account of having been lightly struck, not from wear.

yep

Spink doesn't think so. F-2750, VF-9500, EF 47500. Significantly, even the Parsons piece, lot 568 and graded good with holes in the flan merited a picture ahead of many other pieces that one might consider worthy of illustration. It is a seriously rare thing. ESC rated it R3, which has to be an underestimation of rarity. Alan Barr's coin was listed at £1750 in Fine - VF, which with hindsight was an absolute bargain for someone.

Oh. Thank you. I spend an uneconomical length of time trying to get it right. Takes the fun out somehow.

Matt was first, but alas too late. A nice scrap man bought a load of them just over a month ago.

Yes, but which one is right? Chances are, neither.

In view of which, I have a Victorian, no date penny for a tenner if anyone is interested. Rare, none in the Alderley, Crocker, Workman, Copthorne collections.

I must admit that this in part is why I set my criteria for the coins to be as eclectic as possible, avoiding design duplication unless you have more than one Hobson's Choice pieces required to tick a different set of criteria, e.g. PAXS pennies or Aethelred II LSC where several mints only strike in their respective type, but this can sometimes be overcome by varieties within the type such as bust styles or bust facing left or right. Date runs, or following the tick list obtained from a standard reference are the default completionist ideal at a basic level. All the work has been done by someone else and you just have to mark them off as you get them, but references are logical lists and by definition group things by type. i.e. your rows of things all looking the same are pre-determined. It was the lines of things looking the same that weaned me off date runs. Obviously there is no right or wrong whatever or which ever way you collect.

Just buy what you like. If it appeals, that should be your primary reason for purchasing it. If you are buying because a list says you must get an example, I suspect the enthusiasm will disappear relatively quickly.

I'm not saying you should be doing one to the exclusion of the other, rather that I'm surprised you don't do both. A completionist I would expect to want both currency and proofs. A proof for any year is normally of a single type, which is more than can be said for the number of currency varieties covering the same period. You don't have a proof for every year and it isn't a case of excessive cost either as many years have currency varieties that cost more than the relevant proof. Take 1863. If you had all half a dozen types for that year, the cost of the proof would pale into insignificance compared to all those die number washers. I believe you would try to get all possible varieties, which really negates the old argument that they are too expensive to collect, because the money thrown at minor currency varieties far outweighs that spent on proofs. Cost is a red herring. Most proof pennies are also struck in copper or bronze. Sure there are other metals used, but these are very much in the minority. As one who struggles to relate to this reluctance, I often wonder if it more a case of familiarity and a reluctance to stray into the unknown.

I have to confess I find the general obsession with avoiding proofs and patterns bizarre to say the least, especially when people are prepared to pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds depending on whether a colon points to a dot or a space, or a digit is half a millimetre left or right. You cut out so many potentially aesthetically appealing things by doing this, after all, a proof version of a currency coin is usually the same as you have already, but with steroids. If the currency pleases you, then the proof should give even more pleasure.

And it's much easier to accumulate than to cull.

I concur. Leaving aside the thickness of the rims, proof pennies usually have sharp rims/edges. This doesn't.

The limit for most collections is determined by one of three things - funds, telomeres or patience. Prolong all of these limiting factors and who knows how good the collection would become. Far better to take the view that if you like it, so will someone else, so you'd better buy it. There's nothing wrong with having gaps in a collection as it always gives you something to go for. Spread the net wide enough and you will always be able to find something. I've been stuck at around 50% complete for a while now as I discover more criteria that I can fill. These are usually the result of me looking for an excuse to squeeze another too nice to sell coin into the collection, even though it didn't tick any existing criteria on the list.

I note that the RM talks about silver £5 to £100 commemorative coins. Does this refer to silver only or both Ag and Cu-Ni. Clearly the face value of a silver £5 is £5, but its intrinsic value is higher as long as the silver spot is about £6/oz or higher.

It's certainly Ed.1, but division into sub-class is a bit of a struggle with the lighting on the obverse. It's certainly early with the style of S and the barred A in TAS. The crown fleurs and breast/neck will define it, but neither are really focussed and the image is too dark. I would say class 2 as it looks like the N is reverse barred.

No complaints about it - it's just that I wouldn't feel able to leave the oddballs off the list, which would need to be as complete as the currency pieces. That's the obsessive completionist in me.

I would have put the number higher, but there again, there are a few gaps and it is very light on proofs or patterns.

I never thought it was two different dies, just a case of reinforcing the existing legend. It happened all the time. Repaired worn or filled dies are everywhere in the Victorian coppers/bronzes.

It isn't a farthing, it is a halfpenny. The coin is in the unlisted varieties section - the 1675/3/2, but done on a scanner. It is the only one NGC have given a 65 (or at least last time I looked), but they got the date wrong (1673). I have played around with the image to make it look more like in the hand on my screen. Focus could be better

Not sure about the order of the Rs. Either could come first, but my money would be on the long tail being first. The higher relief (long tailed R) is showing a little ragged on the left of the upright and is the obvious defect requiring repair. It could be that the repair wasn't deep enough to cover the original long tailed R because looking at the short tailed one, it is perfectly formed. Bear in mind you are working with a previously hardened die, so sometimes the repair is hard to effect, even if the die has been softened again. It is like the GEOE shilling. You wouldn't repair an R with an E, but you would correct a spelling mistake. Again, I think the repair wasn't deep enough.

NEWSFLASH - DAILY MAIL READER SPOTTED IN NEASDEN Following a recent outburst of sanity across the country, Daily Mail readers have become increasingly elusive. One even changed hands for a record £63, though reports indicate the purchaser subsequently claimed a refund via their credit card on the grounds that although they had purchased the tool as advertised, it wasn't the right tool for the job. See full story on page 2.

I personally still think the grade assigned is a lottery as I've yet to see any great consistency and the seeming reluctance to put anything greater than a 65 on anything begs the question of whether 66-70 have any meaningful significance. I have a coin that was in a 61 slab that I would grade higher than a similar one given 65. For comparison's sake, the attached was given 65 by NGC. But, if it is genuinely that good, over and above your albeit PCGS graded examples, I fail to see why the obvious wear to the hair curl in front of the ear and the one between the A and laurel are not holding it back. Sure the coin is not far off mint state with virtually full lustre, but the wear as seen means I can't give it any better than good EF. It isn't simply a PCGS/NGC issue either because I also used to have a 1675/3 that was in a PCGS 64 holder, but I couldn't see it past EF. It's almost as if they are more critical on the popular coins, which by definition they will encounter more often, but when it comes to the scarcer types, you get the feeling that the grade assigned is done more on the basis of a whetted finger and the wind speed/direction. There is no point revisiting the pros and cons of slabbing, TPGs and the grades assigned as we will all beg to differ and no meeting of minds will take place. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just to be objective rather than the subjective topic that is grading.

I get people calling me all day long asking if I want to buy 50ps, £2s and the like. I might get myself an answer message telling people their 50p is not worth more than face. There is no point paying a premium for any currently circulating coin unless it is mint state. Even if half a million people collected them, supply would still exceed demand, just that you might not be able to buy one on the spot. I had two Benjamin Brittens in my change last weekend. If you want these so-called rarities, buy some patience with the money saved by not paying a premium