Rob

If you do a lengthy scroll to the bottom of the page, the following information is provided for 'the medal'. If the florin has an inscribed edge as written, that is seriously naughty given there is no mention of it in the normal listing. I guess the inability to edit the original listing is just eBay's way of helping underhand behaviour. Additional information re the medal: Edge of the medal reads as follows: 05853 CPL A.E. HUNTER A.O.C

Welcome to the forum Lee. I started by collecting everythimg and anything I could lay my hands on when young, migrated to a collection of shillings and halfpennies when I finally found a focus, but after finding it difficult to fill some of the gaps in suitable grade plus the monotony of date runs, decided to go for maximum diversity within the British series from Celtic through to the modern day. By avoiding duplication of design wherever possible, it means that I have effectively become a type collector. However, old habits die hard, so I still have mini collections of George III pattern halfpennies and Freeman based halfpennies where I try to get an example of each Peck type and obverse/reverse examples respectively. Plus I often find myself buying an example of a reign/type that although strictly duplicating a design, is too attractive to ignore.

Northern Rock should have been allowed to go to the wall. For people to cry that their life savings were in danger should be a salutory lesson in the art of not putting all eggs in one basket. For those who put more than the compensation limit on deposit - you took a gamble and by rights should have lost.

The Nicholson images show a reasonable comparison between what is considered a specimen and that which is a proof. Nicholson 400 is a Heaton 'proof', but the fields are misty relative to the RM proofs because they are not so finely polished. Mine is definitely better than N's, but still not quite as good as the RM pieces.

But as nice as it is, it still falls a little bit short of say my 1867 bronzed and 1879 bronze proofs. Both are ex-Nicholson http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/nicholson_part5.html for comparison.

And the regular one.

Now that's a very interesting discussion. What do you make of this catalogue footnote to the sale of an 1874H penny by DNW in 2006: FootnotePeriodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished ‘specimen’ coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369). Truly genuine Heaton mint proofs of this period (cf. Adams lot 268 = SNC April 2005, 2467) are exceedingly rare; most of those so catalogued in the Freeman sale were in fact ‘specimens’ That's fascinating. Presumably though, such specimens had the H mintmark? Seeing as I have one of the coins in question, here is the halfpenny ex-Freeman and Terner collections. Unfortunately it's only a scan which reduces contrast a bit, so if I find time later tonight I will try to take a picture alongside both slightly earlier and slightly later RM proofs for comparison purposes. I don't think you need to make too much of some of the lot footnotes as they are often reiterating past footnotes, or even copying them verbatim. It is probably better that collectors make up their own mind. I can see the arguments for both sides, but compared with a regular currency piece that has proof-like fields, there is no comparison.

Good news/happy feely stories make for dull media. It ain't going to happen. Conflicting views brings surprises (good media), agreements mean you already know the news.

My son supports independence on the grounds that he often works out of Aberdeen, so it would boost his days out of the country for tax reasons.

The two catalogues above were available at the Midland on Sunday, the other one will be out shortly.

HVE is HUE. I can't think of an example prior to G2 (1740 halfpenny) where U is used to replace V.

I don't know about being frightened of Scottish indepemdence, but I sure am wary of having to adopt Scottish spelling.

North is a start, followed by the numerous articles in the BNJ and the various sylloges of the SCBI series. There are specialist works on small sections/mints/reigns etc such as Mossop's Lincoln work, Sadler's Ipswich mint volumes etc. As with all publications, no one reference gives all the answers. The list is very long indeed, so narrowing down the field of interest may help giving guidance.

I like NGC more too, but mainly for their greater propensity to mis-atttribute. Fewer potential profits are available for this reason in PCGS slabs. I concur with the idea of their acquiring a grading book or two. Cheap loupes from China might not go amiss either.

He could have been French given that the French version for Lincoln was Nicole. Alternatively, it should be borne in mind that the language of the nobility and court was Norman French following the conquest, so this may be normal for the period. Not a clue about HVE the individual though. In the Mass sylloge, Lincoln has 4 moneyers for Va, Alain, Andreu, Hue & Iohan. 4 moneyers for Vb, Andreu, Hue, Rauf & Tomas, and 2 moneyers for Vc, Andreu & Hue. These all write the signature NICOLE in all three classes.

They haven't attempted to… they just say 'mostly uncirculated'. While some are, many are most certainly not. so they got the 1967s right?

How did they manage to grade them in that case?

I suppose the question is, is it available? I have many images of desirable but unavailable coins.

They aren't popular because the design is fairly boring and monotonous across the entire series. However, for anyone wanting to assemble a complete coinage they are the ideal material. Cheap, relatively available despite the low mintages, and ultimately quite a satisfying venture for the collector.

As was said at the time of the farthing mule debate. It was a mule in PCGS' considered opinion..................................................precisely. Something other individuals and TPGs are incapable of making, apparently. A guarantee is a safeguard against their making a balls-up. They and other TPGs, of course, do not make them.

Great. 2013 1p. Brilliant, as struck. Uncirculated. est. £0.01-0.02 Provenance Tesco, Bognor Regis. Till 5. 3:45pm 23/12/2013

I'm not sure why anybody gets particularly exercised with any price guide given we all accept that they aren't perfect and that the numbers are a vague fictional approximation. It's a case of doing your homework.

They are in a business where the entry costs are not very high, nor are they operating in a highly skilled professional business. In short, anybody could set up a similar business and copy their proven model. Their continuing success relies entirely on the perception of the coin collecting fraternity when comparing PCGS with its peers. Stock prices will increase in anticipation of business growth. Maybe the market is looking at the past decade or more and saying it is time for prices to take a breather. A correction would be healthy as it would enable a few people with broken stop buttons to realise that losses can also happen, either paper or real if financially constrained. Whilst this would not directly affect the prices charged by the TPGs, it would possibly result in fewer submissions as a result of lower sales. A market correction would also have to be reflected in the 'official prices' of slab grades due to a reduced demand. A valid question is whether the TPGs have ever been affected by a genuine downturn. As the last major reduction in prices was the 30-40% fall at the beginning of the 1980s, the TPG model is in danger of entering unfamiliar territory, because to date the market has either been nominally flat or increasing.

The second one.

Bargain! If that is MS65, someone should have an example that was too good to fit on the Sheldon scale - so they refused to slab it. Obviously wear to the hair, bun and wreath means nothing.