Rob

In fairness, that wasn't the main line of defence, but part of the conversation - so could be taken out of context. The reasoning for it being considered genuine was that a few people had looked at it and voiced their opinions that it was.

There also seems to be detail missing from the cape between the LC and Bentley examples. The Bentley example has more folds. The streamers behind the helmet seem a little different too. I thought that there was missing detail too, but when you have wear it is possible to explain away any missing detail as a result of this even if you are still sceptical. Design differences are not so easy to dismiss.

It looks like you also have one extra 'tooth' spacing on the LC coin across the date compared to the Bentley coin.

For future reference, here is a 6 on a proof. The currency examples may appear a little more 'congested', but follow the basic shape.

I spoke to Steve Lockett at Wakefield on Sunday about this and he was adamant that a few people had looked at it and confirmed it as genuine. His reply was 'have you ever seen another to compare?' I for one am still not convinced. If you compare with the example in the Bentley collection sold at Baldwin last year, the shape of the ear is different, the tail is much fuller on a normal sovereign as I noted previously, the date is misaligned unlike the Bentley coin, the beard is lumpier than the Bentley coin and the edge milling isn't visible on the LC coin. Bentley image below for comparison, with apologies for the foreshortening on the RHS.

No, this is a normal 5.

I think you are being overly critical here, there are also Scarce AND Superb coins in the inventory! You could put as "Scarcely superbly rare"which would cover most items. Got one thing right though. 1901 penny is a key date. Nothing comes close in terms of availability for the veiled head penny.

6 has a rounded top

Probably C H K Richard, those initials were also on the Bank dollar issues on the Armour by the shoulder CHK Conrad Heinrich Kuchler. Employed at Soho where the 5/- dollar coins were overstruck.

Maybe it was a misprunt(sic). The grader intended to put down MS46, but got it wrong. He/she(?) is only human(?) after all.

Presumably it won't be long before purchases have to be a minimum value too. Obviously doing too well and feel the need to discourage business. Go elsewhere chaps.

ouch

absolutely sand where you thrown out black, in something infinity. I am as you say. not that is, not there in something. up the down sea. Declan's reply is comprehensible. Would the other two please elucidate for those of us who don't do random word analysis. Ta.

For me the clincher is in the tail detail. Compare with my 1918I for example. It simply doesn't have the right amount of detail.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that much of what is written on Wikipedia is factually correct and I agree that it has been a major contributor to the explosion in accessible material. It is just that a reference needs to be properly subjected to peer review by a competent person, which if implemented would stop (or at least severely reduce) errors such as this creeping into general knowledge.

I consider Wikipedia a take it or leave it site. I remember a few years ago checking three numismatic terms and finding that two of the three were wrong. Brockage was one thing that was wrong then and is still wrong. Read the first line which clarifies what a brockage is - not. I can't remember what the second was now, but given that success rate, Wikipedia is certainly not a reference source that I would want to rely on.

Hobson's Choice is well..... no option. Take it or leave it. But there is a small window where say only a handful are known and you find an example only to discover it has been cleaned/mounted/AT etc. The first is simple if you are a completist, you have it. The second situation is not so clear cut. I suspect the decision will also be influenced by your knowledge of the alternatives available.

Oh dear Not for me either, but it would be interesting to hear members' viewshow they would treat the situation where a must-have coin was an AT coin

Doesn't do anything for me I afraid Rob. Just looks like a battered 5 to me. With the dirt fully removed, I concur. Forget this one.

Sky blue? It is uniform and overall. It may be a cleaning agent residue rather than deliberately AT, but it dosn't look very natural in hand.The blue is highlighted because of the change in relief on the design, but is in the fields too.

There aren't many options (0, 6, 8 or 9) so I'm going for 5 over 6, but if anyone has a better example to confirm it would be appreciated. I'll also clean the muck off it and try again.

reverse

If you want an example of AT copper, here's one slabbed MS63 by NGC. I left the sticker on the slab (seen on the rev) as I assumed this was the colour ordered.

On a more serious note though, does he really need 6 images to show off a corroded 2p? Little wonder he started it at $6.99 as his fees for the extra images must come to nearly that. I notice the postage costs are even higher than that. I assume that's because he has to send such a valuable piece by the American version of Special Delivery? Like this? http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?start=150&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=914&tbm=isch&tbnid=t9I0sS7kfPvQfM:&imgrefurl=http://www.raleighscrapmetalrecycling.com/&docid=dc4iAls5kkKftM&imgurl=http://www.raleighscrapmetalrecycling.com/images/slider/slide-5.jpg&w=964&h=340&ei=zDNoUs_LAcTX0QW_ioGwCA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:53,s:100,i:163&iact=rc&page=5&tbnh=133&tbnw=348&ndsp=39&tx=164&ty=92

On a more serious note though, does he really need 6 images to show off a corroded 2p? Little wonder he started it at $6.99 as his fees for the extra images must come to nearly that.