Rob

I wouldn't give either side better than EF. Britannia's fingers are flat holding the trident and so is her thumb on the shield with quite a significant flattened area

Without a picture it's impossible to say, but from the description Fine would be melt, VF £15-20

According to their population report (key: graded, rejected, highest grade) 1905 HC, 16, 1, 75 1917 SV, 1, 5, 65 1864 die? FL not sure what this is 1763 SH, 10, 5, 78 1864 florin with the known copies. Can't remember which die it was.

Which begs the question for anyone who has access to the CGS statistics - how many 1905 HC, 1917 sov, 1864 die? forins, 1763 1/-, etc have been slabbed? i.e.the known dodgy items where your neck is on the line for saying one way or the other.

Know your stuff and you can't go wrong. Believe the hype and you may well end up s**t creek without a paddle.

You have been my biggest influence Rob! I recommend you and your views to all newbies It can get out of hand though At the moment, I have the following numbers of boxes to tick. People in whose name or under whose authority a coin was struck - 251 Denominations, either circulating or in pattern form, used or struck in this country - 130 Attributed designers - 173 Mint locations - 152 Privy or mint marks including overmarks - 327 Errors - 21 Metals/Alloys used - 50 Metal provenances - 11 Minting processes - 8 Misc features - 45 Type examples or too nice to sell - As many as I want The list could never be completed, is regularly extended and the diversity means there is always something to go for. Combine that with an attempt not to replicate designs and it is quite difficult - and fun.

I'm glad people are coming around to my way of thinking. :) :) It's very rewarding.

The one on the left is larger in diameter than the one on the right. Only a mm or so on the screen, but perceptible.

And the one in 'Another question' just now. Looks like Chris might have to start considering restrictions again. Do people have to shout out so much of no or so little importance, or is this just a feature of modern day social media where nobody meets face to face, nor communicates in anything other than text-speak?

Firstly, I agree with the opinions voiced about the 1684 1/- being a typo and would suggest a grade of good VF or nEF was intended. The three coins in the lot sold for £52 to Willis which is a bit low for these pieces at the time in gVF or nEF. The 1645 Oxford F7 I mentioned previously is a little more indicative though of a general tendency throughout salerooms (and for that matter TPGs etc to this day too) to inadequately catalogue the lots. I don't think it is a question of genuine grade creep, as the same people who catalogue become quite critical when buying and grade very conservatively. It is more a case of cataloguers consciously extracting the most out of a description. Or to put it another way, giving a grade based on the best bit rather than the worst. I also think the vendor will influence the grade given. My F7 was graded VF in Montagu, mint state in Lockett, but back to VF in Willis. Clearly we can disregard mint state, but there are also grades around EF assigned. All this points to inconsistency rather than grade creep, though given the influence of places like eBay and the explosion in collector numbers, all of whom have gone to the eBay school of numismatics, it is little wonder that you see so many examples of inflated grades. The same goes for the TPGs and their slabs. Whilst there must be commercial pressure to keep the customer happy by giving a decent grade, there is also a fair sprinkling of undergraded items (by both their standards and others') leading to quite choice 'undesirables' The question of the web is interesting. It has undoubtedly brought more examples of an individual type to the fore, but should not have influenced the grade assigned as the previously high grade examples in collections can still be used for comparison in museums where applicable. What people probably fail to accept is the absolute rarity of choice, high grade pieces. These account for a fraction of a percent of all coins and is why they fetch apparently astronomical prices. The old joke about rare being something that wasn't on eBay this week is only partly tongue in cheek for many, and the quality of fayre offered below that which would pass through a saleroom. We therefore have two parallel sets of collectors, graders and coins with occasional crossover between the two groups.

Another new poster saying the same thing, but nothing in terms of content? As Peter said yesterday, if there is no spam then you are welcome.

I think it may have been planned but never happened. Anyway I think the Nazis would have made a better job of it, I mean its under weight by about a third and has a milled edge. Only a fool would have been fooled by that one. Chinese?

That's ok. A while back there was an Ethelred XII coin cunningly disguised as a Chas.1 shilling.

? Is this a question about a specific coin you have, or the issue? The normal issue isn't a mule which is defined as two dies paired which should not have been. Obviously the current coinage is by and large struck as intended, with the undated 20p the only item known to have escaped quality control. If you have a coin which doesn't conform to the normal issue, please post pictures.

To check it out you will need better images than a phone. Try getting something in the order of 600dpi and use a hosting site such as photobucket and a link.

Is anyone technologically gifted enough to copy the image of the reverse into a program that can adjust the contrast etc. I have tried to copy the jpg file off the screen, but it doesn't want to paste into another jpg file. On my screen it looks as if there is an ascending 45 degree line right off the bottom LHS serif of the 1 and a slight disturbance by the top serif, both of which would be commensurate with a 2

I looked, but couldn't find an appropriate image.

That would be a genuine forgery too

1925?

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.