Rob

Possibly true, but proofs obviously have less of a following than currency issues, not least because they are less accessible to collectors. If collecting patterns and proofs that were not intended for circulation, you would therefore want to pick up coins in as perfect preservation as possible. Sometimes this is not an option and you must make do with what is frequently unique or nearly so, but if you are aware of better you will tend to wait for it to turn up. On the whole, only quoting FDC prices isn't a problem because collectors of these pieces usually have a good handle on how many there are and in what grades. Bloodbaths rarely occur, but when they do it is for a very good reason. Most collectors of proofs wouldn't use eBay as their primary source, which, by default would be Spink, Baldwins or similar as they are the only suppliers of decent quantities of material. And, although they take a lot of stick on this forum, I find Spink quite reasonable pricewise for said items because the prices charged in the shop or in the Circular are usually not far removed from the tome price. Rarities within the general type can therefore be obtained at good prices.

Not seen an 1826, only an 1825 for which the R7 rating in ESC is silly on this score as I've seen more than half a dozen of the 1 or 2 known. Could be an error, but bearing in mind that the last digit was may have been entered at a later stage, it is possible that unfinished 182 dies with a Roman I were produced. Thanks Rob, I have kept it penciled in as a 'possibly exists' variety. I agree the 1825 is less rare as the books state. I was the underbidder on the first one I encountered and was pretty p'd when I lost out, but I bought the next one I seen and have seen a few more since. Dave Craddock had one on his list in 2003 or 2004(?) as BU for £2300. It had gone by the time I enquired, but suggests there is at least one in good grade.

I think you are all missing an important point. BIN prices on ebay are inflated above Spink prices to cover ebay's 25% or whatever take on every sale. If a Spink price is £100, then the BIN is £120 or £125. That's just common sense by the seller, and in most cases equal stupidity by the buyer. There is one set at £1100, but others at £850. Knock 25% off the latter and you get £637.50 against a Spink list of £650. You regularly see items listed on ebay that are available on the seller's website for significantly less. I'd do exactly the same if selling on ebay because so many people treat it as the only place to buy, so persuading them to pay over the odds is not difficult, whilst ensuring you get a full price after listing costs and fees seems sensible. The extras cost is achievable because so many people are too lazy to search. If people did their homework, ebay sales would diminish somewhat and dealers could make a better living.

The fields have a strange texture. Is it nickel? It's easy enough to check.

Yep, Ferric Sulphate, Fe2SO4 also known as Copperas. I too am not 100% certain, but wasn't this collected in former days as dog's no.2s? Not if Copperas is correct. If the latter, it would be called grrrass. Or if sheep's no 2s, woolas, with apologies to the not so honourable former member for Oldham and Saddleworth. Remind us who that was, Rob? Phil Woolas - former MP banned from office for 3 years as a result of election irregularities ditto on all counts.

I've not had much success, probably due to not knowing what type of lacquer was applied. Once the lacquer has gone off and is as hard as nails, many solvents will soften it, but will require a specific solvent to produce the best results. Depending on the lacquer, you might find that any of turps, ethanol, methanol, acetone or any other solvent may work. As there are going to be several formulations in the market place, without knowing which lacquer was used it is difficult to know the appropriate solvent.

Yep, Ferric Sulphate, Fe2SO4 also known as Copperas. I too am not 100% certain, but wasn't this collected in former days as dog's no.2s? Not if Copperas is correct. If the latter, it would be called grrrass. Or if sheep's no 2s, woolas, with apologies to the not so honourable former member for Oldham and Saddleworth.

I didn't say you said that - your trouble is you don't read posts properly Dave, you just fly off with your first (even if incorrect) reaction. That's exactly the point I was making. Sigh. If you'd only read what people say.. Where did I say "dispensation"? READ WHAT PEOPLE SAY FOR GODS SAKE. I was talking about DIE DETAILS on a smaller coin being less detailed than on a larger coin WHICH IS A FACT. Read Derek's book. I was also talking about the difficulty of rating a small coin realistically when the picture is 10 times life size, and a picture of a halfcrown (say)would be only around 4 times. How can that be a proper comparison? I'm off out. A bit of fresh air will do me good And so how do you think TPGs grade a coin? By just looking in hand Peck? No, microscopes etc with MAGNIFICATION my old china, hence a bigger picture will show off anything, hence TPGs or (CGS) at least are strict. - SOMETIMES, THOUGH STILL FREQUENTLY WRONG

I agree too Coinery, I love nicely toned coins too. In fact I look at my collection of shillings rather like a chocolate box of different shades which highlights the fact that the collection is unique and reflects my choices. Top marks for that philosophy. It beats collecting by numbers on slabs, for which read "let's see if I can get the highest average grade across the collection based on someone else's opinion", which is the game played by all those competing for the best registry sets with the TPGs. If you like a coin, then buy it. Don't be put off because someone else has marked it down. We all have less than perfect coins which tick our individual boxes for whatever reason.

The picture is a bit bright, but I'd give the obverse better than EF, the rev is probably better than the obverse. I'd hesitate to say unc because both rims have far too many significant marks to say they are bagmarks only and the neck area looks to have a lot of tiny contact marks, so an upper limit of gEF. There appears to be light wear to the beard, but a darker picture would help.

It's a good job that we don't all collect the same things. If we did, the market for the acceptable would be unaffordable and the vast majority would be uncollectable.

Not seen an 1826, only an 1825 for which the R7 rating in ESC is silly on this score as I've seen more than half a dozen of the 1 or 2 known. Could be an error, but bearing in mind that the last digit was may have been entered at a later stage, it is possible that unfinished 182 dies with a Roman I were produced.

I thought you were going to talk about the rights and wrongs of the seizure and arrest at the NY auction on the 3rd of this month.

an olive oil bath should get it back to how it used to look Nah, I quite like the new verdigris look I thought it had been At'd and slabbed as a VF50BL(ue).

there are special 2p toilet seats that help you get over that!!! I think the correct malady is AstroBelloignoramia.

It possibly looks like an inclusion in the flan, say a trapped air bubble, though could equally be a lump missing on the die. It just looks a bit smoothed for a random flake of metal

Jedi knight not you are. Bloody good job. You're weird.

sorry thught this forum was about coin's sould have gone to the stock market Isn't the inherent value/investment, and the swings and roundabouts of the prices, part of the whole experience of collecting? If you use a price guide to make a decision about how much to pay for a coin that you add to your collection, no matter how humble a purchase, then you too, even if unknowingly, are part of what makes the investment side of collecting coins what it is. Correct. All purchases are based on some sort of price appraisal whether it is market knowledge based or just taken out of a price guide. Some you will pay too much for and some you will underpay relative to your expected outlay. Some you will pay over the odds because you need a specific item to fill a hole and it is unlikely another will come along anytine soon. There are many reasons for buying coins and selling them on to fund other purchases is just one of them. If you collect any field and a coin within your criteria that sells for £50 is on eBay at a fiver, you will buy it because it is underpriced even if you have one. You may well recycle it on ebay starting at a tenner having first checked if it is better than the existing coin in the collection, but the reason for the initial purchase was that it represented unquestionable value for money. It makes the initial outlay go further and you are happy because you have enhanced the collection or can do so in the future.

It still is. However, how many people on this forum don't sell on their surplus coins or buy an obvious bargain with a view to selling it on to fund another coin? Very few I suspect.

It's worth paying money for if you can sell it for more than you paid.

Rather disturbingly it doesn't come in the original box which got wet. The claim of its unused condition is suspect. You beat me to it.

Do the two posts above have any relevant content? If so, please translate -thanks.

In that case it could be later because 3 presumably refers to 3d which is quite a large amount for a trade token which were predominantly 1d, 1/2d and 1/4d and the H HARPER has a more modern look about it. The only reference I can find to HH is a Hearts of Oak Friendly Society (est.1842) medal to Herbert Harper dated c.1890 for services to the Society. If one and the same this would place it in the second half of the 19th century, though how much cross-over there would be between Friendly Societies and metal bashers I'm not sure. Even if a common name is pertinent, there is also a possible tradition of naming sons after past generations too which doesn't help. Davis doesn't list Harper in any of the three indices and the laurel wreath is a common design, so nothing to be gleaned there. First port of call has to be the census records and local maps of Stourbridge High St with the various establishments noted.

This pub is listed in 1830 on this site as being run by Hannah Blew, and is listed in an 1891 census as being on the High Street here. I suggest you search for old Stourbidge notices which may hopefully tie the name on the token to a specific period. It's probably late 18th-early 19th century, but would need pursuing. The Gothic style of lettering would place it much later than 18th Century - more like the mid-19th possibly, when the Gothic revival was at its height? I'm thinking more in line with tokens to replace non-existent currency for payment. There wasn't a shortage of currency in the mid-19th century. I would have thought that token issuing almost ceased after say 1820 having been outlawed (again) in the previous decade. The key to it will be finding out when E Jones was landlord. Census returns after 1851 will probably eliminate the last 160 years.

This pub is listed in 1830 on this site as being run by Hannah Blew, and is listed in an 1891 census as being on the High Street here. I suggest you search for old Stourbidge notices which may hopefully tie the name on the token to a specific period. It's probably late 18th-early 19th century, but would need pursuing.