Rob

All 1658/7 Cromwell crowns show this flaw at some stage of development so this shouldn't be a worry. The flaw on this coin is at a relatively early stage. If you look in Spink 2007 it shows the flaw in a later stage. I'd worry about the MS64 grade though. It looks as if there is obverse wear at the eyebrow, to the hair in front of the ear and lower down. The laurel leaf edges look a bit devoid of toning as well which would indicate light wear. The reverse has light wear to the lion and at the top right of the shield. There is also a possible rim mark at B& in the obverse legend. I'd give it good EF at best (which in US grading company parlance means MS62-64 bearing in mind that MS60 is typically no better than EF). In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong.

The number of auctions seems to be going through the roof. From this Sunday to next Friday there are 7 if you include the Goldberg and Heritage sales in the US. Only August seems to be auction free now. It's a bit hard on the cashflow.

Can't see me going what with the 3 days of auctions before Coinex. 3-4 days in London is bad enough if you include viewing time.

Just a guess, but probably the fine work pieces of James 1st should be considered proofs as some of these and the subsequent Charles 1st fine work pieces have highly reflective fields and are struck on as round a flan as could be expected from hammered issues. Similarly for the patterns of this era which are struck on obviously specially prepared flans. It is possible that there were a few made to similar standards in Elizabeth 1st 's reign too. In terms of milled, the 1662 crown (ESC 16) is a good contender.

Not usually. Mine's a very nice woman. She even instructed me to increase my bid in a recent sale. Didn't work though because I still came second.

A "dump" halfpenny. The first issue was struck on thicker, smaller diameter flans Ahhhh! Thank you again. That kills two birds with one stone - I was going to ask what a dump issue was, they use it in the book I am using but it's not in the explanations. (feel free to explain why it is called a 'dump' coin though). Rich Because it's dumpy - thicker and smaller diameter

A "dump" halfpenny. The first issue was struck on thicker, smaller diameter flans

Bet he wouldn't pay even half book price for the grades claimed, even if he wanted one.

More generally, the gap between the best and the worst coins in the collectable range continues to widen with the better examples outstripping inflation, but the lower grades barely holding their value. In particular, the differential between EF and AU seems to be stretching out. Still a seller's market in my opinion. The differential between EF and AU is probably widening because buyers are relating to the U rather than saying it isn't uncirculated and so it it should be graded extremely fine or variations on this. Uncirculated should be a statement of fact which therefore should not support the A prefix and thus AU should be graded good EF but that can turn potential buyers off because at this grade everyone wants an uncirculated coin. The number of collectors appears to have dramatically increased in recent years which has exacerbated this effect because many appear to have learned their grading from others' descriptions on ebay and the like. This becomes a monster which feeds off itself and will invariably lead to a hike in prices. The lower grades are kept in check by ebay which has led to a serious oversupply of VF and lower grade coins. Becasue Spink only prices down to fine in most cases, this forms the lowest grade (and hence price). However, many are in grades such that even a scrap metal merchant would ask for a discount. A genuinely UNC coin should almost always be worth top dollar because they are a lot scarcer than people imagine or sellers' descriptions suggest. A choice one is worth a premium.

Not sure about this one, surely some mistake here and really should know better.

It's an ME. One of those things I learnt after years of looking for 1926 ME pennies as a kid. The earlier image is a little more angular than the modified version.

The problem with ebay is that anything which isn't described as UNC or aUNC doesn't sell. I sold an aEF 1863 penny which made the princely sum of £5.11. Nothing wrong with the picture, but because I didn't overgrade it, nobody bid it up. It was subsequently called almost unc and sold for £46. That's why so many things are called almost uncirculated. It's a cop out, because you can't be accused of lying if you say almost. This covers a multitude of sins including an almost total absence of detail in many cases. VF or any other grade for issue is total b****cks. There isn't, nor ever has been, any reason why the grade of a coin can become detached from the actual wear to the surfaces. You can have a coin struck from worn dies yet uncirculated if supporting evidence is present, but just because a coin is 200 years old doesn't mean that you can ignore the wear. That p's me off a lot too.

Chris, A little help with what is undervalued...I think the1845, 1846 and 1849 Victoria pennies, are way under the market valued in the CCGB, if you can find one. I just bid at the London Coin Auction on a EF+ 1849 with an estimated Value 1100 to 1400 pounds. I bid the high end at 1400, but the coin went for 2100! As for the 1846, I have still yet to find one for sale! These low mintage Victoria's have got to be classics, with the low mintage, and the market getting bigger for them. IMHO! Bob C. I was also willing to go to £1400 on that one. The scratch at 10-11 o'clock on the reverse was a turn off., but if I remember correctly, it was a postal bid that won, so maybe they didn't pick it up. That one was a bit overpriced IMHO. Re the 1846 you may be right in saying it is more difficult to acquire than the book would suggest. 15 months ago I put one on ebay in fairly dire condition - say good fine, with a feeling of guilt starting it at £20 and it made £66 which surprised me somewhat.

The picture isn't good enough and the impression given rightly or wrongly is that the coin has been polished - horribly so. You can't tell for certain whether it is the modified effigy or the second issue because you can't see the BM on the truncation which makes an id simple. The ME has BM to the right, the previous issue has BM more central. It is illustrated in Spink's tome on p.471. If I had to guess I would say it is the ME type because the parting in the hair is more pronounced with a longer line, but I wouldn't gamble on it being so. Pictures like this usually hide a multitude of problems, so "if in doubt, leave it out".

As for the date, I am still not sure there is no something here (pls look at the first 0): The quality of the datal figures is as good as the rest of the reverse legend where there is a good selection of blocked, flawed or disintegrating letters. Coupled with the lack of an obvious 6 under the 7, I'm tempted to put it down to a flaw because I can't reconcile it to a particular number.

Certainly looks like two T's, but I'm not convinced about the date. That's another one to add to the list. Also, can you see any trace of the crossbars of the A's? The first one looks like an inverted V has been used because it has flat bases with no fishtails unlike the final one and there doesn't appear to be any sign of a crossbar. The final A is a bit claggy to say whether the crossbar is present. These were often added as a separate punch, presumably with a chisel and so can be at any height and not necessarily horizontal. Please could you add a picture of the obverse. Thanks.

Hopefully the money raised from this will go towards a literacy course. link

To be fair, it was me that alerted them, and I made it pretty impossible for them to be in any doubt that it was a con. As I pointed out, how can two separate auctions be selling the same coin as lot 568 from the Glendining Auction on 11 May 1954! Even ebay couldn't get that one wrong..... or could they? Mmmmm.... Was the coin the actual one in Parsons' sale i.e a worn 1697 crown 3rd bust, 2nd harp with a NONO edge? It is illustrated in the Parsons catalogue despite its grade. The coin is this one, which sold on ebay a couple of days ago. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/VERY-RARE-WILLIAM-II...1QQcmdZViewItem Looks like the one you mentioned. Yes, that's definitely the same coin.

To be fair, it was me that alerted them, and I made it pretty impossible for them to be in any doubt that it was a con. As I pointed out, how can two separate auctions be selling the same coin as lot 568 from the Glendining Auction on 11 May 1954! Even ebay couldn't get that one wrong..... or could they? Mmmmm.... Was the coin the actual one in Parsons' sale i.e a worn 1697 crown 3rd bust, 2nd harp with a NONO edge? It is illustrated in the Parsons catalogue despite its grade.

According to my books there is no known proof Crown for 1897. It only comes in business strike with LX or LXI on the edge. Maybe someone with more expertise on proofs like Rob can help? I'm not aware of any proof old head crowns other than those listed in Davies for 1892 & 1893, but I don't collect crowns so wouldn't pay much attention to whether they were proof-like or not. It also depends on who is calling it proof-like. To some people on ebay a coin is automatically a proof if it is half decent. Many early strikes from new dies show a proof-like finish because the die fields have been polished as the finishing touch. The key to differentiating between proof and proof-like is in the quality of the legend, rims and edge milling (if any). The polished fields should be in addition to these and should not be the single reason for calling it a proof. Having said all that, there will still be instances where people can't agree.

Because they are not the same as you or me. This seller considers the Churchill crown to be "one of the most beautiful coins ever minted".

He was lucky. I've had cheques and coins not arrive at their intended destination both as buyer and seller, and internationally too. Two lots I won in the Heritage sale of June last year, resurfaced in the US in January. That's 7 months after posting. The 1881H penny mentioned in the footnote to lot 111 of the Bamford sale I am led to believe turned up after 11 months. Moving away from coins, a letter I sent to Southampton University was returned to me after 3 months - addressee unknown! Presumably the 15 - 20,000 staff and students of this institution will not be too happy that they have ceased to be. Another instance involved a letter posted in Bolton (10 miles away) with a Philipines Post redirection stamp. The postal service does a reasonable job in getting most of the letters to where they are intended to go, but sometimes the wayward ones leave me a little bemused.

I think it is probably significant that of the approximately 80 coins I have acquired in slabs, nearly a quarter have been either wrongly attributed or I've had a severe problem with the grade claimed. Of these, all bar 3 or 4 have been NGC, who seem to have a near monopoly on misattribution.

Sharp E2/2, S2791

Norweb lot 1916 was one. If you scan in the page it looks a bit better than a normal one having slightly better definition and the hint of a prooflike appearance. It's not a cameo effect, but that isn't suprising given it is a satin finish. I'd scan it in but pictures won't upload.