Rob

I marked yours down because of the flat areas on the reverse where I wouldn't expect so much flattening and because obverses are usually better, so wouldn't have expected so much loss of laurel detail. Unless of course there is die infilling to consider which is difficult from a picture. Weakness in the head area of the reverse seems to be endemic in early copper and tin until you get to Anne with the exception of some of the W&M proofs. If you look at Nicholson's pictures, all of his Charles 2nd have weak reverses even when virtually as struck as do my pieces. This is continued through the tin series and even up to the end of William. There is a marked increase in design relief with the last W3 issue where his best two currency reverses were 108 and 147, but these aside only 138 came anywhere close and here you have to allow for wear. The improvement in relief on this issue is offset to a great extent by the manufacturing standards which at their best are crap with most worse. A dire issue in all senses. Re my farthing, I was just interested how a farthing collector would grade it, not having much interest in farthing personally. I am quite willing to stick my neck out and say I feel many are overgraded on dealers' sites or maybe it's just that I also grade with an overemphasis on eye-appeal.

I totally concur. The problem with limited editions is there is no upper limit. Even 1967 pennies had a limited output. Personally I would only consider issues of less than 1000 to be limited if asked to put an arbitrary figure on it. Just think, Colin Cooke's repro pennies to commemorate the Nicholson sale being worth more than an official L.E. set.

I'd give it good fine because of the lack of laurel wreath detail and Britannia's left leg is a bit devoid of detail too. Parts of the detail are however very good, clearly unworn and better than good fine, but when grading, I always weight it towards the worst area. So a VF face is offset by a fine at best wreath for example. To give you an idea of how I would grade a farthing, I listed the coin below, mentally graded as about VF. Opinion welcome if you think it is under or overgraded.1675 farthing

Lend me your night vision glasses and I might be able to up it a bit

I've bought off her before, and when I did (which was about a year ago) her grading was spot on. Interesting how it has slid... Her basic problem seems to be that coins are graded using copy and paste. Almost without exception a coin is "practically as struck" or "practically mint state". She buys a lot and clearly acquired a lot of half crowns at Spink a fortnight ago. If you buy enough coins in auctions where there are high grade pieces, some will invariably be practically as struck. Oli, you bought a coin on which you presumably did a mental assessment of grade and also considered her grade, but how many did you reject? It's not the grades you agree with, but the number that you disagree with that determines whether you accept that given by the vendor.

Here's a wonderful example of incompetent grading and pricing. 1701 1/2d I guess it couldn't make the usual "Practically as struck" description due to the absence of most detail, but the presence of legend and a date allowed for almost UNC . At least the pricing will ensure that nobody buys it.

It's a gaming token of minimal value. Typically they are imitation guineas or fractions thereof and very common. Ebay usually has a lot listed at 99p and many don't sell. Can't find one immediately, but I think this is what you are describing, albeit a different date which will be irrelevant anyway.

The virgin queen was also the bearded lady it seems. She looks more like Charles 1st.

I prefer it in UNC with good lustre or ideally full blazing lustre but sadly mine has only a bare trace

Why would anyone want to pay 50p to get rid of a 1p coin? Why don't they just throw it away? 1p coin

The rims have contact marks and the design show signs of circulation particularly the obverse, so therefore this could not be graded as UNC even if from worn dies. Personally I would grade this as approaching EF but not quite there with the reverse a bit better so could justify an EF. The problem with worn dies is when to assign lower than normal relief in the design to wear due to circulation or not. If you have worn dies, they are old by definition which may have flaws. A razor sharp flaw over the top of a bun or the ear for example has clearly had no circulation and so could legitimately be called UNC. In the absence of an unambiguous feature, you must assume the flat spots are due to wear and grade accordingly. The dies may have blockage of the recessed parts of the die as well as wear to the high points. Don't forget that low relief to the normal high points equates to blocked dies and worn dies would show signs such as earplugs or a not very incuse WW for example. Another good example of this is the lions' faces on shield reverses. These are frequently filled in/worn on the face detail and a much better indicator of wear is the degree of flattening on the harp breast. These are conical, rarely show signs of infilling and wear flat in line with the amount of circulation

Presumably it is one of these. A two shillings/florin/10 pence piece. Initially introduced as a currency coin in 1849 with the Gothic Florin as part of the attempts at decimalisation in the 1840s. These were replaced starting in 1992 by the smaller 10 pence coin, the larger pieces were finally withdrawn in 1993.

You are comparing chalk with cheese because the 2 1876H coins pictured earlier are halfpennies, not pennies. The wide date (rev. K*) applies to Freeman 325 and 328, the narrow date (rev. M) to Freeman 326, 327, 329 & 329A. Yours is Freeman 89 with rev. K which is the narrow date for the penny.

But Spink says 4c has a narrower crown and drapery of 2 unequal wedges which I thought described the picture below which I have taken from the Vosper website. The crown in the Vosper picture has the left and right hand projections pointing between Y & B and E & D whereas mine points to the base of Y & D. North says 4c has a crown less spread with smaller lettering, but without having both in the hand it is impossible to say as you don't know the measurements. However, the Vosper piece suggests S1433A(N1046/1) even though it is listed as S1433 which would mean mine couldn't be 4c. I would have said the abbreviation was a crescent rather than a comma. At no point does Coincraft mention a narrower crown.

One Edward 1st 1/2d which I think is type 3g, but legend has no L in ANGL which conflicts with both Spink and North. Somebody put me right please. Diameter 15mm, weight 0.65g. Also, the unequal wedges in class 4c. How are they unequal - shape, size, angle or a combination. Thanks.

That just looks like a double cut 6. It is testament to the die sinker's capabilities that more characters are not doubly cut given that at least a couple hits per letter with the punch would be quite normal. Also, going back a hundred years or more, characters were frequently constructed from several punches eg. E can be made from L and F

I used to collect all the bun pennies I could find before they went out of circulation, then one day I went into a shop to buy some stamps for my collection and saw an uncirculated sixpence which I liked and bought that too. I've still got it, and won't be getting rid because it has no bagmarks at x15 - didn't realise how good it was at the time. Now I look for items on dealers' lists, in auctions and on ebay, though all need to be approached with a bit of healthy scepticism as all are trying to put the best possible light on the item being sold. You can't beat looking at a coin in the flesh with a good magnifying device for a minute or two however good the picture or reputation of the seller/auction house, and don't be afraid to say no.

It could be just a flaw from a damaged die or a tiny piece of trapped metal which has been incorporated into the coin. The grade is too low to show the detail properly. you really need a minimum amount of disturbance to the original design to say for certain what it is and even then it is not always obvious. You need to look for an example in good VF or preferably better.

This is the relevant bit of Davies which shows the 3 types of obverse found on the 1920 half crown

If anyone has an example of an Anne trial halfpenny types Peck 708-712 (similar to Nicholson lots 155-157), could they please get in touch. Thanks.

I was rather remiss. The wide date 1876 F325 913+K*) 1/2d pictured earlier in this thread is 6 over a farthing punch 6 but I hadn't noticed the top of the 6 sticking out despite having had this coin for ages. Michael Freeman has just listed one on ebay which prompted me to check mine.

sounds like metal polish to me

Polo or Extra Strong?

Does anyone on this forum have an 1868 shilling die number 34? If so please PM me. Thanks.

North is non-commital on this saying merely that E2 is as E1 which of course gives both EDWA R and EDWAR R as possibilities. Hawkins does the same.