Mat

I would have thought so. Weight is usually a good guide to whether a coin is 'dodgy' or not but as forgers become more sophisticated the weights will approach the correct values, so not a 100% guarantee but a reasonable guide. Thanks for that, just picked up a currency 1839 at a reasonable price. It ticks all the right boxes for being genuine, I analysed it for about 2 hours against 4 other currency pictures I found on the net so all is looking good!

Is 13.8g acceptable for an 1839 or 1840 half crown in FINE condition? I do not have another in F to compare. My 1848/7 in much less than F also weighs 13.8 so just want to double check on authencity... Thanks in advance Mat

London Coins usually uphold the grade given by CGS Uk slabbed coins and will go with the slabbed grade for the description. With PGS and the other US ones they will usually go with 'Slabbed MS 62, we grade about EF' Who ever you go with, use your submission value as power, I usually manage to get 8% with w&w, 0-5% on a number of other well known ones, 15% Spink (only tried once) and never managed to move on London coins standard 10%. But beware you need to be pushy and drive the hard bargan with the main ones or you will not get! The smaller auction houses try to take a more friendly approach and be honest with them, they will appreciate it and usually return the favour.

The weight is 1.95g. Nothing in Wilkinson, have not got Brown. Despite being slightly clipped, it still appears to be slightly undersized to be a 6d. However considering there is no evidence of any such groat and assuming it is not a forgery, I assume it must be an unusually small 6d flan in combination with slight clipping. It can go in the scrap hammered pile for eventual bulk sale unless new evidence comes to light. Sounds like a copy. A well worn sixpence would still weigh around 2.5-2.6g. To take 20% more off that would require more clipping. Interesting one... I will hold on to it for a while then to see if anything ever comes up. Thanks for your help on this one.

The weight is 1.95g. Nothing in Wilkinson, have not got Brown. Despite being slightly clipped, it still appears to be slightly undersized to be a 6d. However considering there is no evidence of any such groat and assuming it is not a forgery, I assume it must be an unusually small 6d flan in combination with slight clipping. It can go in the scrap hammered pile for eventual bulk sale unless new evidence comes to light.

No groats, not even patterns. There is a dated 1st issue penny, but not much else. The countermarked Edward VI shillings from 1560 were dated, though the date was obviously either 1549, 1550 or 1551. Thanks Rob In that case I am a little confused with a coin I bought. Its in dire condition but there is clearly a date and you can make out 'Eliz' on the obverse. It is significantly smaller than a 6d and fits the groat size perfectly. Unless there were some significantly reduced 6d flans.... Any ideas?

Hi all Were there any groats issued between the 3rd and 7th issues of Elizabeth? (not including milled issues). Spink does not appear to list any unless I have missed it in the book. Also did any of the first or second issues have a date on? Again Spink lists all the issues 'without date' Thanks Mat

Have not had a proper chance to go through it all yet, if there is I do not think they will be of high grade. However your welcome to any of the 1825 farthings from the London coins lot! I have not received or seen them yet -(

You would make an excellent TV critic with that kind of attention to detail!

Thanks Bill, I have emailed you. Mat

The Saxon purports to be an Eadwig floral type S1125, however, it looks a bit crude. i.e. are you sure it is genuine? It ticks all the right boxes for a type that would be copied being 1350 in fine and 5250 in VF and is the most expensive type without the bust. I would have to do a bit of digging to see if there is another example by OSWALD in a catalogue to de if the dies match. North doesn't list him as a moneyer. Provenance? Scottish is not something I know much about, so would have to dig out the literature. Thanks Rob, good to meet you Sunday. No idea if it is genuine, these are not my field. The provenance suggests so... There is a receipt with it: '1987 - 9 hammered pennies - £587. Found in Norfolk - John Keys' I bought a very large life time collection from an elderly man and this was included in it.

Unfortunately I only have two books on hammered and the Spink catalogue but the reverse of this does not appear to feature in any of them. I have never seen this reverse before and I cannot find a sale in any of spinks archives, but I may not be using the correct searches. I am guessing it is either Eadmund or Eadred, or potentially Edward the Elder but I doubt it. Any ideas? Also can some one confirm for me that the other coin attached is Alexander III? I know very little on the Scottish. Thanks Mat

These must have been from the same hoard, but were not mine I only have a couple left which are slabbed and were the pick of the incuse midrib examples. They seem to be evrywhere at the moment, there must have been a huge bundle originally. Not sure, still have not seen them yet as I did not view and they still have not arrived. Description was UNC with lusture and some with spots. I hope they are black and not green spots! I got to the bottom of the problem though, as Rob has said the vendor had a £1400 reserve which is the published sale price, but the vendor contacted London Coins and said they can sell it for my bid of £1250.

I have not visited the legislation for a while so do not quote me, however when in trading standards I dealt with a few complaints on shill bidding. It is actually permitted in certain circumstances, I believe it has to be done by the auctioneer himself only, and it can only be to generate the very first bid providing it is BELOW the vendor's reserve (that’s the key in the legality). It is very very common in property auctions, the auctioneer will point to a vacant space in the room to generate the first bid, as opposed to continually lowering the opening bid until a real bid is placed. The legislation is not straight forward on this, it is a combination of legislation on auctions and an interpretation from one of the sections from the Consumer Protection From Unfair Regualtions 2008 Act. The above may not actually be considered as a 'shill' bid, I do not know.

I have got to say, I love reading the forum when I want some good comedy value. I have not worked out who the wittiest is yet, I tend to search for comments by Peter and Azda, especially when it’s a dodgy topic or something left by a spammer! If its spam I just know there will be a comment starting with F and ending with another F by Peter before I have even clicked on the topic.

Hi, I am making a bit of an assumption here but either way I need to be diligent to ensure I am not being fiddled. I did not attend but I won lots of items via the internet. Lot 2770 - 48 x 1825 UNC farthings according to the realised prices they have published sold for £1400. I have been invoiced for it at my maximum bid of £1250. I have not contacted London coins yet to see if there is an error on the realised prices as I wanted to check on the forum first. My first instinct is that if it was won for £1400 hammer and the winning bidder then dropped out, they have invoiced me as the highest bidder at my maximum bid. I am fine with that, however if it was the winning bidder that originally inflated my price to my maximum bid and then he dropped out, its not fair that I should be invoiced for my maximum bid. I should be invoiced to the last known bid up to the point where the dropped out winning bidder started bidding. All of the above is a complete assumption just because I saw on the realised prices on their site that it sold for £1400 and I have been invoiced as the winning bidder for £1250. Was any one at the auction that saw this lot sell that may be able to assist me with my assumption?? Or did anyone else have other bids on this lot?? Cheers Mat

Thanks for all your comments folks, very helpful in this area as always. Scott your '1' is much closer than mine, I have a couple like that, the one I have pictured where the '1' is the distance that it is is a first to me. Cheers Mat

Hi, I need penny help again please! I think I shall always need help on this subject until I get to grips with them.... I found this 1861 in a job lot, it is the first 1861 I have come across with a small high narrow date. Is this rare or is it just a coincidence that I have never had one before. Thanks in advance Mat

There aren't any official numismatic grades below Fair. You can consider EVERY coin below About Fair as Poor - grading subtle distinctions of Poor is not something that any collector would be interested in. You can add the distinction of CD (Clear Date) for rarities, e.g. bun pennies that conveniently leave their dates readable when all else is blank. Otherwise, all such coins merely have a scrap or bullion value. Thanks for clearing that up, I never knew that I always thought 'poor' had gradually become an official grade. I have a 'CD' 1823 first reverse half crown, thats about it for that level of grading.

I would grade the pennies as "CLEAR DATE" which is an adequate description, I can't see a date on the florin, so I'd grade that as "SCRAP" David Ah sorry I forgot to link the other side of the florn...: http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/webcatalogue/123/L1126.JPG I was trying to make the difference between both poor coins, but one with nothing but the date, and one with the date and just a fraction of detail.

I never thought I would be asking questions on the grading scale after being in coins for over 15 years but I am genuinely struggling with grading some very low grade but very rare coins. I am not sure where to draw the line between 'poor' and off the scale. Also I have forgot which grades are officially on the UK grading scale, are 'very poor' and 'very good' official grades? Here are my thoughts on where to draw the bottom line, (I have just picked random pics off the net) please share your opinions with me: I consider this as poor: http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/webcatalogue/128/L1458R.JPG I would consider this rare 1854 florin as very poor: http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/webcatalogue/123/L1126R.JPG I consider this is upgradable when there is no detail left at all other than maybe the date, much below very poor - or should it still be classed as very poor?: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/very-rare-1869-penny-well-worn-but-clear-date-/180713065905?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item2a13568db1

I find that a market has been created by cleaning coins as mentioned such as tripling the value of a vicky silver coin, however I have found that this newbie/ebay opportunist market has a threshold of around £300. Once people start cleaning coins over this value, they do not sell as well as the newbie/ebay opportunist buyers tend not to venture in values higher than that as it is too much risk for them. They know coins above this value are more for the serious collector and therefore with knowledge and experience, do not buy the cleaned coin. Then as we all know the greater the value of the coin, the more it actually starts to reduce in value if it has been cleaned. The best examples for either end of this spectrum in my opinion are Victorian half crowns, florins and shillings which people seem to pay up to 4 times the value if it is nice and shiny... and at the other end I will never forget the 'harshly cleaned' 1831 crown that sold for about £7600 which really should have fetched £12k+ if it was not cleaned. The crown looked just as amazing as the cheaper Victorian stuff but obviously if anyone is going to buy an 1831 crown, they want the top specimen.

About a year ago a 'finest known' 1844 was on ebay for £5000 buy it now, I think it was slabbed at ms65 but I do not recall it selling, if it did I am sure it would have been an offer outside ebay.

What is going on???

What is it I have missed regarding Platt? I have noticed forum comments on him before but what has tipped it over the edge?????