Gary D

Are they finally starting to come around to our way of thinking in the US. An interesting thread on an America TPG forum link

Although there appears to be no H there, a bigger picture would help, there does appear to be a mark or disturbance where the H would be. My guess would be that there was an H there sometime in the past.

I know of another three for certain, so the population will eventually turn out to be in double figures (if not three figures). I've got two, one of which I've had for several years without realizing they were that scarce.

I'm guessing the potential bidders were distracted somehow... Does that mean they will be out again for another 10 days. Nobody bid.

The face, leg detail and blanket binding all looks less than perfect to me. Not that I know anything about milled coin grading , but VF ish? Whatever average number that might be. High 50s? You can definitely buckle THAT boot up! Where's that one for sale, see if I can't beat Dave in the CGS League Tables? It went for $3000 at Heritage a couple of months ago. It's also supposedly one of the .925 silver proofs. Funny, I thought all the raised edge proofs were .925 silver. I emailed them just before the auction and it was a raised edge proof. Top pop hence the stupid price. Re the 0.925 incuse, according to Davies it has a slightly different reverse, sword to gap.

So how did this one get slabbed. Apart from the low grade it looks as if some has tried to remove the mint tning link

link

Having exactly this issue right now with a 1942 florin. I could buy hundreds like the EF one I received, which the seller is insisting is the same coin, despite the fact I've pointed to another of his listings that has an image of the coin I've got! I did get a 'perhaps you can give me a call to discuss this'? Which I duly did, without the call being answered OR returned! I even offered to post the coin on to the winning bidder of his other '42 auction that was due to finish, just to save us all a lot of time and wasted postage...but no! Happens all too frequently, I'm afraid. Just file a not as described, usually works.

Or an experimental die that wasn't used in the end? Both one of the 1908 reverses has the 1 to tooth as does the 1910. Either could have been used in a hurry.Also the 1908 1*+A has the same reverse as the 1908 1/2d, is that more than a coincidence.

No none of the above, I'm strictly currency apart from the mass produced proofs. Coins like the nickles I considered out of my league.

My 1911 set is a even steely blue, I have never understood why a coin would tone from the edge in, especially when the edges are protected by the case. If anything the edges should show the least tone and the middles the greater amount.

I've got this one, pretty low grade though Just having one puts you ahead of most collectors! Was it a purchase, or the result of searching hundreds of 1909's (as we have all done)? It was a purchase 4-5 years ago, probably still not worth what I paid for it.

I've got this one, pretty low grade though

My thoughts entirely. I know where the line is, but until I see the coin I don't know which side of it a particular coin falls. In this case, it falls the wrong side. I'm a date collector and filling the gap is the first priority, I'll then update to get the best grade as they become available. 1903s 1909 1922s pennies etc if available in UNC would be beyond my means. I'm happy to make do with 1920, 1933, 1954 etc altered dates, but will not stoop to copies.

At least he's got one thing right. You wouldn't get one in you change.

Have you got one, or do you want one.

Complete collection? What does that mean? I set my goal to collect 1900 to 1967 Farthing to Crown. Well I,ve added most of the major varieties and many of the minor one's as well to keep it going. Not much else to add now. Wow well done, that means you have all the wreath proof crowns and all the VIP crowns, thats great ive been trying to do that for all my life, tell me your secret!! All the wreaths but not proof wreaths, apart from 1927. All the VIPs. Edge errors for 1935 currency and raised edge proof, 1951,1953 and 1981. 1935 0.500 proof but not the 0.925. I've also got the edge lettering both ways up for the 1935 currency and specimens as well as 1951 from box and from proof set, 1953 proof both ways up as well as the wide date polished 1960. And both 1965. Would like to find a 1902 edge error and the 1953 proof with the I to the small tooth.

I wouldn't. Why would any honest person want a faked document? There are plenty of reasons why an honest person would want a faked document, I mean perhaps not in 2013 Europe, but such a thing would be useful in Mali today, or in the iron curtain, certainly useful in Germany in 1941 or in Burma. A secondary passport (legitimately obtained of course!) is quite useful as an insurance against disaster, although to legitimately obtain one it costs in excess of $50K or involves time actually spent in that country. That depends on if you consider economic migrants who have probably hocked themselves up to the eyeballs and there family sold there land and daughters to try and make a better life for their future as being innocent and falling prey to these types of lowlifes.

The people I feel sorry for are the one who actually send money to these people.

Being a country bumpkin, I have a regular postie who has become a friend. I am quite happy for him to sign for my packages as a) I trust him and it saves me the 3 mile drive the following day to get it from the sorting office. Where did that bloody smiley come from? The emoticons are simply graphical replacements for sequences of text that look vaguely like smiley faces. Unfortunately, if you actually wanted to use a b followed by a closing round bracket - you can't. Most systems that use emoticons have a way to disable an emoticon (eg using a backslash to make the characters literal) but I haven't found one that works here. b ) Yeah, a space sort of works, but any programmer worth their salt would provide a mechanism to override an otherwise default behaviour. None of them are! I speak as an ex-programmer... It's a pity we don't have a better range available.

I think unusual rather than special

Think of it like this. The year x proof set costs £22.50. You are a Half Crown collector so it would cost you £22.50 to get the Half Crown. If you collected pennies again it would cost you £22.50 to get one. Would you not prefer to only pay £17.50 for a penny or Half Crown and save a fiver.

Gulp! Guilty as charged - only on occasion though. The reason being that FDC demands perfection and the vast bulk of coins I have seen described this way just haven't been perfect. I am cursed with myopia which means my short range vision is extremely acute and as soon as I look at a coin I see scratches or minor damage of some sort. This can itself be a blessing or a curse, and let's face it nothing made by man is perfect. So where should we draw the line, perfect to the naked eye? with an eyeglass? or should we accept that everything however well-intentioned does contain some flaws? Personally, I think the problem lies in the description for FDC that Spink and others trot out. I would need some time to dream up a more appropriate description but frankly 'perfection' just doesn't wash. In addition to this, I think we do need a second tier for proof coins but don't think PAS is quite right, as it is already used by some dealers to describe the very best currency pieces (e.g. by Michael Gouby on base metal pieces exceeding 95% lustre). This is one area where I think the Sheldon scale has it over traditional grading descriptions, as without resorting to words it is quite possible to bring a coin down ever so slightly from Mount Olympus without damning it with faint praise. In a nutshell therefore I want a better way of describing proof coins without resorting to lies (nothing is 'perfect') or using a soul-less numerical method of grading (the Sheldon scale)! Surely proof is a process not a grade. Normal grading should apply but substitute FDC for UNC.

I started to write a message to this guy pointing out the error of his ways, but then I though that would being cruel. Sun grasses please

They did not "overstamp" existing coins but cut a new date into dies that were still good from previous years. In most cases the last digit of the date was altered as is the case of the 1865 over 3 penny, 1858 over 7 and so on. Dies were very costly to produce so this helped to keep costs down. Many Dies became damaged and letters and numbers were recut to increase the life of the Die. Another reason is a mistake when preparing a new Die ie the 1862 Penny where the 6 has been recut over an 8 which has been incorrectly cut during Die preparation.. I am sure there are other members on here who are more in the know when it comes to Die making. I think Debbie's point was, why bother, just mint some of the old date. At the end of the day does it really matter that the date changed every year.