1949threepence

Got a 2009 Darwin £2 coin at the local spar shop in my change tonight. Never seen one before, nor indeed any technology £2.00 coins for 2009. No idea of the mintage for either.

Only up to a point. It might try to explain the Sheldon system in terms of US coins, but if you click on the link to the equivalent grades in other countries it gives AU50 as extremely fine or unc whilst EF40 is extremely fine. This is ebay grading standards. You might find someone on ebay willing to accept the comparison, but anyone with any grading ability who has held an EF40 in the hand wouldn't agree. You have usually got to go to a 64 minimum to get an UNC and even then it isn't guaranteed. I thought it would be useful for the occasional slabbed coin from the US, with an MS grading on it. At any rate I wasn't familiar with the different MS definitions. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at to be honest

I thought this one might be quite useful as it gives a definition of the MS grades, eg: MS63, MS70 etc

I've just been caught out. Not seriously, but still caught. I spotted a 1965 sixpence for sale and the photo was the rarer variety with the 'I' of 'REGINA' to a space. Checked with the seller whether this was the actual coin in the photo and was told yes it was. Arrived this morning and it clearly isn't the same coin and is the common old 1965. Only $3 wasted, so no sweat. Not worth sending back, but a good excuse to leave a great big negative feedback. Why these people do it, I really don't know!! In the long run they are the losers. Indeed they are, Dave. It's very difficult to understand such a mindset. For the sake of a minor score on a few coins, they are risking long term isolation as the collecting and dealing community soon come to recognise a seller who is effectively a crook.

To describe such coins, the term "mature lustre" springs to mind for some reason.

No, I said YOU were using the term interchangeably Vick! I've never heard this "Lustre is not a chemical coating but a deformity of the struck metal" thesis before. I had always thought it was a thin coating applied during the minting process, but I'm happy to be corrected on that score. Be that as it may, it is EFFECTIVELY equivalent to such a coating, as it wears away exactly as if it was, revealing the "bare metal" beneath. One might consider it like a very thin coat of paint (even though it isn't) as that's how it behaves : i.e. it wears unevenly where it is most rubbed, and shows the under metal; it reacts to atmospheric conditions; it lingers finally in faint traces where least exposed. It behaves exactly like a coating that has been applied, whatever the actual process to impart it, and for all intents and purposes that's how collectors and dealers over the years (with the honourable exception of yourself, VickyS) have tended to regard it. At least in my experience. I'm no metallurgist, but if you saw an old worn coin in half, the inner part of the coin, revealed by the severing, will appear the same colour as "full mint bloom". Just thought I'd throw that little observation in. It would actually be very interesting to know more about the whole process of lustre.

I agree. Some have definitely been photoshopped. For example the cheaper of the 1881 pennies looks absolutely fantastic, but whether it would look as good in the hand is a different matter. Which one? I could give you my opinion. The one I've screenshotted and uploaded to imageshack in this link ~ it's No 55 in the list. It looks a truly beautiful coin, but I've been had before with enhanced images. Not saying it is, but you can't be too careful. The 1881 F102 is in my opinion a fairly good likeness to the colour of the coin. I attach a scanned image of the coin. Scanned images never flatter a coins appearance. I believe that the images at CCC are as representative as you can get from photography. The one thing that photography does not show very well is the beautiful mirror appearances of some of the proof issue coins. Proof not being a grade as simetimes used in the USA but the polished dies that the coins were struck from. James's coins were mainly chosen for the quality of the strikes and general appearance of even colour where possible. The original mint bloom would be nice, but unfortunately coins with the above attributes and full mint bloom are like hens teeth, especially in the bun series. You're right about scanned images, and the one you have provided does not look the same coin as the one in the auction list. No doubt it doesn't do it justice. I also agree about full mint bloom buns being as rare as hen's teeth. The best I can muster is an 1882H (F 115 12 + N, the common variety) which I bought for about £73 from a collector in Derby who was selling off a lot of his collection. I thought it was a steal, although possesses that typical, somewhat grimy, faded lustre. Pic below:-

You can get some stunning bargains on there, but it's not a place for beginners or the naive. Even experienced campaigners can get stung at times.

On the subject of "BU", what about those coins which would definitely be BU if they had been minted last year. But because they are over 100 years old, have that characteristic slight griminess and vaguely faded lustre ? Can they bstill be classed as "Brilliant Uncirculated" ?

To be honest, almost anything with lustre (e.g. 57, 60, 66, 70). I don't believe it is meant to deceive in any way, but all the lustrous coins look rather like caricatures of themselves and almost as if they have been painted by hand. I don't know whether it's Photoshop or some other package they use, but in the final analysis I would rather see a more realistic result, warts and all. Won't stop me bidding though! No 70 doesn't look too good in the pic, to be honest. Although it's damn good for an 1895 2mm.

I agree. Some have definitely been photoshopped. For example the cheaper of the 1881 pennies looks absolutely fantastic, but whether it would look as good in the hand is a different matter. Which one? I could give you my opinion. The one I've screenshotted and uploaded to imageshack in this link ~ it's No 55 in the list. It looks a truly beautiful coin, but I've been had before with enhanced images. Not saying it is, but you can't be too careful.

I agree. Some have definitely been photoshopped. For example the cheaper of the 1881 pennies looks absolutely fantastic, but whether it would look as good in the hand is a different matter.

Some absurdly low prices there. Is the penny bubble bursting, or were there just too many going at one time? Wish I'd been there to boost my own collection. A couple of nice 1865/3 in reasonable grades (GF and VF) both less than £100. An opportunity missed By the way, did other people get caught out by their eccentric cataloguing? I was scrolling through wondering what the logic was, then I realised they catalogue in alphabetical order of denomination! Couldn't agree more, Peck. I went through almost wincing with the pain of great opportunity not even lost, but never known about in the first place !!! Some amazing bargains there, or, is the bottom beginning to drop out of the market ?

You have to be kidding me !!! Somebody really is having a laugh with this offering.

Wow, just wow

Might have a punt for the 1880 ~ No 53.

Although looking back,it does say bidding starts on the 15th September, so i assume that our bids are of no use? Ah, didn't notice that. So presumably we must re-bid on or after 15 September one would assume.

Some very fine quality stock there. I've bid on a couple. Anybody else made any bids yet ?

Unfortunately I do not have that info, but will email Bernie. He did say catalogues will be available soon from Cookes, so I will email Neil at the same time. John, will you be able to give us the heads up when the catalogue is available ? Cheers Bernie has just emailed me Hello All, James’s penny collection part 1, now viewable at Colin Cooke website, Bernie Cheers John

It definitely would be an enjoyable way to spend a Summer's afternoon, with the added bonus of Sun and fresh air. As you say you just never know.....Mind you, ever seen those corroded "dug up" green efforts they try to sell on e bay ? Metal detecting failures. Is that what the Germans call their police these days ? Weren't the real Stasi the old East German secret police ? You have to be in it to win it, as they say. Although it's true that you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning, than matching 6 on the lottery

This has been a long cherished pipe dream of mine ~ to find a chest or box somewhere with a number of coins in it, which have lain undisturbed for over a century. Just think what might be found amongst them....... ......In reality probably just common dates, a few in EF and UNC condition. But still, you just never know. The family in Dronfield were very lucky, but not numismatists

My 1973 set of decimal proofs are all badly tarnished. By far the worst one of those early years ~ and that has a red background. I got it very cheap because of the tarnishing, and it's just got even worse since then ~ about 1995. As far as I can tell, there isn't an untarnished 1973 available. You're right - not available, though I am the proud owner of one I think Michael Gouby was selling one a while back, for around £25 ? Not overpriced considering its rarity. To answer the original question - I think you can say that if stored correctly, any toning to these sets should not get worse now. So how would you store them in order to avoid further, or indeed, any tarnishng ? Basically, in a DRY and SALT-FREE (i.e. non-coastal) environment. That will take care of sets where the original seals are wearing or not intact. However, the other main problem is coins reacting with the felt or foam inserts : but the worst of that damage will have been done in the earlier years, and shouldn't get significantly worse now (in my opinion). Although if you do have a perfect 1973 set, would it not be worth considering re-casing it before it has the possibility of getting tarnished ? Maybe a large size slab ?

I've just checked mine out, and to be fair it doesn't look a lot different to when I bought it in 2002, IIRC. Mind, that's only 8 years ago. The silver, brass threepence and medallion are nigh on perfect. The penny shows slight tarnishing on the reverse only, but a faint even toning on the obverse. Plus there is what looks like a carbon spot on the reverse, just near the trident. The halfpenny is the worst, with some messy uneven tarnishing on both sides, especially the reverse. The purple cardboard inside the acrylic looks fine. I'd imagine that some of the casings are less secure than others, and that any dampness which seeps through is going to cause a problem quite quickly.

David, I agree with John. A mahogany cabinet would be the best form of safe storage for this fantastic set of Maundy money. Ideally, the documentation should be in an airtight container to avoid long term deterioration. Obviously you can keep the rest of the stuff, purses and such like, separately. But the primary aim is to keep the coins and documentation, in as perfect a condition as possible.

My 1973 set of decimal proofs are all badly tarnished. By far the worst one of those early years ~ and that has a red background. I got it very cheap because of the tarnishing, and it's just got even worse since then ~ about 1995. As far as I can tell, there isn't an untarnished 1973 available. You're right - not available, though I am the proud owner of one I think Michael Gouby was selling one a while back, for around £25 ? Not overpriced considering its rarity. To answer the original question - I think you can say that if stored correctly, any toning to these sets should not get worse now. So how would you store them in order to avoid further, or indeed, any tarnishng ?