£400 for a Penny ?

Mate, your new phone stinks....

Agree that the letter underneath is in the correct alignment and the overstamp isn't. Perhaps it was done to cover up the fact that an inverted A had been used by mistake ? Can't think of another reason at the moment. This might be a good coin to send off to CGS ? If you can get it into a slab saying it's V over A then I reckon you might see it's value increase somewhat. Then again they might say re-cut V, not interested, but, if you don't try....

I want to call it 'grade + percentage of remaining lustre' - this is my crusade, to eradicate all the horseshit from grading bronze.

I think, more than anything Vick, it's an issue of transatlantic lexicography and semantics rather than any fundamental disagreement over the lustre itself. I need a lie down after all those long words....

So it does, never noticed that before. Well, in that case 99% of pennies described as UNC on dealers lists and Fleabay, aren't. Which is quite an important point really...... It's also presumably why Michael Gouby's highest grade is AU ? Also worth re-iterating for the 100th time, just how rare uncirculated pennies with full mint lustre really are.

To be even handed, you'd have to say that the US grading companies are better at grading US coins and I don't think they pretend particularly to be experts in GB coinage.

As far as I can see, there are no bids on the 'Dot' yet ? Well, at least you had the experience of selling and have learned what an imprecise business coin trading is. Generally speaking, over the short and medium terms, we collectors are going to lose money. Fact.

To my eyes 13 is quite a bit more lustrous ? I do agree though, that the dealers description is of very little use to the prospective purchaser in distinguishing between the coins. I suppose, to be fair, CCC are expecting the photographs to do most of the talking and it must be quite difficult to come up with something different to say about so many similar coins. In the end, CCC are giving an opinion, it's their opinion, you are entitled to yours and ultimately you get to choose whether to part with your cash or not. From the posts on this thread it's quite apparent that there is a wide variance of views on the subject. Re the Oil, I haven't got round to it yet and if I'm honest, I might have cold feet about dropping £90 of coins into the unknown......

It is rather indicative of the problem, that we can't even agree what lustre is, never mind how to measure how much remains on a coin. This is why it's best to form one's own opinion and take ALL descriptions with a pinch of salt and treat each coin on it's own merits.

I can't support blah blah blah, going forward - it's not precise enough and in my opinion, should be dropped from the nomenclature that we use. I've seen blah blah blah's that were clearly only mumbles.

Well, there is your classic 'traces of lustre remain in the legend' Grade + 15% ish

Once a month we all get excited about lustre. It's really the lack of standardisation that I find unhelpfull and yes, CCC do occasionally describe a penny in an unhelpfull way - I mean really, what are we supposed to make of uncirculated with full lustre, lightly toned ? (Lot 86) I wish the industry would adopt the Unc with x% lustre as a standard. We've already decided, haven't we, that BU is used far too often where pennies are concerned. To me it's very simple really, toning is oxidation, copper reacts with either one or two oxygen molecules, can't remember which is the rarer. So as far as full lustre is concerned, has oxidation commenced, yes or no. If no, then it's full lustre, if yes, then what percentage of the lustre is left. It is surely much better to describe a penny as unc with 80% remaining lustre than full lustre with 20% degredation. Now I know no-one is doing that, but you get my point. Pennies with full lustre are quite hard to find and getting harder. I get a bit depressed sometimes, it seems that a coin is described as full lustre as a standard and then blazing full lustre if it's about 85% + There is too much hype in the world. No-one is bashing the collection, it's owner or CCC, it's all good clean fun.

Or in my house, Horseshit.

Well said again.

I think it's not dissimilar to that mis-strike you had a month or so ago, they've run out of room at the bottom. If you can get it for a reasonable price, might as well pick it up I reckon.

Well said.

Let us hope so....

Apropos nothing, a Bailiwick of Guernsey 2p in my change at the Two Doves this lunchtime.

Well, that's actually quite interesting, because it's much harder to see that being a random event. It is right in the middle isn't it.

Well, both of those are of considerably more interest than the 1927

8 = 1860 1+D 9 = 1860 2+B 19 = 1861 2+F 28 = 1861 5+G 33A = 1861 6+G 8 over 6 39A = 1862 6+G 8 over 6 41 = 1862 6+G date numerals from 1/2d 44 = 1863 6+G slender 3 45 = 1863 6+G die number 2 46 = 1863 6+G die number 3 47 = 1863 6+G die number 4 69 = 1874 6+I + H 76 = 1874 7+I + H 103 = 1881 9+M + H 112 = 1882 11+N 192A = 1922 3+C 209 = 1933 5+C 247 = 1954 2+C Yes, I am bored.

Hi Derek, The modified effigy is in fact Obverse 4 of the series and occurs alongside Obverse 3 in 1926 and is used solely in 1927 before Obverse 5 takes over in 1928, so all 1927 pennies should have Obv 4 and Reverse C. Hard to see much from your photo though

He must have had kittens doing that with a 1933 penny...

Put it this way, they occur between lots 67 and 77.....

Also, what's going to be in part 2 ? I was expecting to see the sale divided by dates, not the full spectrum from Victoria through to George. There is obviously a 'strategy' in play, what is it ? I kinda want to know, in case I should be keeping my powder dry.