Peckris

Be careful - be very careful! I don't want to dent your enthusiasm, and modern proof sets are a nice thing to have ... but ... they are overpriced by the Mint when issued, and over-valued by Spink as a consequence. If you go to auctions, you can pick up proof sets for much less than their original issue price, e.g. half. I'm not up with current Spink prices so I couldn't comment on your dealer's pricing of £15 - £30. (If you like them and aren't looking to make a profit in the foreseeable future, then price is perhaps less of an issue). As for singletons adding up to more than the price of a set - that's partly due to some coins being not issued as currency strikes, which raises their value to date collectors. The entire 1972 set is one such example - the only 1972 coin issued was a 25p commem so the whole set, and the individual coins, are valued higher. In other years, only one or a few denominations weren't issued so those will be higher - but only to date collectors who won't be interested in shelling out for the entire set which will therefore not reflect the higher value of singletons. Yes, it sounds confusing, but you will probably also find that even singletons are over-valued in Spink. But collect what you enjoy, and if that's modern proof sets, go for it! (But don't forget auctions, where you can buy a whole bunch of them for around half of their Spink price. Or at least, you used to be able to.)

Just so PCGS doesn't feel left out, here's an example of their incompetence. Incompetence indeed - though neither variety is rare, the thin rim is the scarcer one.

That will be inevitable I'm afraid, where the verdigris has actually eaten away the affected surface of the coin. The only alternative is to convert the verdigris itself into another, non-corrosive substance - it may be that diluted vinegar will do that? Not sure - it will certainly lighten the rest of the coin and leave the verdigris as a dark patch, but not green.

:lol: That piranha was obviously taking a fancy to Liz's chin - look, it's left its teeth marks!

It's a good sharp strike with all the details showing and minimal wear to the high points, so I would grade at GEF. For me personally, I would like to see some lustre though many collectors prefer attractive toning over patchy lustre. I think the price achieved was fair for the year and coin. Full lustre examples are going to be £200+, that was a nice 1863 penny and I am one of those collectors that likes nice attractive toning I agree with both assessments. Very fair coin and a fair price.

If it looks EXACTLY the same coin, then I would suggest it's comparatively modern. Possibly an imitation of a Greek coin? Nice reverse design of sow with piglets!

I would presume that "choice FDC" refers to a coin that's beautifully toned? However, I do think the term is piss poor, as a picture or description of the toning would be better than such puff. And yes, AFDC is without meaning (it's as stupid as "almost unique").

FDC is only used for coins with absolutely no blemishes of any kind (knocks, edge bumps, scratches, gouges, wear, imperfections). Understand that proofs are minted in a special way according to very exacting standards - only such coins are guaranteed blemish-free by a mint. Interestingly, FDC doesn't include toning, so a coin that's untoned, nicely toned, or ugly, can all still technically be described as FDC, so make sure you see a picture!

Which numbers did you pick? (Just out of interest, you understand..)

You've had some great replies I'd only add a couple more points : 1. Eye appeal is everything. A coin either has it, or it doesn't and that might apply to two coins of the same grade - the one with eye appeal will naturally sell for a premium over the other one. How much of a premium? Well, how long is a piece of string! It depends on so many factors : how popular that coin is with collectors, how easy or difficult to find really attractive examples, how strong the difference between them in terms of appeal. As Rob says, you have to do the spadework yourself on this, and learn from inevitable mistakes (we all make 'em!) 2. Spink is just a guide, and notorious for overpricing many modern coins, but possibly underpricing some of the older ones. Take what is listed there with a pinch of salt, and do your own research : e.g. do BU 1936 pennies (not a difficult date) really sell on eBay for as much as Spink lists?

The short answer is 'Yes'. Spink list pretty much all the Freeman obverses and reverses, with photos, but the text just lists the main identifiers, and what's most lacking is close-ups of the crucial bit that separates that particular type from others. Spink did publish a reprint of Freeman, and it's still available via Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1902040783/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=coicom-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=1902040783 There's also a couple of shabby copies (but you only want it for reference, right?) on eBay, e.g. : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bronze-Coinage-of-Great-Britain-Freeman-M-J-/310563161279?pt=Non_Fiction&hash=item484f01c4bf

Indeed. And totally subjective IMHO, since it might not detract when you're hoping to sell it (though in that case, it has to be questioned, why mention it at all?) but a buyer might (and likely will) feel very differently! I dislike "VF details" (etc..) So what? The D of DG may be as crisp as a proof, but if the rest of the coin is washer grade then what's the point in saying "[..] details" Unless the whole coin is close to the grade in question (in which case "near [whatever grade], some areas better" would be more honest), it seems a rather meaningless thing to say... And it's not a new phenomenon either. I recently dug out a dealer's list from the 90s, and he often listed things like "BU, traces of lustre" or "BU, some lustre present". Wha-?

Cramming three coins into one slab is even worse

The quick and easy way to tell is to look at the whole bust in relation to where it sits. From Obverse 6, the gap between the top of the head and the linear circle is only half what it was before. Once you've seen a couple of examples, the difference is immediately obvious.

I only know of two obverses. Your penny appears to be Freeman 6+G which is the commonest type. It's a very presentable reverse, though too much wear on the obverse for my liking. Can I ask how much it is on sale for / you are prepared to bid? FWIW you should be able to pick up an 1862 in that condition for around £10-£15. For a higher outlay you would find something much better, as it's one of the commoner dates (and it, or 1863, are dates I would recommend to a type collector who wanted a good example of an early bun penny.)

Like Vicky, I also believe that TPGs do take into account on the position of the marks. The PCGS website give the following defintition for MS65 "Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike". By "focal" areas, I assume they mean the face or an important part of the design on the reverse. I think they must do.

I'd weigh in with a GF grade.

I don't really buy that as a logical proposition. There are two sides to a coin, and probability theory would suggest that both receive equal amount of contact marks. Contact marks would be most obvious in the clear fields of a coin. So maybe there is, as Peck suggested, a tendency to be drawn towards the head. Maybe there tends to be more area of clear field on the obverse, predominantly. Otherwise the suggestion that one side received more contact marks than the other makes zero sense. I do agree that contact marks are more obvious in clear fields. This a very long shot, but could it be possible that because the obverse is generally flatter (having more field etc), a clash of two coins can produce two (or a least a bigger) contact mark(s) because one coin can skid on the surface of another. The reverse has more design and so might result in less skidding? Also for the same contact, the mark would be larger if it occur on the field rather than the design as the design protect the surrounding field from damage? There is one fact that's indisputable : 99% of obverses have a similar design, i.e. a head surrounded by a circular legend, with clear fields between. Reverses are enormously varied, from the complex and fussy (Eliz II florins and sixpences, George V halfcrowns, Vic JH shillings, etc), through a mid range where there is at least some clear field (Britannia, Vic JH and Geo V florins, lion on crown), to the simple and uncluttered with a lot of field (farthings from 1937, thrift brass 3d, silver 3d to 1936, wreath 6d, etc). I stand by my earlier claim that we would be less inclined to collect a coin where there was obvious damage to a portrait, than a similar disfigurement to a reverse. I'm not sure why this is, but it could be just human psychology, as I said before (though you made no comment).

I think it's more a case of human psychology - we are biologically conditioned to react to faces, and therefore would notice wear or abrasions to an obverse more readily than a reverse. I don't think there's any more to it than that?

Guide to gradng Australian pennies David Not according to that guide! But it's a shame that the buttons for grades above VF don't work

I'm afraid I have no idea about value of non-English coins, but someone here will. If you look closely, you will see quite a few signs of wear: - the details around the crown (fleurs de lys; cross) - the hair and beard of the monarch - the finer details of the clothing But a lot of detail is visible and there isn't a huge amount of wear, so my estimate would be VF condition (Very Fine). ETA: Having seen the UNC examples in the posts below, I would say no more than AVF (About VF)

I'm not so sure divemaster. For one thing, its mintage is around 3 times higher than the 1934. For another, it's a limited edition proof of something that already exists in vast quantities (it would be like asking if the piedfort silver proof 1983 £1 is a good investment). For yet another, its value has been fairly static for years. You'd always be able to sell it on, but not make a huge profit IMO. It simply doesn't have the cachet of the 1934, for the reasons given. When I put mine into an auction after owning it for 5 or 6 years, I didn't make a loss, but after commission, I probably didn't make anything on it either.

You'd better make Mrs Peter your sister first, then

Shouldn't make any difference to it, surely ? You'd still get the £144.00 irrespective of when you decide to cash in your private pension. That's what I'd have thought. Yet that article in the link was moaning on about the effect of the new scheme on private pensions? ETA: Ah no, it was talking about the present system: The other big drawback is that around 40% of pensioners are entitled to means tested Pension Credit, but if they receive this, their private pensions or earnings are penalised. Many people will find that they have wasted all their private savings. As we have just started automatically enrolling all workers in an employer pension scheme, it is vital that the state pension does not keep undermining private pensions. But this is equally difficult to understand - why should getting Pension Credit affect your personal pension? It's not that Pension Credit would affect your personal pension, it's more the other way round. Receipt of a personal pension might well affect your entitlement to Pension Credit, because it's means tested. The normal contributory state retirement pension (both old and new types) are not means tested. So you can earn or receive anything else outside of the benefits system, without it affecting your entitlement. Yes, that's exactly what I'd have thought! Just lazy journalism in that article.

Your second picture is awful, really awful. But the coin looks a little bit more like the real thing in it. I still don't think it is, but GOOD pictures would let us know for sure.