Peckris

Pffft. I'd like to destroy HIM at a public showing.

It's never too late to get into Carlsberg Special Brew, Peck! Haha - make that Glenmorangie, or Barbados Rum, or Smirnoff ... and you're talking

I agree with all of these points, especially that TPGs should regard cabinet friction and bag marks as wear, I really don't care how it occurred after it was struck, it is wear. And many MS60-61 coins, as I have alluded to in another post, require quite a leap of faith to be seen as Mint State, even given the dubious latitude of conveniently categorising some wear as 'non-circulation' wear ... my opinion! I just prefer to take a coin at face value, comments from sellers and dealers such as 'small scratch across the face that doesn't detract' (okay an extreme example!) wind me up and smack of estate agent style listings! That's the problem - I agree that bag marks definitely negatively affect the eye appeal, but as they occurred during the production process (i.e. before they left the Mint) then they are, correctly IMO, judged not to have wear.

Bizarre. Presuambly when he has taken all the rarities off the market and people have walked away from the hobby, he can at least sell them to his other self. That smacks of a rather peurile attitude to collecting. When people start to get greedy and there isn't enough material to go around, the enthusiasm (and demand) for the subject matter wanes. Equally strange is the fact that he isn't shouting his 'achievement' from the rooftops. Wanting the best available example is something most could relate to - wanting all the pieces available is not. Hear hear. Well said. It's just an ego thing.

Wot, no Inspector Montalbano? The only thing that chases away the winter blues, all that lovely Sicilian sunshine.

It doesn't look like an overdate to me - possibly a tiny piece of gunk got into the pressing?

No, I didn't mean it literally. I meant "not the same coin" in the sense of the original photograph is misleading. In other words you thought you were getting the coin as it looked in the seller's photograph, which of course it wasn't. AHHHHHH got the point language can be so simple... sometimes it is not... C'est vrai, n'est-ce pas?

No, I didn't mean it literally. I meant "not the same coin" in the sense of the original photograph is misleading. In other words you thought you were getting the coin as it looked in the seller's photograph, which of course it wasn't.

Really? Bin it IF the wife is attached to it - a strong chain should do the trick

Happy birthday ... Bob?

Thanks Peckris. Ah yes see if the hairlines were a result of cleaning that I would consider damage. In this case I'd probably just like a nicer / less brutal picture for my records. Below is another one though. Firstly the coin as sold by a German seller, secondly the coin photographed under direct light. Definitely rubbed IMO but you wouldn't know that from the seller's original picture. The second photo is probably too honest but on the other hand I can't make my mind up as to whether the seller's original photo is very good (given that it's not an easy coin to photograph) or a bit deceiving. It's possible that neither picture is a true representation? The seller's picture has a pleasing 'flatness' that may be the result of 1) indirect daylight (no sun) and 2) the use of a sepia slider in a graphics editor. Your picture may indeed be too harsh because of the flash giving an unnatural shiny reflection in places, and a 'too blue' colour cast. The interesting thing though, is the presence of the hairlines, visible in your picture but not in the seller's. That smacks of a 'dishonest portrayal' by the seller, to be honest, though the coin is not excessively rubbed in my opinion. At the same time, it's not the coin in his pictures.

No more out of place than a silver proof Cartwheel twopence in a copper collection, I'd say.

However, Maundy coins are - by nature of the extremely limited mintage - rare, so I've never understood the discrepancy in values.

It is possible that the lines on that shilling are the result of rubbing - always be suspicious when a group of such lines all run in the same direction. The lines behind the head all run in one direction, the lines in front of the face all run in another, or mostly do. However, as you say, these things - and especially on forums! - look much much worse when magnified several times lifesize. In hand there would be little to detract, so the coin's value would hold up I feel.

Unfortunately, the examples on his website don't look as good as that one

There are a few nice EFs up for grabs http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Coin-Victorian-Penny-Young-Head-EF-1855-/381048592159 Most of the grading seems to be by consensus rather than by any analysis of the coin's wear which is why the EFs end up as UNCs and the VFs as EFs. But I can't grade for toffee so... I propose a new two-tier grading system. I was just reading some of his feedback though and I feel sorry for him actually, assuming his responses are honest as it would appear that other sellers are trying to discredit him on false grounds. From the same seller……. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Coin-Penny-Full-Lustre-1916-George-V-/381072204148?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item58b9ac6174 Be fair - he does say the coin's condition is 'Good'. I'm not going to argue with him

Happy happy birthday birthday!! :)

It's the shallow portrait, 4023A. I agree. A major pointer to it (especially on no-longer-mint examples) is the space between the legend and the border teeth - it's twice the gap on the later, shallow, issue.

That's the first known isn't it, the one in Michael Gouby's original British Bronze Penny?

Yeah, but "very fine" for a coin that's OBVIOUSLY better than a UK EF is - to my mind - absurd. It's not even consistent - I've seen the odd over-grading in that catalogue too.

Happy birthday Michael

Bag marks can be on a modern UNC coin. It's regarded entirely differently than wear.

It was an early pattern design for the new coinage. It was obviously decided to go for a beaded approach both sides, perhaps after seeing these few pattern strikes? They probably struck a handful and melted (most of) them down. You could understand continuing with the old reverse, but as there was no demand for pennies between 1949 and 1961 (1950-51 was West Indies, 1952 and 1954 were VIP/experimental issues only, and the entire 1953 production run was for the sets), they probably thought they had plenty of time to play around. After all, George VI died early 1952 and the Coronation wasn't until mid-1953, so there WAS plenty of time.

Yes, I'd say F+ was right - but do be aware the reverse has 'issues'.

I think it's a simple question of which is listed first? In which case it's ALWAYS the obverse. But perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree?