Peckris

I'd say - looking at very slight wear on the highest points on the reverse - that a grade of AUNC would be in order. You could dip it in surgical spirit to remove any film or grease, and dab it dry with very gentle wipes using a microfibre cloth (spectacles cleaning type) - any surface dirt would come off. Or, you could leave it to a buyer. From what I can see of it, I'd say a £200 offer is fair (assuming no damage e.g. verdigris and lots of lustre).

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place) The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around! In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing. I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production. FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production. So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production. However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins. London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago. You see, for me, "Choice UNC" implies virtually no visible damage or marks either during or post-production. If it's "choice" (which is a meaningless kind of label used by advertisers, but taking it at face value..) it should be superior to an 'ordinary' UNC. "aFDC" to me means there is the very slightest sign of handling - anything more, and you couldn't apply any kind of FDC to it. In that light, "aFDC" would be just slightly inferior in terms of handling, to a choice UNC. However, it would deserve its 11 point advantage simply through being a proof, with all the extra detail and care that implies. In other words, I'd take a genuinely "aFDC" over a "choice UNC", as it should still be a better coin. I didn't realise that your definition of "choice UNC" is so strict Peck. (Would be a very good thing if more auction houses are like thtat!) CGS's definition is less so if it is CGS80. There are quite a few currency coins for sale in the London Coins Website and even CGS 85 have obvious contact marks. I would grade a currency coin with virtually no visible damage much higher than 80. The problem is that the same scale is used for both proof coin and currency coin. If a proof coin is graded CGS91 aFDC, then how much damage does it have to sustain to drop 11 points? Probably a fair bit at least. That's confusing - I would therefore assume that a proof will always sit higher on the scale by virtue of being a better coin to begin with. So an FDC proof I would assume to be rated higher on the scale than a flawless UNC ("Choice" or "Gem" if you're a seller!), as in theory it will show more detail under magnification, have a better edge and rim, have been struck on a special blank using special dies, etc etc. I think where it gets even more complicated is where currency coins have been struck from left-over proof dies : they will exhibit superb strike detail but usually lack the mirrored fields and perfect rims as they have been struck on ordinary blanks. Also you get the 'first strike' examples from ordinary dies, which should rate much higher than UNCs from dies exhibiting weakness or wear. If London Coins are using "Choice" for less than flawless UNCs, then bang goes their strict grading, and bang goes their reputation.

That 1820 is a clear VF I'd say - a nice coin. You could do a lot worse than major on halfcrowns - as long as you don't go in for date runs, they will be generally cheaper than crowns, but are still a good size for seeing detail. For types : going forward, there are Victorian Young Head where you should avoid anything before 1874 in a good grade as they will empty your wallet! One from 1874 - 1887 in GVF should be your target (unless you can afford to bump up to EF?) Victoria Jubilee Head : 1887 in EF up to BU Victoria Old Head : 1893 in EF or better Edward VII (difficult reign) : 1902 is far and away the most affordable George V .925 silver : 1915, 16, or 18 minimum EF George V .500 silver : 1920 or 1923, but minimum EF as the head flattens very quickly on that type George V M.E. : 1927 George V new reverse issue : 1928, 29, or 36 in AUNC or better George VI .500 silver : 1944, 45, or 46 in BU George VI CuNi : 1948 BU George VI last issue : 1949 is arguably the easiest Elizabeth II : 1953 BU Elizabeth II 2nd type : 1966 or 1967 in "Gem BU"! Oh, I forgot to mention the other 'machine age' types you don't have: George III 'Bull Head' : minimum VF George III Small Head : ditto George IV 2nd type : 1823 VF or better George IV 3rd type : 1826 VF or better Those are the main types to collect, and the easiest dates to find.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place) The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around! In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing. I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production. FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production. So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production. However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins. London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago. You see, for me, "Choice UNC" implies virtually no visible damage or marks either during or post-production. If it's "choice" (which is a meaningless kind of label used by advertisers, but taking it at face value..) it should be superior to an 'ordinary' UNC. "aFDC" to me means there is the very slightest sign of handling - anything more, and you couldn't apply any kind of FDC to it. In that light, "aFDC" would be just slightly inferior in terms of handling, to a choice UNC. However, it would deserve its 11 point advantage simply through being a proof, with all the extra detail and care that implies. In other words, I'd take a genuinely "aFDC" over a "choice UNC", as it should still be a better coin.

I wouldn't rate your crown as better than Fine. The halfcrown is a bit better - GF I'd say. Both are good attractive coins for their grade, so no worries there.

I don't know this item or its type at all. One thing I would say, is that the lettering on the reverse (R & A) appears to be a non-serif style that you don't see before the 19th Century. Even the 1797 Matthew Boulton "cartwheels", which were modernist for their day, have serifs on the legend. So my guess - and that's all it is - is that it's not earlier than the 19th Century.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place) The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around! In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing.

Unless it's Unc, I'd say the 5% wins. It is almost impossible to spot, even on an Unc specimen. Probably why it was unrecorded/unspotted for so long.

He/she seems like an honest seller. Not many would include a close up photo of any damage, so credit where credit is due in my book. At least any prospective buyer can make an informed decision! Yep - sweaty mitts and fingerprints all over the coin

I was just thinking that those estimates were very reasonable indeed. Then I realised you had added the actual prices realised after each link

You're forgetting the principle of the "long tail" theory - online economics just don't follow the model of the high street. Since Spink have their own servers already (or need to rent them for their other online presence), then the fact that coins didn't sell would not have cost them anything, apart from the few minutes it would have cost for an employee to put them up on the website. All they'd need to do is circulate the coins every now and then, and it would have helped raise their profile and online presence, as well as giving collectors a few things to drool over. And who knows what seeds might have been sown in the long run, as collectors who start off drooling get more disposable income?

I am. I'm loaded. I've got nearly £60. I've got more monney than sense, I'm up to about 86p now. Let's see. 86p = 17/2 in old money. Er, 17 times 12 (rushes for his computer calculator) = 204, plus 2 equals 206 old pennies. That must cover just about every variety of bronze penny known - but how many are EF or better??

Right about the too many. What was the attraction? I hate to think how many I would need to drink to pluck up the courage and purchase that one. Hey. That's a perfectly acceptable grade for a rare date. Mine isn't much better, if at all. We're not all stinking rich, you know! Right about the too many. What was the attraction? I hate to think how many I would need to drink to pluck up the courage and purchase that one. My one is so worn I like to upgrade...even the horrible pennies. I would like to get a top 69(wouldn't we all chaps ) The 71 was an example and I can get rid of the existing. Speckled Hen or no, I think that's a perfectly good example for the date. When I dealt I had no end of 1864's ranging from poor to VG+ - they were all snapped up. So an 1871 in Fine is not to be sneezed at. If I could afford a GVF or better example, I'd buy one.

And yet, they have a coins section, and a coins tab, and a "Sale by private treaty" section. Just no coins, as you say...

The great value-destroyer is cleaning. But putting a hole in is even more of a no-no! They've clearly been worn as pendants or jewellery, and their only value now is their silver bullion value - which for groats and sixpences is fairly modest I'm afraid. There's a lot more silver in the halfcrowns and florins (though only 50% from 1920 onwards to 1946). The two halfcrowns we have pictures of aren't too bad as coins either and should fetch a few £ on eBay.

Pity you can't still get the Austin Montego 2L estate. BL didn't make many good cars, but that was one of the few.

Oh stop it! Just stop it!

Of those, the most valuable items would be the EF Victorian silver (do you have pictures?) However, it's quite possible that he consistently undergraded - that 1922 halfcrown has some ugly green verdigris patches but in terms of wear it is at least VF, probably better. So if you post pictures of the Victorian EF silver, and the 1926 halfcrown, we can tell for sure and maybe give you some advice about values.

Mint condition - no wear or damage at all (Sorry about the small sizes of these - they were all scans and I usually enlarge them in Photoshop but don't have time today).

Extremely Fine - near perfect but there is still a trace or two of rubbing and wear on the highest points

Just about Very Fine - a lot more detail visible on the portrait, but still some wear.

Not even Fine - a lot of wear, which you can see from the lack of hair detail, and the 'worn down' patches

Condition is absolutely everything. The coins you describe could range from a £1 or two (for their silver value) up to hundreds in perfect mint condition. For example, the 1845 groat is worth £10 in Fine (good condition with everything clear, but quite a lot of wear) up to £165 in Mint. The 1922 halfcrown, to pick another example, would range from scrap silver value in average condition, up to well over £100 in Mint condition. So you see, knowing the condition is vital. It would help if you could post a few pictures (you'll have to reduce the resolution to 150k which is the limit per post here, or else upload them to Image Shack or Omnicoins or some other suitable picture hosting site, and post the links here). I'll try and add a few pictures to show you what the main condition grades are like.

Unless Lewis Hamilton stops the boring boring Vettel in his tracks and wins the Drivers' Championship The US one sure looks better, but I couldn't possibly rely on their grading number if in the market for buying it .. what's the 'Cameo' bit all about again?! A non-numismatic cameo is a semi-precious stone where a design has been sculpted from it - the design is often cream on an amber background. For proof coins, it would be the closest description for a perfect example, where the design (usually frosted) is in marked contrast to the surrounding field which is usually highly mirrored.

Every morning I feel like an 18-year-old... ...don't get one though