Peckris

Certainly done after minting. Possibly in 1922!

Must change my name to Martin Platt - those puppies look like they could do with some cleaning.. by hand of course (oh, now I need a dip - in cold water )

3+C '75 Farthing (H below) and WHAT'S wrong with the ER '22 thrupence? Explain?

If my prayers were answered it would be slimmer and cheaper, but I bet they aren't. I've got a well-thumbed 2012 if you want it (no charge)? Would be a fair swap for all I've learned on here! That's a very kind offer! I would at least offer to pay the postage PM me your address, and I'll get it in the post to you! It is battered, though...you might even want to send it back! Let me do a John and say, no charge at all, but if you fancy dropping a couple of posty/postie quid in the Air-Ambulance kitty, that would make everyone a winner! Will do. Message sent. And thanks again.

GET IT WHILE YOU CAN --GREAT CONDITION --I HAVE MANY PANDAS As good as the two I see there?

I guess because its owner either had more money than sense, or more hope than expectation? Do CGS ever turn down a request except where it's counterfeit or cleaned or verd? As for the "lustre", I've seen any number of Eddy farthings which have been artificially lustred at some point, presumably to pass it off as a half sov? I can't see any wear on the reverse, but the hair looks somewhat weak. I'll guess at EF+ but with a lowish number for that grade.

As far back as the 1940s/50s, and with provenance like those have?

If my prayers were answered it would be slimmer and cheaper, but I bet they aren't. I've got a well-thumbed 2012 if you want it (no charge)? Would be a fair swap for all I've learned on here! That's a very kind offer! I would at least offer to pay the postage

Je vous en prie

If my prayers were answered it would be slimmer and cheaper, but I bet they aren't.

First, I have absolutely no reason to doubt the authenticity of these coins. They were obviously collected well before the current influx of Chinese forgeries. And you say he was also a dealer, which helps even more. So rest easy on that. Second, provenance is everything with good quality coins. If those tickets give the correct story, then the provenance is impeccable : Seaby, Baldwins, and "ex-Lockett" are the tops. Did your grandafther keep any of the original coin tickets, or receipts, invoices, auction results, anything like that? However, even without that, the age of the purchases and the provenance claimed, will be in the favour of the collection. Third, the values - are those the prices your g'father paid, and was it at the period stated, i.e. late 40s and early 50s? Or are those his selling prices at a much later date? You will need to research current values from a current leading dealer - I don't know where you live, but Spink, Baldwins, and the like, would give you a realistic estimate of what their current worth is. If you send them off, obey a few simple rules : don't handle the coins more than necessary, and under no circumstances clean them make an enquiry first, mentioning what the coins are, and if necessary reading off what it says on the tickets send photocopies of the tickets with the coins send them well insured, with a five-figure maximum just in case (it could be less, but it doesn't hurt to over-insure). However, please bear in mind that ancient coins don't appreciate in value the way that modern (post-1666) do. I would estimate that they haven't kept up with inflation unfortunately. However, do get expert advice and help. It looks a good collection with excellent provenance, and it's rare that we get a chance to say that when people come on here with their grandparent's collection. Is that the entire collection, or just a sample tray?

Agree with Peck about the wearing die on the obverse. The reverse also looks a bit weak on the left side of the wreath. Yours looks to be on the brighter side of dull than most and is certainly brighter than mine (attached). Most that I have seen are dull or even duller. As an aside, looking at the statistics contained within the Royal Mint annual reports shows that of all the silver coins (excluding Maundy) the threepence invariably gives the lowest coins per die pair strike average. For example, in 1873 when the Royal Mint were struggling to obtain good quality steel for dies, the figures show that it took 763 obverse and 193 reverse dies to produce just over 4 million threepences (or 8,462 threepences per pair of dies). Interesting - it's counter-intuitive, you'd almost expect the opposite, that small coins would not wear out dies as quick as halfcrowns and pennies. But maybe it has something to do with the force of the blow applied by the machinery? I'm assuming it was equal for all denominations and therefore was higher than it really needed to be for the small ones. I'd have to disagree about your 3d Nick - it's a stronger strike for sure, but I'd say it is actually brighter than Coinery's, not duller. Or so it seems to me, comparing the pictures. The dull or bright quality is difficult to judge. I believe that the bright finish coins were blanched and should therefore look rather silvery, whereas the dull ones should look that yellowy colour of the early 1920's silver. Therefore I tend to try and judge by colour rather than brightness, but I may be completely wrong. That's certainly true of Coinery's - definitely a paler and more silvery colour than yours. But yours possibly has more lustre, rather than a matt finish? The finish of the silver series from 1920 - 1926 warrants a whole paper on its own! For example, my 1921 halfcrown (EF+) is yellowish but has good lustre. However, my UNC 1922 is 'white' with a matt finish. By 1923, it's back to lustre again.

Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word! George V currency is one of my main interests! But if you asked me anything at all about hammered, I'd have to confess almost complete ignorance Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word! Agree with Peck about the wearing die on the obverse. The reverse also looks a bit weak on the left side of the wreath. Yours looks to be on the brighter side of dull than most and is certainly brighter than mine (attached). Most that I have seen are dull or even duller. As an aside, looking at the statistics contained within the Royal Mint annual reports shows that of all the silver coins (excluding Maundy) the threepence invariably gives the lowest coins per die pair strike average. For example, in 1873 when the Royal Mint were struggling to obtain good quality steel for dies, the figures show that it took 763 obverse and 193 reverse dies to produce just over 4 million threepences (or 8,462 threepences per pair of dies). Interesting - it's counter-intuitive, you'd almost expect the opposite, that small coins would not wear out dies as quick as halfcrowns and pennies. But maybe it has something to do with the force of the blow applied by the machinery? I'm assuming it was equal for all denominations and therefore was higher than it really needed to be for the small ones. I'd have to disagree about your 3d Nick - it's a stronger strike for sure, but I'd say it is actually brighter than Coinery's, not duller. Or so it seems to me, comparing the pictures.

Ah, 1922 is an interesting date. For pennies, it was the second occurrence of the redesigned portrait (which had been done for silver coins in 1920-1). However, the problem with G5 obverse strikes - 1st series - is confined to the larger denominations. It doesn't apply to the 6d, farthing, or 3d, which had no obverse redesign until the Modified Effigy, as they didn't need it. You will see the same portrait design on those from 1911 to 1926, with slight variations in 1911 : all denominations, and 1914 onwards : farthings. Therefore I would suggest your 1922 3d is simply a wearing die for the obverse. But do also bear in mind that getting crisp detail on such small denomination dies was extremely difficult, and you will see a lot less detail on the sixpence lion reverse than you do on the shilling reverse, even though it's the same design! Just for reference: the difficult dates in high grade for GV 3d are : 1925, 1926, 1928, and 1930 (though oddly, I've seen more high grade 1928s than the other dates mentioned).

The Victoria is a fantasy piece, right? Nice Gothic reverse The cartwheel looks like someone's verdict on it at the time - probably 'combined' with a hammered coin in an early steam engine

Oh come on, you're just taking the piss!

http://s1277.beta.photobucket.com/user/LouisX1V/library/British%20copper 0.30 euros is a good price for that. The 1919H is a devil to find in good, well struck condition. Yours is above average, but not greatly so. The obverse is often weak, so taking that into account, I would say that your coin is between Fine and VF. (F or F+ for the obverse, and AVF for the reverse). Because it is so difficult to find in higher grades, that's why the price rockets up once you reach EF or better. It's the same for 1918 too, and both for H and KN.

Apparently, the dreaded green can be copper carbonate, chloride or acetate. These three compounds are soluble in acetic acid, ethanol and alcohol (or water) respectively. However, knowing bugger all about chemistry - I can't vouch for the correctness of this info. Where's Declan when you need him? He can generally pull a chemistry dissertation out the bag when you need one! Acetic acid NEVER disappoints on verdigris! This is true - however vinegar converts the verd into a dark stain (inactive) but also lightens the rest of the coin, which if it's copper/bronze is a possible great disadvantage. However, for a silver coin it shouldn't make a big difference

Couldn't they have used 1967 pennies instead? Oh wait, then they couldn't have sold them at all

Oh dear, I was trying to keep it simple

.500 silver. The other 50% is vulnerable isn't it? I was just going to ask about that, how do you get verd on a silver coin, if it's not, but a deposit, is it corrosive, and could it have been caused by living in the slab?? Not surprised at your shock though Stuart! Yes, the non-silver 50% is mostly copper, so verdigris is possible. Still getting over the shock that a humble 1922 3d would be slabbed!

Awww. I didn't know that. Have they finally run out of things to dig, or does Phil want to spend more time with his hat? Mind you, they must all be getting a bit long in the tooth by now, even Tony.

Colin, I'm getting so fed up typing all this out time after time, I'm really going to ask Chris to put a sticky on the forum! Anyway, here's what you do : 1. Open an image in an image editing program (from Photoshop down to Mac Preview, or Picasa). 2. Open the Image Size dialogue and do the following - • reduce the resolution to 72 dpi • reduce the Image size to something like 600x600 pixels (assuming the coin fills the whole space - if not, crop it first) 3. Save the resulting image as a JPEG and choose a quality (aka 'compression') setting that's around halfway between Best and Worst (or Maximum or Minimum, or whatever the program calls it). You should have an image that fits into the 150k allowance. Repeat for the reverse, and put into a separate post. Repeat for any other coin images.

Yes, you have realised the imperfection of the Spink catalogue. Under one Spink number you can literally have dozens of coins, from an ultra-rare variety, right through to the commonest type, all priced the same, of course! Having said that, as a quick reference I quite like it. It's a giant leap, but there's really nothing of great value inbetween...Brown, Comber & Wilkinson's book 'The Hammered Silver Coins Produced at the Tower Mint During the Reign of Elizabeth I. (2006) Updated 2012. It's the best out there, and it is good! In fact it's excellent! Don't be tempted by JJ North for Elizabeth, it doesn't add anything to the information in Spink's. Yes, Seaby's (as the Spink catalogue used to be) was until the mid-to-late-60s a type catalogue, listing the value (often in only two grades) of the most typical i.e. common example of a particular type. I remember the huge leap when in 1969 I saved up my schoolboy pennies for their 'Standard Catalogue Part II - 1816-1968', the first time they published values for EVERY date, and SOME varieties. Since then, the Standard Catalogue has grown and grown into probably the definitive price guide for milled coins, with a vast number of varieties included. In fact, all they exclude these days are micro-varieties. However, when you go back to the pre-milled section it becomes more and more like the old Seaby's - a type guide, and when you get back to the Roman section, it's even worse : you often get a single type for each denarius/aureus/sestertius/etc to cover an entire emperor's reign, irrespective of how many types there are.

I should estimate that the vast majority of collectors here would appreciate their coins being certified and graded by CGS. That's not the issue. It's having them forever sealed into a hard-to-store, impossible-to-view, difficult-to-love plastic tomb that's the issue for many of us. If - as I outlined above - we could get them certified and graded WITHOUT encapsulation, I'm sure many more of us would use their services. You see, that's where you and I differ. I have a few nice coins, but I don't think any of them are special enough to be labelled "from the _________________ _______ collection". Maybe that's just down to personal egotism, I don't know, but I just like my collection in my own way for my own enjoyment. Sure, I'd like my inheritors to get the best price, but I will be leaving personal instructions about that. Oh believe me, Bill - you would recognise INSTANTLY the surname of the eBay seller of encapsulated 1915 farthings. I'll give you a tiny clue : you mention Lockdales - where do you think the 'Lock' in the name Lockdale comes from? (I'm NOT saying anything against the personnel of London Coins, I've met Stephen numerous times and done business with him at fairs, and always found him an amiable and straight sort of person, but please don't for one moment imagine there isn't an interconnected dealership web, even if it is largely not sinister.) It's not just 'cozy', it's the same people!