Peckris

Just to continue what I'm enquiring into elsewhere, do you think there's a greater risk, FULL STOP, when sealing coins in flips, or just when Olive Oil is involved? I'm just thinking out loud here, but I guess Olive Oil has a water content? God, what's the REAL science here, what do the museums do, or are they as bad, or worse? I wouldn't think so - at least, not in 'free' form where it can act like water. A coin in a flip isn't 'sealed' as such, as the envelope is not airtight. But given that modern flips aren't PVC there shouldn't be a major problem, but if it was me I would still be monitoring it, olive oil or not. As far as the chemistry is concerned, could the olive oil react with the plastic of the flip? Over to the chemists here..

It's not a 78 obverse 8, because no obverse 8's were minted at Heaton in 1874. That leaves it as a 7 + H, F73. edit: beaten to it by Accumulator, while I was looking at Freeman's book Oops, my mistake - I forgot about that liddle H. Yet the eye and ribbon appear to be right for Obverse 8? Your grade is not over, pies. It's minimum VF, but many would grade GVF. I always find the eye a difficult one, but the ribbon on obverse 8 is much wider, leaving very little gap between the two loose ribbon ends, Here's Obverse 7 (on the left) and 8 (on the right, or below depending on your screen width Peckris ): That's really really difficult, isn't it? Freeman seems to be wrong about the eye - those are identical. However, the ribbon bow shows very slight difference, but also the rose doesn't encroach below the linear circle on 7 like it does on 8.

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?

That's true - when I lived in the Midlands I was handy both for W&W and the Coin Fair. I'm not sure what W&W would add in postage for a won cabinet.

It's not a 78 obverse 8, because no obverse 8's were minted at Heaton in 1874. That leaves it as a 7 + H, F73. edit: beaten to it by Accumulator, while I was looking at Freeman's book Oops, my mistake - I forgot about that liddle H. Yet the eye and ribbon appear to be right for Obverse 8? Your grade is not over, pies. It's minimum VF, but many would grade GVF.

I creep into the new scheme by literally a few days! My question is this - I have a small private pension 'pot' which I can cash in and get an annuity on any time. Part of this - probably the largest part - is a 'Contracted Out' PP plan which I started by contracting out of SERPS in the late 80s when the Govt. of the day paid all those incentives and bonuses. What happens to my private pension under the new scheme? Should I defer taking it until after April 2017, which would be a bit silly given the state of my health and given the steady decline in annuity rates, or should I cash it in?

The 1895 YH is very difficult to obtain in full lustre, whereas the 1895 OH is fairly easy to obtain in full lustre. The 1895 YH tends to be more readily available due to its "key date" status and the fact that it is sifted out and sold separately, but I would be fairly comfortable stating that a large proportion of the mintage is the OH variety. The 1872 I would agree is a toughie to obtain in higher grades, and is underestimated. I also agree that the 1869 is easier to obtain in a decent grade than expected. The 1875 large date is not too bad, but the small date version is much tougher. It is also quite bizarre how some coins are really difficult to obtain in a pleasing lustred state. I am yet to see a blazing 1885 farthing, but there are masses of them out there which are toned or that have good uneven lustre. Yes I concur that 1875H 1884 1885 1886 are very common coins (I'm not sure if I've seen a BU 1885? Certainly UNC though.) Does anyone know if CCGB has corrected the 1886 anomaly? I pointed out to Chris a few years ago that he'd got the values wrong, showing it to be a scarce date rather than just about the commonest YH farthing of all (there could be a few eBayers come to grief over that if they use CCGB).

That's the older obverse - I think it's Obverse 8 judging from the eye position and the ribbon bow? That would make it 8+H which is about the same rarity as 6+H.

I have had the Mascle for a number of years now and am very pleased with it. My only (retrospective) preference would be to have had the option of an additional simple drawer-like tray, in which to put the coin tickets (either too large or square) and dealers' envelopes that came with the coins, but that don't fit into the usual round recesses with the coins. Cabinets also come up in auctions fairly regularly, but the advantage of a tailor made one is that you can specify the size of hole you want for your coins rather than just make do with what's supplied (usually a range from small to large). I've got the Mascle as well, Tom ~ but, man, those prices have gone up significantly since I bought mine in January 2010 I'm very pleased with mine too. There's more than enough space for what I've already got, and what I intend to get. As you say though, another drawer for provenance and other purchase related documents would be a good idea. For anybody thinking of buying, it might be worth asking Peter about this, although I think I may have heard that he was retiring. The address has certainly changed from St Leonards (near Hastings) to somewhere near Nottingham. I got a Mascle in the 90s (custom trays) and I can tell you that it wasn't enormously less in price (maybe around £100 or a bit under?) - it's my favourite cabinet. The best value was a Pheon medal cabinet which I picked up at W&W for less than £100 - although the trays aren't recessed for coins, you can place the coins on the trays in the arrangement you want, and it will hold capsules too (and you could use one of the trays for tickets, solving that problem). It also allows silver coins to tone, where in the Mascle they don't. I also seem to have acquired a second-hand Martlet along the way, but I can't remember where! (It was cheap though). All good cabinets, but with the Martlet you have to lift out the trays rather than slide each one out like in the others.

Aw, sorry I actually reversed the image to see it the correct way round before coming to a verdict. I wonder if your coin is something like this one, but smaller? Or at least, based on it, but more of a fantasy piece? (It looks too dissimilar to a regular sovereign to be an outright forgery). http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1911-GEORGE-V-COPPER-PROOF-PATTERN-CROWN-st-george-slaying-dragon-/400300456963?_trksid=p2047675.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222002%26algo%3DSIC.FIT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D11%26meid%3D4984593766209269327%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D1005%26rk%3D2%26sd%3D300826973851%26

Can't make it through the rain band

The picture is not very good, but from the obverse (which you have the wrong way around) it appears not to be a genuine gold coin, but some kind of repro or fantasy piece. I can't see enough detail on the reverse, but I doubt it is the genuine design? The colour is wrong too, being too green for gold (though that may be your camera). A better set of pictures - e.g. scans - would help more.

Yeah, I bet there are a fair few pedestrians now keeping an eye out for falling helicopters...

Yes, I'd noticed that too. The 1875 has long overtaken it, and even the (much easier) 1892 is catching up. The date that makes me laugh is the 1869 - it's not rare! A classic example of a coin that basks in the reflected sibling glory (of the penny), just like the 1905 sixpence does (easier than the 1904). Maybe the 1895YH farthing really isn't as scarce as once thought? In which case, the OH variety must be more scarce than it's been traditionally rated.

That one looks more like nEF. No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom. My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade. I can make out a complete eyebrow, but it certainly isn't better than EF I'd say. On the other hand I always distrust 'blown up' photos as they magnify any little tiny flaws and make them seem like horror stories which they wouldn't in hand. That's a well-known issue - the reverses of George V before 1921/2 are notoriously affected by the high relief of the obverse portrait 'sucking' metal away from the reverse (and causing 'ghosting' too). This is especially true where the reverse rims don't protect the design properly (pennies & halfpennies) or the reverse design is too shallow compared to the obverse (shillings, and to a less extent, sixpences). Where there are strong reverse rims and a strong reverse design - halfcrowns - you don't see the ghosting or weakly struck reverses. Interestingly, the 'recessed ear' 1915/16 pennies usually have Britannia fully struck up, so why the Mint didn't persist with the experiment further is a bit baffling. So did ANY, say 1920 pennies for example, get through unscathed, or would I be wasting my time looking for one? Oh yes, the strike is not invariable. There are always cases where the obverse hasn't 'sucked' out too much metal and Britannia looks more or less ok. Especially if a new reverse die is in use but the obverse die has seen some use. You might have quite a search though.

It will attract gunk if stored outside a cabinet or enclosed tray. You could keep in a flip but you'd need to monitor it closely. Also, the film of oil should be incredibly fine (i.e. you've wiped most of it off, but there is just a sheen left).

Nice coin. A bit rich for me, so I'll hang on to my "EF with lustre" (it only cost me 18 squid ), but yours would be a really good upgrade. The one thing I dislike about that particular date is that they used up their worn out reverse dies on it, knowing full well that a new design was months if not weeks away. It rather spoils the appeal of a scarce variety (just like the 'worn die' reverse of 1917 sixpences).

He's not been on at all recently - I imagine he's been fully occupied getting the book out. Anyway, we know now. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * That's weird - the Rotographic Forum shows the 'New Replies' icon, but there aren't any. Anyone else seeing this?

That one looks more like nEF. No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom. My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade. I can make out a complete eyebrow, but it certainly isn't better than EF I'd say. On the other hand I always distrust 'blown up' photos as they magnify any little tiny flaws and make them seem like horror stories which they wouldn't in hand. That's a well-known issue - the reverses of George V before 1921/2 are notoriously affected by the high relief of the obverse portrait 'sucking' metal away from the reverse (and causing 'ghosting' too). This is especially true where the reverse rims don't protect the design properly (pennies & halfpennies) or the reverse design is too shallow compared to the obverse (shillings, and to a less extent, sixpences). Where there are strong reverse rims and a strong reverse design - halfcrowns - you don't see the ghosting or weakly struck reverses. Interestingly, the 'recessed ear' 1915/16 pennies usually have Britannia fully struck up, so why the Mint didn't persist with the experiment further is a bit baffling.

I covered my Brutus with Olive oil and had a pipe smoking sailor "chase me" He was trying to put a knife in my back. Oh, what was that guy's name - Duncan Somebody? Duncan Norvelle. That's him! Completely straight, apparently.

I've only ever bought spink, but I hear there's a little extra with CCGB, am I missing out on much? For the weekend, Sir?

That one looks more like nEF. No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

That you did! and That I will! Thanks for the advice. Yes, I'd echo the advice you've got. Basically, modern commems are a drag on the market - the dear old lady probably carefully looked up the total value in Spink, not realising that no-one apart from people paying full Royal Mint issue price comes even close to those quoted prices. Shame, but there it is. Do have a look at the predecimals - she may have thought them grubby and worthless, so ignored them. But the sight of those bank bags is depressing enough ...

I covered my Brutus with Olive oil and had a pipe smoking sailor "chase me" He was trying to put a knife in my back. Oh, what was that guy's name - Duncan Somebody?

I agree. I think a faint sheen caused by a very thin film of olive oil positively enhances a coin (but don't tell Popeye )