Peckris

"Better grade"? Better than TOTAL shite, perhaps! Ah well, we all make msitakes. It did amuse me a little though.

You shouldn't be seeing verdigris on a 92.5% silver coin. I agree with the plastic reaction theory, but I'm unsure exactly how you remove that?

I have 450g of 1920- 1947 coins so if I half the current 0.999 silver price of £206.60, to £103.30, and that what the coins are worth scrap? Also I got one 1918 shilling out of the whole lot. I have a load more somewhere but I can't remember where I put them. My God damn messy attic swallows all my good stuff. Only rare dates and those in the top grades, are worth more than scrap. And silver has gone up so much in recent times, that more and more coins now fall into the "scrap" category.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating : Maundy mintages are so low that I cannot understand the massive discrepancy between Maundy 3d values, and the equivalent currency 3d (in certain years, e.g. the 1840s 1850s)

G3 and G5 would provide me with a really nice collection on their own!

I wouldn't quarrel with your grade, and I think there is a wealth of detail considering it's such a tiny little coin. (So it could be Maundy, after all, though it doesn't look so from your photos).

One for the hammered boys (you'll find them in the pub between Friday night and Sunday lunchtime ). One thing I can tell you, it's a 'long cross penny', and almost certainly one of the Edwards.

I've just come to the end of my first year of 'more serious' collecting (4 years in all) and I actually think I have been quite lucky! But perhaps I am in a minority of 1! The previous pic was taken in very bright sunshine, perhaps exaggerating the mirrored appearance from a previous clean and casting shadows around the lettering etc. This one may be a better likeness: I get all my coins costing over around £50 from dealers Peter, this one is from Bucks Coins I think the 'blue cast' to your photos doesn't help, Paulus - polished coins acquire a kind of blue sheen as well as the mirroring. However, I still think it does look cleaned, but couldn't give a proper assessment without the coin being in hand. But as you say "previous clean" anyway, then no harm done if there was a reduction in price.

Dipped, polished, scraped, buffed... and now a new cleaning term - mangled

Did you mean NOT agressively cleaned there Dave? Great crown which hopefully will re-tone nicely over the years. Do you think that the different % of silver for example pre and post 1920 tone differently? I'm buying unc George v and George v1 for my OWN collection still Dave! It think that it does. It's certainly true of the early 1920's silver coins (except those that were blanched) when the mint was experimenting with different metal mixes. Many of these exhibit a yellowy tone with light pastel shades of green, red etc. In my experience, pre-1920 silver is more likely to be colourfully toned than post-1920 silver (which generally tones a golden colour), but is that because of the silver content or just because they are older, or for some other reason altogether. Attached is the most interestingly toned 1920 coin that I have. Yes. The 1920-1922 coins are often yellowish, then become less so after; 1925 halfcrowns often have worn patches that are an ugly brown colour; from between 1926-1928 they begin to get it right, though from then on, worn silver alloy coins have greyish patches, which are ugly in their own way, though BU examples are generally better than silver alloy examples of the earlier period. It's also a fact that lightly dipped coins can remove virtually all ugly toning, but CAN then tone back most beautifully. I have 1917 and 1919 halfcrowns (AEF; GEF) which came from an auction lot in a plastic slide case, and all the halfcrowns had an ugly purple colour tone which came off after a brief dip. I kept those two for my own collection and they have toned back with a gorgeous red/blue tone. So dipping BRIEFLY (a few seconds) can pay off!

Not pixelated at all - and one of the best countermarks I've seen. Nice one!

That's a very nice example Debbie - and 1908 is not an easy date in high grades, not easy at all. It only looks mildly cleaned/polished and should tone back nicely.

It all depends what you mean by "obviously", and how much it's retoned. It also depends how rare and/or popular the coin is. I would - waves finger in the air - guesstimate a deduction of anywhere between 15% and 50% depending on those other factors.

Notice how the bidding went from £255 to £333 in one leap? No-one is going to tell me that's not suspicious!

Which still leaves us wondering who'll pay £32 for a Churchill Crown? And where can I find these people? Billpuguk and it was actually £33.02 To continue the conspiracy theory.. Gill Lockett of London Coins puts a slabbed Churchill on the 'Bay. A "stooge" bids over £30 for it (and then gets their money refunded minus a bit of commission). Next thing we know, London Coins are rating/selling slabbed Churchills at £15 a pop, and point to the £30+ auction to show how "conservative" they are being. Then we see them going on eBay from sellers unconnected with London Coins, and wide-eyed punters willing to pay anything between £10 and £20 each..

I'd best get my BU example slabbed and sent to Heritage - I'm missing out...

It's a CGS slab, and the seller's name contains 'lockett'. Far be it from me to start a conspiracy theory, but ...

Ooh, ignoring Edward VII, the scarcest reign of modern times, and George V, arguably the most interesting reign of modern times? Surely Edward VIII coins are the rarest of all modern coins - I must admit i love Edward V11 coins as well You can hardly call Edward VIII a reign! And none of his coins were officially issued, and I did use the word "scarce" not "rare"

There must be something about Thames mud that preserves those coins rather nicely. There's amazing detail and apart from the ultra-dark patina, little signs of corrosion. Good finds!

Ooh, ignoring Edward VII, the scarcest reign of modern times, and George V, arguably the most interesting reign of modern times?

I suppose, in one sense, you could describe the 'wide date' as a 'large date' (and vice versa). But the existing terms are perfectly adequate and more accurate, so though technically Stack's aren't wrong, it's irritating, I can see that.

Avoid any offer by any Mint, especially Pobjoy and its ilk, but that includes the Royal Mint too, which has a nice sideline in "limited edition" issues which collectors cannot get back what they paid for. I would start by finding a reputable coin dealer nearest to you, and cultivating their acquaintance. They will be glad to spend time with a new collector, who might spend money with them over time. Or the good folks here will readily give of their time, experience, and advice.

It would'nt be in my collection Peter Nor mine! Though I'd certainly find room for Peter's irony

It's a very rare coin by modern standards. If you've seen one go for £2700, then that's what one person was prepared to pay for one. The only thing against it is that it's a decimal coin, and - 20p mule aside - is the only well known decimal rarity, in a market that's dominated by over-priced Royal Mint issues and slashed-price secondary market decimals. I don't see Charles coming to the throne will make any difference to its value, and whether you keep hold of it depends entirely on your needs and wants. If you're a coin collector, £2,700 would buy you some very nice 20th Century items, or a smaller number of pre-20thC coins. I know what I'd do!

The 1903 and 1905 went west ages ago, can't afford to be a date collector! I wondered what you thought of the grade? Difficult. The reverse looks like it's unworn but definitely polished. The obverse looks less polished but has some rubbing so I'd say EF or GEF at best. So... GEF/UNC cleaned ? I still have so much to learn, I think I can spot cleaned and dipped (sometimes!) but not necessarily polished! I need more tell-tale signs to go by if anyone has them? EF/GEF, was my grading ... Yes, your grade is probably more realistic, though it's hard to spot any wear on the reverse. Quick guide to the difference between polishing and dipping : POLISHING - makes the coin artificially shiny, and reflective. (Do not confuse with lots of 19thC UNC early strikes where the FIELDS are highly reflective, but the DESIGN - while not frosted - isn't.) DIPPING - removes tarnish and other toning, but actually has the opposite effect to polishing - it makes the coin an overall dull appearance, i.e. as if no lustre is present (the chemical reaction probably removes lustre, in fact). Very brief dipping - such as Dave did on that ugly-toned 1913 halfcrown - can improve the look of a coin, but it has to be a few seconds only. A long dip makes it dull dull dull. Do also bear in mind that people use the term "dipping' in two different ways. Some mean any chemical that cleans, which includes stuff that can make a coin look polished. Others (as I do) mean "silver dip" which is a specific type of chemical compound, that always imparts the dullness I spoke of, if done to excess. That's brilliant Peck thanks! How about CLEANING? I always look for faint 'brush-strokes' but I don't know what else to look for? CLEANING is a generic term. Polishing and dipping are two very common types of cleaning, but also BUFFING (the gentle application of a Brillo pad ), RUBBING (over-enthusiastic use of a cloth), or the use of any surface-altering chemical would count as cleaning. Even soaking in olive oil to remove verdigris, or a quick dip in surgical spirit to remove grease or 'filming', would count as cleaning, but in those cases, would not have a detrimental effect.