Peckris

Not if you watched the Xmas Day Dr Who! Stay warm and safe Bob! David Really really silly story. But it doesn't seem to matter that much as Dr Who is character-driven these days, and his latest companion is OMG drop-dead gorgeous. You need to stay off those little blue meds Peck, you're mixing them up with the angina tablets I should see her before making any more comments, Dave

The rare proof is Matte, so yours is most likely the regular one. CCGB 2 years ago was a bit conservative on the non-proof, £60 BU compared to £40 for proof. Yet Spink way back in 2005 had the proof at £40 also, but even back then, the non-proof was £75. Now it would be at least £100 I'm thinking.

Not if you watched the Xmas Day Dr Who! Stay warm and safe Bob! David Really really silly story. But it doesn't seem to matter that much as Dr Who is character-driven these days, and his latest companion is OMG drop-dead gorgeous.

(Sings) "Are you Scousers, are you Scousers, are you Scousers in disguise.. are you Scou-ou-ser-ers in disguise?"

That's one of the nicest pewter repros I've seen

Yes, a very happy Christmas to youze all

Slightly impaired thus? Scratch across the bust, as I recall! Someone had to crack THE most obverse joke

Speak for yourself!

Who doesn't?

I REALLY like G3 copper, I have to say! Oh, me too!! And that one is a peach.

Still with that weak strike on the hair though...

I don't use those stupid numbers. However, it looks like it could be a weak strike (unless that's the effect of being photo'd through a slab?) - so I'd say it could be classed as GEF or AUnc. But if it IS a weak strike I wouldn't want to pay more than a shade over EF money for it. However, it's nicely toned so I can see some collectors paying a bit more?

Only in America could the mother of a young man with a personality disorder not only keep loaded guns in her home, but take the kid for regular target practice.

The ones that are actually described as "replicates" (sic) are pretty obvious fakes, to be honest. The most worrying item there is the florin.

It is quite a difficult site to navigate but I found 1822 crowns and Northumberland shillings. The amount he's has this year you could only assume they were from this Site as they seem to deal in bulk orders. Hopefully he's been hammered for a few quid. Is there pictures avaliable for download? Those would be handy references The scariest figure is that they can supply 100,000 pieces per month - of the same coin!

Yeah, happy birthday Bob

Like so? LOL Happy Christmas everyone! Ha, Ha, nice one gentlemen! Yes, and compliments of the season to you...we're inside the 12 days now, it's kind of official, ain't it! ROFL. Considering Christmas Day is the first of the 12 days, I'd say you're a bit premature! But I like what you've done to your avatar

That's interesting. Traditionally toning hasn't affected a grade of FDC as long as the coin is technically perfect; possibly because so many collectors regard attractive toning as superior to no toning at all? It's where the toning is ugly that I have reservations, but that makes it all very subjective, I agree.

Richard? Bob? Whose birthday is it, actually?

And Google is gospel? Not!

Like so?

First, I think to qualify FDC with A or N is a complete nonsense - AFDC is merely UNC (or a slightly flawed PROOF) and should be described as such. In the modern era, FDC normally applies only to proofs, as currency coins will ALWAYS have imperfections, unless it's those BU specimens sold by the Mint. FDC should describe a coin with no flaws. No defects, knocks, bag marks, scratches, weak strike, marks, wear, rubs, cleaning, etc. However, do be aware that FDC has never applied to toning; but if a dealer described a badly toned coin as FDC I would consider it a bit cheeky! 1973 FDC proof set for sale ~ slightly toned I own the one UNtoned 1973 set!!

To me, that's no more obvious (or desirable) than the 1893 farthing "narrow date". It isn't in the same category of date width difference as the 1875 - 1879 varieties, IMO - and those have other differences also, making them different die designs.

First, I think to qualify FDC with A or N is a complete nonsense - AFDC is merely UNC (or a slightly flawed PROOF) and should be described as such. In the modern era, FDC normally applies only to proofs, as currency coins will ALWAYS have imperfections, unless it's those BU specimens sold by the Mint. FDC should describe a coin with no flaws. No defects, knocks, bag marks, scratches, weak strike, marks, wear, rubs, cleaning, etc. However, do be aware that FDC has never applied to toning; but if a dealer described a badly toned coin as FDC I would consider it a bit cheeky!

The time of your above post isn't lost on me, Peck Pure coincidence