Peckris

I have access to the CGS site, and own a few slabbed coins myself, but wasn't aware that I could view other people's coins without the UIN number. Is this possible? Alternatively you could post a few UINs to look at. I have a some crowns myself but mainly focus on pennies. Well, quite. My thoughts exactly. Even if I went through the hell of registering for CGS (it's not just creating a username and password DM, it's doing it for one single purpose only, and then remembering it if at some unspecified far future date I wanted to go back there. Technology might be your bête noir, but remembering more than around 10 favourite website registrations is mine), I very much doubt they are going to let me look at someone's personal collection. But if you're talking about individual coins that are publicly on show there, how would I know what to look for? What I mean is, having found wreath crowns, how would I know they are your coins, divemaster?

His 'bottom' was probably too (Christ, just had to edit and add an O to the to ) wide to fit inline on the screen, you can be so insensitive at times, Peck! On my 27" iMac both the photos appear side by side, so 'right' was right for me. You need a bigger screen Peck Show off! On the 15" screen of my trusty G4 PowerBook, they are upper and lower Ah, I know what's happened. On high resolution displays (mine is 1440x960 packed into 15") I have to increase the font size or I can't read what's on the browser - I just pressed Cmd-minus to put it back to its default, and the pictures are now side by side!

His 'bottom' was probably too (Christ, just had to edit and add an O to the to ) wide to fit inline on the screen, you can be so insensitive at times, Peck! Are you Dave in disguise??? That's me!

There is a mental hospital just on the outskirts of Dundee called Liff, i wonder if he's escaped. Oh and BTW i really did understand Cantonnas Seagull trawler quote lol Bollocks! I watched the interview that was done with him last year where he stated that he made the line up on the spot and it meant bugger all. It still means more than the lines that ebay tool is using though. Where do you all find the time or self restraint needed to actually communicate with him? Anybody with enough spare time and patience to converse with a looney please feel free to contact my wife as it may take the heat off me He would say that NOW wouldn't he - he wants to stay on the right side of the media these days, his whole career depends on it! Talk like Yoda not always wise, make you sound. From not around here he is, my guess. Or has found v.cool app for phone to Jedispeak. (If so, I want!)

Don't forget, the shilling suffers from the same syndrome as pennies; those often show Britannia with barely any facial or breastplate details. With shillings it's the lion face e.g. nose. This has nothing to do with what's conventionally called a 'weak' strike (which would show an overall weakness), nor a worn die. It's entirely due to the fact that first series George V coins have a very deep portrait, very high relief, much more so than any other monarch in the milled era. Where the reverse is strong and detailed as with halfcrowns, this doesn't really affect things, but where the reverse has a shallow design and rims - as is the case especially with pennies, halfpennies, and shillings - the obverse 'sucks' metal from areas of the reverse and they don't fully strike up. Would this affect all the coins of a given year? If not, what sort of percentage are we talking about? I'm presuming, if the percentage of sharp strikes is small, that a GEF fully struck up would attract a higher premium than a weak UNC? Difficult question. In the case of pennies, it's rare indeed to see a fully struck up Britannia before 1921/22. And yes, it would affect if not all, then certainly the vast majority of strikes. It's worth noting that on the 'recessed ear' pennies of 1915/16, Britannia is usually fully struck up, indicating that the Mint were aware of the problem ('ghosting' was the main effect they wanted to eliminate) and tried experimenting. Would a fully struck up Britannia command a premium? Very hard to say. It might, for example, go along with a not fully struck up portrait with weak hair detail which would actually be more noticeable and have a negative effect on value. Some dates are notoriously bad - the reverses of 1917 sixpences are a case in point - and a good example would almost certainly attract more buyers. In general, eye appeal counts for a lot, so in any reign a sharp and attractive GEF would nearly always score over a weak UNC. It's also a factor that collectors get so used to a feature - e.g. a not fully struck up Britannia on Series 1 Geo V pennies - that they expect it, and it therefore doesn't affect the value. So true, and as a picture tells a thousand words. Recessed ear variety on the right: Don't you know your right from your bottom? Thanks for posting those pictures though , as you say they are worth a thousand words. Yes, my own 1917 has a definitely 'weak' reverse that doesn't go at all well with its obverse. And you're so right about 1918H and 1919H pennies - the same goes for KNs and normal issues too!

i think most people understood it, its just that it wasnt really relevant to the interview. Oh I don't know - since he was being quizzed by the Press about some controversy or other, then clearly Cantona himself was the trawler, and the Press were the seagulls hoping for sardines, though I feel that comparison is desperately unfair to seagulls

Don't forget, the shilling suffers from the same syndrome as pennies; those often show Britannia with barely any facial or breastplate details. With shillings it's the lion face e.g. nose. This has nothing to do with what's conventionally called a 'weak' strike (which would show an overall weakness), nor a worn die. It's entirely due to the fact that first series George V coins have a very deep portrait, very high relief, much more so than any other monarch in the milled era. Where the reverse is strong and detailed as with halfcrowns, this doesn't really affect things, but where the reverse has a shallow design and rims - as is the case especially with pennies, halfpennies, and shillings - the obverse 'sucks' metal from areas of the reverse and they don't fully strike up. Would this affect all the coins of a given year? If not, what sort of percentage are we talking about? I'm presuming, if the percentage of sharp strikes is small, that a GEF fully struck up would attract a higher premium than a weak UNC? Difficult question. In the case of pennies, it's rare indeed to see a fully struck up Britannia before 1921/22. And yes, it would affect if not all, then certainly the vast majority of strikes. It's worth noting that on the 'recessed ear' pennies of 1915/16, Britannia is usually fully struck up, indicating that the Mint were aware of the problem ('ghosting' was the main effect they wanted to eliminate) and tried experimenting. Would a fully struck up Britannia command a premium? Very hard to say. It might, for example, go along with a not fully struck up portrait with weak hair detail which would actually be more noticeable and have a negative effect on value. Some dates are notoriously bad - the reverses of 1917 sixpences are a case in point - and a good example would almost certainly attract more buyers. In general, eye appeal counts for a lot, so in any reign a sharp and attractive GEF would nearly always score over a weak UNC. It's also a factor that collectors get so used to a feature - e.g. a not fully struck up Britannia on Series 1 Geo V pennies - that they expect it, and it therefore doesn't affect the value.

its a lesson learnt for sure, but now with that knowledge, your better placed to bid in any future auction. dont dismiss auctions on the basis of 1 bad experience, by bidding on individual coins rather than bulk lots, you may fare better. ive never bought a bulk lot, ive had reasonable success with my bids on individual coins, i have returned 1 coin (in many lots)as i thought it wasnt of the grade the listing suggested and was given a full refund. maybe ask some help here on a piece and take another punt. ski I have bought some great bulk lots from W&W but I suppose it depends how you define the term - one was a collection of pennies from 1860 to 1967 many in high grade (buns average VF, though the only rarity was 1869 in Fair), an incomplete collection of halfcrowns from 1874 to 1967 many in high grade, and a collection of coins in flips in two coindex trays, some of which went into my own collection e.g. an EF 1797 penny. The point I'm making is that all three lots were obtained at considerably less than the total book price for the individual coins. On the other hand, if by 'bulk' you mean accumulations mostly in bags, then you do have to be careful. If there are one or two coins among them that you want, you're better advised to work out what you want to pay for those, and then add on top an amount for any bullion value, or if no silver then a notional amount to cover the remainder of the lot. If your bid fails, you can always note who wins it and approach them afterwards explaining you wanted a particular coin(s) and asking if they would sell to you. A genuine dealer might be perfectly willing to horse trade on that basis, and you can't lose anything by asking. I once missed a superb collection of farthings from 1860, all in minimum EF many UNC, but I'd also noticed that the 1915 was the rare one. So I found out who won it and left my phone number for them to call me. When I said I was only interested in the 1915, the dealer didn't know (or care) that it was a rare variety and I got it without any problem.

I'd certainly choose to have the widest and narrowest (top and bottom) pennies in my collection - that's quite a dramatic difference. I don't find the intermediate stages particularly interesting, but it's an interesting exercise and would nicely illustrate a monograph for the BNJ on Old Head penny date spacing.

Don't forget, the shilling suffers from the same syndrome as pennies; those often show Britannia with barely any facial or breastplate details. With shillings it's the lion face e.g. nose. This has nothing to do with what's conventionally called a 'weak' strike (which would show an overall weakness), nor a worn die. It's entirely due to the fact that first series George V coins have a very deep portrait, very high relief, much more so than any other monarch in the milled era. Where the reverse is strong and detailed as with halfcrowns, this doesn't really affect things, but where the reverse has a shallow design and rims - as is the case especially with pennies, halfpennies, and shillings - the obverse 'sucks' metal from areas of the reverse and they don't fully strike up.

not a million miles from us, Coinery. twixt Stroud and Ciren, or Soiren as they say round 'ere I used to live in Coiren. Did you know there is an Old Ciren Facebook page? Just a thought. Me too, we keep overlapping Peck! See above Oh yes, I've just seen! If you walked through Earl Bathurst's estate to the town, that wasn't Cirencester Park, and certainly not Ciren or Coiren Park - no, that was Ciceter Park!

If you exchange the word "f***ed" for "fine", then he is spot on!

Do you have a link to your particular crowns on their site? That would save me a bit of legwork, especially as I don't normally use the CGS website, being a "non-slabber". Actually, a link to the most prooflike of your crowns would do. I just went there anyway, and you can't browse or search without being registered. What kind of cockamamie service is that? Most websites let you browse quite happily without registering first, only insisting on registration if you want to post comments or in their forums. I won't bother going back. I hate registering for a site and inventing yet another username and password, just to look. Pathetic. Rant over.

??????????? Coinery has pointed out what seems to be a contradiction. In one post you ask how to tell a proof wreath crown apart from a normal strike. In another you point out that all your wreath proofs have provenance from leading experts, collectors and dealers, plus you have 25 years of your own research into the matter. This would lead me to conclude that you already know more than anyone here about wreath crown proofs, and could indeed - from what you say - be regarded as an expert in the field. So we're left with an obvious question - why did you come aboard asking how to tell proof wreaths apart from normal strikes? As it seems to me that you must already know the answer, I for one - being ignorant of such differences - would appreciate a lesson in exactly what the differences are, and would also appreciate having the lesson illustrated by some comparative pictures, the proofs being drawn from your own collection of course. (Please understand, I'm being sincere, not sarcastic, in case you jump to the wrong conclusion).

That's a 1% difference on two crowns with different designs and in different grades. I wouldn't be concerned, to be honest.

Sorry, my mistake. I often use the term 'rim' when I really mean 'edge'. I assumed you meant the part where the milling is!

If the first 3 digits were already on the matrix, then the last digit would be added for each year. As the curvature would mean the second 9 has less space (whether there's a big gap or not), then it stands to reason they would use a slightly smaller '9' punch to fit the space. The large gap between the 9s simply emphasises the difference in size. The two 9s look different sizes on ALL the 1899 pennies shown.

Same PICTURE, certainly. If it is actually the same coin, then one must suspect some skullduggery. For example, there might have been a shill bid winning the first auction? In which case, the coin would have been offered to the underbidder, but if that's the case, why would it be offered for sale again so quickly? A proper dealer wouldn't be taken in like that, yet who but a dealer would put it up for sale so soon after purchase? The other possibility is that if a shill bid won the first, and the underbidder didn't take it, then the first seller put it on again but using a different eBay account. This is all speculation of course.

not a million miles from us, Coinery. twixt Stroud and Ciren, or Soiren as they say round 'ere I used to live in Coiren. Did you know there is an Old Ciren Facebook page? Just a thought.

Well, the whole technology changed when it all moved to Llantrisant. But judging by the standards of modern coins, I'm guessing they really don't care very much. And I suppose, why should they? The circulating coinage represents only a tiny % of the money supply compared to what it was around WW1. Coins are not worth the trouble, would be my take on it.

Peck'll know, he even knows the differing amounts of seasonal earwax for G5 AND I'd be interested too, as I've just started to pull one or two areas of this reign together myself. TMI !!! I note we posted within minutes of each other. I've never been convinced by that theory. After all, how much steel was needed to make a few dies for the Royal Mint? Let's face it, not much more than would be used to make a couple of shells, I would have thought. And I'm guessing that Mint work was a reserved occupation anyway, given the importance of the economy to the war effort, plus the very high inflation that resulted at that time. I think it may have been more a factor of the much higher output driven by inflation. As far as shillings are concerned, look at the mintages : 1911 20m 1912 15m 1913 9m 1914 23m 1915 39m 1916 35m 1917 22m 1918 34m It's the same for other silver, particularly the years 1914, 1916, 1918, and most dramatic for halfcrowns, then florins. It's much more likely that the Mint was working so flat out to keep pace with demand, that dies were required to perform much greater duty than normal, hence changed less often.

Along with a dozen hubcaps, 4 mobile phones, a sovereign ring and the keys to an Escort XR3. All in a sack marked 'Swag'. Surely the 'swag' bag is inside the XR3? Can you set the detector to ping when it locates large furry dice?

You're all talking bollocks.

In my opinion, this would be a virtually impossible task. Are there any officially recorded proofs, apart from 1927? There certainly are very rare proofs of many currency strikes, but you can't regard wreath crowns as currency, as they were specially struck for collectors. The numbers struck were so small that you could regard the first few as 'prooflike' but there would no obvious fall-off in the short life of the dies. The normal way to tell conclusively is to examine the rims - these are razor sharp on proofs, and the milling goes evenly from edge to edge. All other features - crispness of detail, absence of flaws, mirrored fields - can also be found on first strikes from a currency die, especially so where a proof die has been used for currency so as not to waste it. Forgive me asking, but how do you know that the wreath crown proofs you already have, are really proofs? As has been noted, even TPG companies get it wrong.

There's no year which is generally a weak strike, but there are years when dies got overused so that towards the end of their life they produced weak strikes. This happened especially from 1915 - 1919. Also, the Type 2 obverse (1920 - 1926) is much shallower cut to reduce reverse ghosting, and therefore might mistakenly be thought by the inexperienced as weak strikes. Those latter years, the portrait wears much faster, and if you put an EF example alongside a VF Type 1 obverse, you wouldn't see much difference especially in hair detail. But that's due to redesign, not weak strike. From 1926 ME onwards, there isn't any notable weak strike, though as I've said, any well-used die will produce worse results than early strikes.