Peckris

The link you posted is incomplete and goes nowhere - this is where I had to go, via Google : http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/hc1920%20rev%20A+B.htm Yes, I would say your halfcrown is definitely Rev B - it's too high a grade for it to be a Rev A "with the garter ridge worn down". Also the gap between C and the garter, and the 'flat' 9. However, according to Davies' classification, reverse B occurs with both obverses (Michael is mistaken about this) : 1+A (deep portrait) common 1+B (scarce or rare reverse) 2+A (rare obverse) 3+A (shallow portrait) common 3+B (scarce or rare reverse)

That Battle of Britain commem is an insult to all those who fought in it.

It is quite common to find coins that at some time in their life have been coated with 'silver' (often actually chrome or mercury). The fact that one side is peeling to show the underlying 'real' bronze coin. If you weigh it, it will probably be the weight for bronze not silver.

COC P ?

Agreed. This Churchill looks more like a certain dog .... "Oh, No".

Surely not better than Spanking year book. Spank for yourself

I STILL don't see the point of discriminating non-Maundy 3d's from Maundy 3d's. For the dates in question, they are both going to be very rare so where's the issue? Obviously, the same thing doesn't apply to the other Maundy denominations as they simply aren't as popular and everyone knows they're Maundy anyway.

I don't understand? If you're going to keep the coin in a slab, where is the enjoyment of looking at it through a scuffed slab?

Nothing but...

I'm going to make the case - not for the first time! - for the 1925 "Milled Silver Coinage of England", published by Spink, a reprint of the Numismatic Circular from 1924. It's fascinating for several reasons, but these are two: - it was obviously - from the layout - a precursor of ESC - it was a genuine catalogue; every coin listed was for sale!! and the listing is complete for its time (in fact, the collection they are selling had more varieties than are included here, but the editor says "...impossible to notice all the slight variations and dies noted by Mr Wallis...") Even in 1925, they were able to say of Edward VII "Many of the coins of this reign are quite scarce". Of George V they say "All other denominations have been issued regularly, and none are rare." One of the most interesting books I own.

Pffft. I'd like to destroy HIM at a public showing.

It's never too late to get into Carlsberg Special Brew, Peck! Haha - make that Glenmorangie, or Barbados Rum, or Smirnoff ... and you're talking

I agree with all of these points, especially that TPGs should regard cabinet friction and bag marks as wear, I really don't care how it occurred after it was struck, it is wear. And many MS60-61 coins, as I have alluded to in another post, require quite a leap of faith to be seen as Mint State, even given the dubious latitude of conveniently categorising some wear as 'non-circulation' wear ... my opinion! I just prefer to take a coin at face value, comments from sellers and dealers such as 'small scratch across the face that doesn't detract' (okay an extreme example!) wind me up and smack of estate agent style listings! That's the problem - I agree that bag marks definitely negatively affect the eye appeal, but as they occurred during the production process (i.e. before they left the Mint) then they are, correctly IMO, judged not to have wear.

Bizarre. Presuambly when he has taken all the rarities off the market and people have walked away from the hobby, he can at least sell them to his other self. That smacks of a rather peurile attitude to collecting. When people start to get greedy and there isn't enough material to go around, the enthusiasm (and demand) for the subject matter wanes. Equally strange is the fact that he isn't shouting his 'achievement' from the rooftops. Wanting the best available example is something most could relate to - wanting all the pieces available is not. Hear hear. Well said. It's just an ego thing.

Wot, no Inspector Montalbano? The only thing that chases away the winter blues, all that lovely Sicilian sunshine.

It doesn't look like an overdate to me - possibly a tiny piece of gunk got into the pressing?

No, I didn't mean it literally. I meant "not the same coin" in the sense of the original photograph is misleading. In other words you thought you were getting the coin as it looked in the seller's photograph, which of course it wasn't. AHHHHHH got the point language can be so simple... sometimes it is not... C'est vrai, n'est-ce pas?

No, I didn't mean it literally. I meant "not the same coin" in the sense of the original photograph is misleading. In other words you thought you were getting the coin as it looked in the seller's photograph, which of course it wasn't.

Really? Bin it IF the wife is attached to it - a strong chain should do the trick

Happy birthday ... Bob?

Thanks Peckris. Ah yes see if the hairlines were a result of cleaning that I would consider damage. In this case I'd probably just like a nicer / less brutal picture for my records. Below is another one though. Firstly the coin as sold by a German seller, secondly the coin photographed under direct light. Definitely rubbed IMO but you wouldn't know that from the seller's original picture. The second photo is probably too honest but on the other hand I can't make my mind up as to whether the seller's original photo is very good (given that it's not an easy coin to photograph) or a bit deceiving. It's possible that neither picture is a true representation? The seller's picture has a pleasing 'flatness' that may be the result of 1) indirect daylight (no sun) and 2) the use of a sepia slider in a graphics editor. Your picture may indeed be too harsh because of the flash giving an unnatural shiny reflection in places, and a 'too blue' colour cast. The interesting thing though, is the presence of the hairlines, visible in your picture but not in the seller's. That smacks of a 'dishonest portrayal' by the seller, to be honest, though the coin is not excessively rubbed in my opinion. At the same time, it's not the coin in his pictures.

No more out of place than a silver proof Cartwheel twopence in a copper collection, I'd say.

However, Maundy coins are - by nature of the extremely limited mintage - rare, so I've never understood the discrepancy in values.

It is possible that the lines on that shilling are the result of rubbing - always be suspicious when a group of such lines all run in the same direction. The lines behind the head all run in one direction, the lines in front of the face all run in another, or mostly do. However, as you say, these things - and especially on forums! - look much much worse when magnified several times lifesize. In hand there would be little to detract, so the coin's value would hold up I feel.

Unfortunately, the examples on his website don't look as good as that one