Peckris

Thousands...

But.. but.. not all mint or near-mint coins are "red brown"!!! They could be an even brown colour, have a patination that could be just about any colour, some with lustre, some without.. just the term "red brown" is completely meaningless! What relevance is the colour of the coin to its condition?? Lustrousness, toning, patination, evenness of appearance - these are all much relevant than just the colour!!!!

If you mouse over his 5th picture, you can make out the name Hearn!!

Maybe, but even a poor picture beats the initials "red brown". I mean, for heaven's sake! Every single (just about) Vicky copper is a red-brown colour, even when worn to hell. It's meaningless.

I agree with all of you. The lion's face and Edward's ear are the two big warning signs for wear, and I just can't see any. That being the case, I have to say "better than EF". If we don't allow for a little wear to account for EF, then it's a meaningless grade, and the price differentials between it and UNC have no basis. I'd say the same even if it was a 1902. The date has no bearing on the grade.

Nothing beats a good picture.

You're getting confused. The two obverses for 1920 are : 1. the common regular issue, as from 1913 - 1921 (all but one or two 1920s are this) 2. the shallow head design (Freeman 189), which you can see on half the 1921s, all the 1922s and the non-ME 1926s. It's akin to the 'recut obverse' used on the larger silver from 1920-1926, and yes, it does have different pointings, but many other differences such as overall size of the bust, style of lettering (serifs), shallow 'flat' look of portrait, etc. Needless to say, yours is NOT that one!

Scuse my ignorance, but what on earth is that? It is a measure of eye appeal that is it is an indication of whether a coin is RD (red), RB (red brown) or BN (brown). I have noticed that a coin that grades for MS 66 BN sells for almost the same price as MS 64 RB or a MS 62 RD. Now you can see why it is not just the number but the eye appeal quotient (you got to love Yankee terms) as well that matters Thanks Prax. It kind of makes sense now (the abbreviations, that is, not the reason for them). However, I notice they've missed out GN

Scuse my ignorance, but what on earth is that?

Tokens WERE (more or less) coins, especially the trade tokens of the late 18thC.

Are you talking 18th Century copper tokens, mostly for halfpennies? Those were triggered by the fluctuation in metal prices during the reign of George III - they were so volatile there was a huge shortage of currency caused by the non-issue of regular coinage. Matthew Boulton, with his new production techniques, encouraged the use of tokens by private companies, and issued large amounts of them. The companies didn't complain either, as they were used towards wages and got spent in the company shop(s). The Treasury didn't really give a damn about the base metal coinage (or should I say it was bottom of their priorities), so turned a blind eye for some years; they also knew that there was a 'fix' in the offing, courtesy of that self-same Matthew Boulton. From 1797 onwards, though tokens didn't disappear overnight, the need for them dwindled massively. Apart from a slight resurgence in the early 19th Century (there were no coppers in the Great Recoinage of 1816), the emergence of regular coppers from 1820 meant that trade tokens more or less had their day.

I endorse what Mark says. London Coins is certainly one place you could sell it, but you could also ask Colin Cooke (Neil Paisley is a member here) what they would be prepared to offer? There's also Baldwins. Any large auction house would be as good as any other.

I don't think he's twigged that 10 of his regular job lot purchases would equal a copy of Peck.

scott's your man!!

Not to mention the 1862/1 ... we'll ignore the different date placements What are Michael's rarity ratings? I know that with Freeman R8 and R9 stand for "not especially scarce", but I assume MG's are different. Michaels Rarity scale is: A1 - Abundant C2 - Common N3 - Normal S4 - Scarce (201-500) R5 - Rare (101-200) R6 - Very rare (51-100) R7 - Extremely rare (26-50) R8 10-25 possibly known R9 - 2-9 possibly known PU - Possibly Unique The term possibly known is used to allow for the possibility that some of the known rarities have been double counted when a coin has been sold from one collection to another without the researchers knowledge. The () numbers given are an approximation Thanks for that. But now I'm WELL confused. 201-500 = SCARCE??? Ye gods, that's major rarity. Ok, not compared to a 1933 penny perhaps, but still very rare. His scale goes geometrically for three ratings, then just falls off a cliff! The 2 Michaels seem at both ends of a very long extreme.

No, I didn't mean the date. Have a look at the right hand side of the obverse - do you see a very much larger than usual gap between the teeth and the linear circle? I've rotated the image the correct way up, and it's still there. Particularly noticeable by REG.F I believe it to be an optical illusion, inasmuch as the linear circle is barely visible on most of this coins obverse. The lettering appears to be the same distance from the border teeth although it seems farther because the linear circle is not apparent between the two (the teeth and the lettering) Ah. I thought I could see the linear circle immediately above the legend, but as you say, that may be illusory.

Not to mention the 1862/1 ... we'll ignore the different date placements What are Michael's rarity ratings? I know that with Freeman R8 and R9 stand for "not especially scarce", but I assume MG's are different.

No, I didn't mean the date. Have a look at the right hand side of the obverse - do you see a very much larger than usual gap between the teeth and the linear circle? I've rotated the image the correct way up, and it's still there. Particularly noticeable by REG.F

It may be because the coin is pictured on its side, but the obverse seems to show a phenomenally large gap between the border teeth and the linear circle, especially on the right hand side. Perhaps it's just an optical illusion, but would anyone like to comment further?

Coins & Market Values usually couldn't be a*sed to list common coins in several grades. A far better bet would be Collectors Coins GB where if a value isn't given for F and VF, it probably isn't worth more than a few pence.

I would say not, it's almost unnoticeable.

Happy birthday John

Funnily enough I said exactly the same to my financial adviser last year when discussing how to invest my pension lump sum. He asked me to rate myself on a scale from Low to High Risk strategy. I told him I was very Low Risk - all I wanted was "a return that does a little bit better than inflation". He then told me that such a strategy required a Medium Risk investment strategy as the very minimum!!!!

To the OP : Your farthing is better than VF but probably not quite EF. I'd say your grading is not far off at all. Note the slight flattening of Britannia's helmet and face, and her fingers. But also note the complete absence of wear to the shield, and her arms and legs, which are areas that take early hits. The obverse, as others have pointed out, is even better, so getting on for EF I'd say. Overall, GVF+. (See below for general comment about detail on very small coins). To damian: Yes, I think you've been way too harsh. You can regard the purple toning as the equivalent of lustre, and it behaves exactly the same way. Your examples show virtually full 'lustre', with just a bit of rubbing in one or two places : 1. AU / GEF 2. UNC (full lustre!!) / AU - the weakish strike you often see on mid-reign Eddie bronzes 3. AU 4. AU General note (also applies to sixpences) - you can be far too critical of small coins where the picture is blown up larger than life size. Such coins were not fully struck up in terms of design, as the ability of the die to retain minor details reduces in proportion to the size of the actual coin. Compare the reverses of Geo V sixpences and shillings, and the same applies to all Britannias on coppers/bronzes. Remember the disagreement we had last year about the difference between a George IV sixpence and shilling sent to CGS for grading? [/rant]

YOUR DINNER IS IN THE DOG. YOUR PYJAMAS ARE IN THE KENNEL. YOUR FARTHINGS ARE ON EBAY. Mrs Peter