Peckris

They weren't all poorly struck, so that places the poor examples at a disadvantage or conversely the better examples at a premium. Either way, it shouldn't affect the grading which should be 'what it is', not 'what it should be given the poor strike'.

I think the overstrike is the same as the Nicholson example, so whatever it is (T over A, T over slanted I) they are both examples of it IMO. (I've sent you a PM).

This is partly where the discussion lies. To demonstrate, I don't have any pennies, but I do have a pair of 1876H halfpennies which asks the same question. The Heaton proof/specimen has much less sharp lettering than say the unambiguous 1867 bronzed proof, http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/halfpenny_merge/397.jpg i.e. it ticks some boxes but not others. For comparison sake, here is the 1876H which was slabbed as a proof in the Terner sale and was considered a proof by Freeman (this was his coin also). However, others considered it to fall short, preferring to call it a specimen strike and so the debate continues............ That certainly ticks many of the proof boxes for me, but I am only looking at a picture at the end of the day. However, could it not be argued that Heatons didn't have the proof minting expertise of the RM and that therefore their proof strikings are a little inferior?

You said you were considering two and four pences? Apart from Vicky groats, those will have to be Maundy. 1838 & 1848 currency 2d. (S3914E) Yeah, but he's talking about all those denominations from Victoria to Elizabeth II. If he's not interested in Maundy (like many of us aren't lol) then he will have to revise his wanted denomination list.

I don't imagine any buyer is doing so in order to read it. Investment City, here we come...

I'm happy to go with that. As mentioned, even though I estimated as fine/near fine, the condition is comparable to the Nicholson good fine/fine, and I've been trusting to the photos in that collection when estimating the grades of my William III 1/2ds. I guess some of Nicholson's must be over graded then. I think many lower grade rarities are overgraded when it comes to sale time, it seems to be par for the course. I graded this particular coin on the loss of much detail including parts of the legend. I may have been a little harsh on the obverse, but I still wouldn't rate it as Fine. However, I'd be interested to know how others would grade it?

You said you were considering two and four pences? Apart from Vicky groats, those will have to be Maundy.

I agree with its being a very nice coin. If it did turn out to be an impaired proof, how would that affect its value?

I would personally grade that as G.Fair/N.Fair - that's not to demean its rarity, just a more realistic estimate of its condition.

Goddards is perfectly ok IF you follow some basic rules : 1. Never fully immerse for longer than 10 seconds, rinse thoroughly and dab dry. 2. If using on a cotton bud, don't let the dip be in contact with the stain for any longer than necessary, and wash off as in 1. If it still won't come off, abandon using dip. 3. Never use dip on a proof. 4. Never use dip on a coin with attractive natural toning.

The official proof looks to have a stronger obverse - particularly the forelock; whereas the restrike looks to have a bolder, cleaner reverse. In my book, this would give them roughly equivalent value. Certainly, both coins are equally attractive.

I'm not sure whether there is any such thing - officially - as a 'specimen strike' for bun bronzes; is there anything written up on this?

It's very close to VF in Derek's grading book.

That's a good plan, though a lack of Maundy wouldn't register in many collectors' minds as a 'gap'. I personally would say crown to farthing without Maundy, would make a great type set - bear in mind that Maundy was never issued for circulation.

I have a couple of bun halfpennies sold to me by Peter Viola, that could both qualify as 'specimen' (one's an 1876H too) - the fields are iridescent and prooflike, but are not actual proofs. I'd put up pictures but scans destroy any gorgeousness of tone.

I'm an owner that comes from the Peckris collection - though I do find sleeping curled up in a cabinet a bit cramped

My first impression is that it looks only like a good currency example. However, the reverse - when you look closer - has the appearance that if you held it at a certain angle, would have a prooflike sheen to it. However, that could still mean it was an early strike using (perhaps) a proof die? You'd probably have to see it in hand.

The cap on the final value fee (the 10% cut you give eBay of the final sale price, including p&p) will rise from £75 to £250. So anyone selling an item worth more than £750 will pay a lot mo Yes, but only in increments. Someone selling a coin for £760 will pay eBay £76 not £75, for £1000 will pay £100 not £75, and for £2500 will pay £250 not £75. So it's the coins between £1000 and £2500 that will cause a comparative "ouch". Below that, the increase is probably not enough to deter sellers. I would guess there aren't too many sellers of coins those prices.

A type set is where you collect by a theme - e.g. one coin per monarch, or one coin per denomination per monarch, or one coin of each design change (and that in turn could be all monarchs or just selected monarchs). Type collecting is the opposite of date collecting where you collect a run of every single date (with or without all or some varieties) issued of particular denominations / monarchs. Or you can mix - I have a date run (incomplete) of bronze pennies from 1860 - 1967, halfcrowns from 1911 - 1967, and brass threepences, but other denominations like shillings and florins and halfpennies are geared more towards design types. Early milled (before 1816 for silver and before 1797 for copper) is all by type as funds won't allow anything else! So are halfcrowns before 1911 and pennies before 1860. A 'type set' might also simply be a set of all coins for a particular date, e.g. 1936. Do you have a particular reason for asking?

Are they silver, or copper / bronze? Silver can be gently washed (I'd use pure soap flakes myself) and rinsed then dabbed dry with a towel. Copper and bronze, you could try acetone (NOT nail polish remover!!), or I've used surgical spirit - which is alcohol - with a microfibre cloth rather than a cotton bud.

20 cents for 50% silver florins and halfcrowns can't be bad! Well done that man.

It's a difficult one that. Good quality 2x2 coin flips are a bit of a squeeze for crowns, and not ideal. Mahogany cabinets are expensive, but things like Lindner trays with large recesses might work for you (but in both cases, the coin has to be handled to see both sides.) Perhaps a simple coin album with large pockets would be the answer? But you would need one where the pocket is 'closeable', as normally album pockets are designed to hold 2x2 envelopes. Chris Perkins (this forum) sells a range of accessories - maybe this might help? http://www.predecimal.com/coin-wallet-with-spaces-from-safe-p-570.html

I think we're probably forgetting that eBay is a market for generally low-value (or low-cost) items under many headings, so many traders won't really be affected very much. What we need is a coins-only alternative to eBay where the hobby is understood and the minority of high-value sellers are treated as fairly as everyone else.

Yes, but the argument was "what if halfpenny punches had been used in error?" The fact that other punches also existed is irrelevant - they wouldn't be all mixed up in the same box I would have thought.

Other members certainly have. I tend to use the vinegar option, but I'd hesitate bigtime if the verd was on a special or valuable coin.