Peckris

When Rotographic was owned by Mr Marles he used to publish CCGB with the note that prices were compiled from 'Auctions and dealers lists', but that raises a whole raft of potential problems : 1. A coin turns up in an auction during the year, and is bought by a dealer at half its 'book price', for stock. 2. The same coin turns up on the dealer's list at 'book price'. 3. Eventually he sells it at a discount because it's not moving. 4. The buyer changes their mind and submits it for another auction where this time it's bought by a collector at 3/4 book price, dealers having dropped out. So the same coin data could have been used three times over in the guide - one from an auction where 'wholesale' price was paid, once from a dealer's list where there were no takers at that price, and once from another auction where it realised 3/4 book price. The compilers of a guide would get completely knotted up about the coin's value, and would probably list it lower than a collector might be prepared to pay, who was looking for that specific coin to fill a gap.

I could only accept this argument where the publishers are also dealers (qua Spink). Where there is no axe to grind - CCGB, CMV, The Year Book - what's in it for them? I presume the sales of neither CMV nor Seabys suffered during the long stagnation of the mid-80s to mid-90s, even though collectors must have been buying those guides more in hope than expectation. Also, don't ignore the distorting effect of type collectors, who will keep the values of - e.g. - 1902 coins higher than perhaps they merit, simply because most type collectors know that's the most cost-effective date when collecting Ed VII. On the other hand, if you're only discussing hammered I'll back out, as I have little interest in or knowledge about that area of collecting.

Maybe this was only ever an urban myth - is it supposed to have the Britannia reverse or the 4d reverse?

Yes - the 3 leopards are usually small even on florins and halfcrowns. Tom Jones to see them weakly defined, especially the faces. However that example you've posted has also had some rubbing to it, and you can see that most on the hind-quarters of the leopards and the shield, where the metal shows a lighter colour than the rest of the coin. It's actually quite a common feature on George V reverses up to 1926 : the bronze suffers equally with Britannia's face and chest taking quite a hit. The problem is caused by the particularly high profile of GV on the obverse. I did a series of pictures showing how this causes 'ghosting' and weak reverse spots, and I attach the picture I did for the florin, from my BU 1914 example. (The red line shows where the edges of the GV bust are on the obverse.) I'm glad you show an interest in George V. It's a fascinating reign, with lots of numismatic interest exceeded only by that of George III in the milled era.

No way can that be described as F ! The reverse ... maybe ... but the obverse is Fair only.

I thought that most of the oil is off the Shetlands and the previous time independence came up the Shetlands said they would stay with the English. Hmm. Shades of Alaska? Anyway, if the Scots raised the price of Brent crude it wouldn't make a lot of difference at the pumps given how much Dick Turpin George Osborne takes in fuel duty.

Forgeries on their own, or forgeries + evasions? I'd be inclined to think it was the latter. Trade tokens in the UK rendered contepmorary forgeries less necessary.

...good point, well made. It's just so typical of SE arrogance that they think they are funding the rest of Britain. And where WEREN'T the manufacturies and foundries during the Industrial Revolution? Yeah, you guessed it - in the SE...

"I think there is an error, looks like1895 is reversed, I am not sure of the value but This could be your next treasure." Aww, bless.

I'm with you there Dave, but for me it's the Tory b******s in the Home Counties who should declare independence and leave the rest of the UK to everyone else including the Scots. Your part of the UK would be a bit short of income if they did. Elmbridge in Surrey (£1.18bn) alone pays more income tax than Glasgow (£898m), Sheffield (£812m), Aberdeen (£728m), Cardiff (£589m) and Newcastle (£443m). Income tax payers are the poor little pampered darlings who've all had it very very easy since the 1990s. Meanwhile the rest of us, as ever, pay VAT on nearly everything we buy, crippling fuel duty on our transport, Council Tax, insurance tax, and anything else the Government can think up to scorch us for. I have absolutely no sympathy with or pity for income tax payers in the slightest, or in the good citizens of Elmbridge in Surrey...

I'm with you there Dave, but for me it's the Tory b******s in the Home Counties who should declare independence and leave the rest of the UK to everyone else including the Scots.

If the buyer and seller mutually agree that's the price of the transaction, then it's fair. Whether that means it's also 'realistic' or 'normal' or 'what you could expect to pay', is a whole different matter.

I grieve that the scans of my own (non-proof) crown are so poor I'd love for you all to see how it really looks. :(

That's gorgeous - looks almost like a clay model rather than metal.

Is that a 1674 farthing?? Zooming in my screen, I'm near certain it's 1675.

It took a foray into dealing to learn this lesson. Before then, I considered Seaby / Spink to be the absolute 'bible' on coin values, and never even queried that if that were so, then why did CMV and the Year Book exist? It was buying and selling that taught me to take even "the bible's" valuations with a certain pinch of salt. A rough guide, certainly, but not to be taken too literally. Yes, I do like it! It just took a while for the penny to drop, and for me to calculate that one hammered Spink ref can cover 50+ varieties of one coin and numerous mint marks, common and rare alike!Rare mint mark of same S number sells £500 Common mint mark of same S number sells £140 Ref guide so far = £320 Simples! Edit: moral of the story is don't expect to get £320 for your common mint mark, just because the Spink's guide values it 'group' as such! That doesn't sound right, Stuart. Surely a rarity weighting needs to be included in the algorithm? Here's a puzzle for the weekend: If there are two varieties of a coin and the rarer, worth £100, appears 1/10 of the time, while the more common, worth £10, appears 9/10 of the time, show that the weighted average value is £19. :-) Shouldn't this be the Spink value? Absolutely not. It would be 100% misleading and would make buyers of the common variety - paying £10 or heaven forfend £12 - think they had got a bargain, when in fact they had not. As Nicholas says, either just publish the standard 'normal' variety and mention there are rarer varieties too, or give separate prices for both. The former method was the early Seaby practice until 1968, and is still the Spink practice for much of the hammered and ancient content.

Believe it or not, that's how they used to do milled as well, especially early milled. I have the vague idea that the 1968 "Part 2" Guide (from 1816 to date) was the first to do values by date - and even then most varieties were not included apart from the obvious like H and KN and LT etc.

To be honest, I don't think those small marks count for much - as Peter says, the picture is blown up, at life size they would be barely noticeable.

Are they photos or scans? If you look at the scans of mine, you will see the difficulty. In hand it is a predominantly untoned, full bright lustre coin (BU). Unfortunately, the scan threw highlights from the lustre all over the place, and even after reducing the highlights and contrast & adjusting the Levels to give that totally unreal appearance you see, the remaining highlights are 'blown' and can't be reduced any further. It only goes to show that the ONLY way to see a coin's full glory, is to have it 'in hand'.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted. We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs. No, what I meant was - only the third image you linked seems to be an incontestable proof. The others (including Rob's and the SNC examples) COULD be simply prooflike. Now I understand.... I am a bit slow but I get there eventually On the other hand, that third image is a 'bronzed proof' - the others could simply be 'normal' proofs? Or indeed, just 'prooflike'. It's a minefield.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted. We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs. No, what I meant was - only the third image you linked seems to be an incontestable proof. The others (including Rob's and the SNC examples) COULD be simply prooflike.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted.

Sounds like a misstrike on the wrong blank. These things do happen from time to time, most are spotted but occasionally one gets out.

Yes - if you look at George's strap and the horse's chest muscles on mine, they're the same as the coin on the left, whereas that CGS proof is as detailed as the coin on the right. I think that proves it?

I think that's a distinct possibility : my own example is as near BU as you could get (despite the noxious lousy scan ) but as you can see, the strike is no better than the coin on the left :