azda

I also had it down as EF.

Its not the figures coinery, its the terrible grading

Its what you'll get ripped for after selling it.

This dealers Grading is terrible 260935041622 VF? Anyone care to take a stab at the grade? 330672861000 BU (Yeah right)

Can you recommend a guide that perhaps reflects real prices achieved at auction? I am intrigued for example why decent gold sovereigns often go for 220-240 at a brick house auction and 280-290 on eBay, seems bizarre to me!

The 3pence Proof i mentioned is at about 100 quid 6hrs to go

Really don't know the answer to your question Nick, 15'026 mintage for each denomination would make them scarce though. A nice Florin there but the scratch accross Georges bust is obviously the reason its aFDC I got mine for 90 quid from our leader Chris Perkins over christmas, a bargain in My eyes

Unfortunately i don't know anyone who's 110 this year or i would have snapped his hand off for it Or you could get this one for an extra 35 quid http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GB-1902-EDWARD-VII-HIGH-TIDE-HALFPENNY-LUSTROUS-UNCIRCULATED-FREE-GLOBAL-S-H-/220929412831?_trksid=p4340.m1374&_trkparms=algo%3DPI.WATCH%26its%3DC%252BS%26itu%3DUCC%26otn%3D5%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D5673059152812632208

In that case, my 1927 proof florin (aFDC) was a bargain. I bought it last year for under £110. I have noticed that the Spink prices for the 1927 proof coins are bizarre: £375 for the crown, £90 for the halfcrown, £120 for the florin, £60 for the shilling, £45 for the sixpence and £120 for the threepence. Why would the florin be worth more than the halfcrown, and why would the threepence be nearly three times the value of the sixpence? Its all to do with demand i suppose, i watched a Thrrepence about 4 weeks ag on on ebay, the acorns were worn but it was proof issue, it went for 124 quid. I would hate to think what a real proof without wear would do, perhaps 150: In fact go onto ebay look for aspencoins, he's in the USA and a Threepence Proof is finishing tonight, watch and see what it goes for. I also bought about 2 weeks ago a Proof 1911 Halfcrown for $167, a week later another was up for sale, it went for $285, so someone was pissed off lol

In that case, my 1927 proof florin (aFDC) was a bargain. I bought it last year for under £110. I have noticed that the Spink prices for the 1927 proof coins are bizarre: £375 for the crown, £90 for the halfcrown, £120 for the florin, £60 for the shilling, £45 for the sixpence and £120 for the threepence. Why would the florin be worth more than the halfcrown, and why would the threepence be nearly three times the value of the sixpence? AFDC is not quite proof Nick. FDC would be proof. 27 Proof sets are around 1100 Quid in the cases Peck, take a look on ebay just now and you'll see a few there. We need to get our mindset off what Spink says and take a look at what auctions are selling for. Spink also says that the 2 Pence cartwheel is worth 200 quid in VF, would you pay that for a VF cartwheel?

Got one Paul, in Proof, not a poor circulated piece, perhaps wander over to coin aquisition of the week and Take a tissue for the drool

Nick, i dunno where you've been hiding my friend, but 27 florin proofs are topping the 200 quid mark, regardless what Spink says, so if you find any at less than 120, gimme a shout I paid 140 for 1 2 years ago that did'nt turn up and was gutted, but got a nice One now. Maybe also checck out the 27 threepence proofs, also way over spinks valuations, just My tip

Ten sticks of dynamite hanging on a wall Ten sticks of dynamite hanging on a wall And if one stick of dynamite should accidentally fall There'd be no sticks of dynamite and no bleedin' wall (Thrown out of Scout Camp, our Liverpool troop was, for singing that round the campfire). Try the campfire with the French Foreign Legion

Little white gloves also help when handling, i also have an ultrasonic cleaner

Seuk is also a big collector of these types (Not Spanish though) maybe you want to PM him and ask what he has and where he may have bought

Happy birthday to Tomgoodheart and ColinG (old farts) All the best

I've not had much success, probably due to not knowing what type of lacquer was applied. Once the lacquer has gone off and is as hard as nails, many solvents will soften it, but will require a specific solvent to produce the best results. Depending on the lacquer, you might find that any of turps, ethanol, methanol, acetone or any other solvent may work. As there are going to be several formulations in the market place, without knowing which lacquer was used it is difficult to know the appropriate solvent. That was the worry, I know my luck and whilst it is not a stunner, or the most valuable coin it is the best example I have of a scarcer variety.....so I am really hesitant...mmmm thinking time. I would feel like a criminal if I damaged one of my "precious" coins....starting to sound like Gollum now!! If you have any junk farthings Colin, or just any junk copper why not laquer one then try a few things out yourself and see what/if anything works best at removal, or else try Lindner, they sell that sort of stuff, so perhaps a remover also. Or get hold of the wifes nail polish remover, or your own and give that a go to see if it removes it. Just an idea, hopefully something might help

It has been a great thread, does anyone know if we can access the grading companies photographs at all? 60 quid is an aUNC price for my 6d so it's a fair price, but I think I will be hanging on to it as my best example of an Eddie 7 6d type, thanks all the same! I'd do the same TBH Paul, i'd also hang onto the1915 Halfcrown to

[

You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it? Unless you're an engineer and use a micrometer you can get the exact dia with those without having to measure 10x

I didn't say you said that - your trouble is you don't read posts properly Dave, you just fly off with your first (even if incorrect) reaction. That's exactly the point I was making. Sigh. If you'd only read what people say.. Where did I say "dispensation"? READ WHAT PEOPLE SAY FOR GODS SAKE. I was talking about DIE DETAILS on a smaller coin being less detailed than on a larger coin WHICH IS A FACT. Read Derek's book. I was also talking about the difficulty of rating a small coin realistically when the picture is 10 times life size, and a picture of a halfcrown (say)would be only around 4 times. How can that be a proper comparison? I'm off out. A bit of fresh air will do me good And so how do you think TPGs grade a coin? By just looking in hand Peck? No, microscopes etc with MAGNIFICATION my old china, hence a bigger picture will show off anything, hence TPGs or (CGS) at least are strict. Can you pick me up a vallium while you're out

I would not agree with the "tarnished" verdict - it's toning in its very best guise. As for CGS, I believe they grade over-strictly by modern standards but not by 60s standards. (Essay coming up ... In the 60s, the difference between EF and UNC grades was quite small and the much lower differential in prices reflected that. The written description of EF was "very slight rubbing or wear barely visible to the naked eye". Now it's moved South as a grade, closer to the American grade (though not there .. yet). Probably due to collectos wanting the very finest and willing to pay for it - and therefore by comparison those weren't "the very finest" had to be seen to be not. And so EF standards have relaxed somewhat. I can't see any wear on that coin, though there is a very slight rubbing off of the toned lustre on the obverse (as Rob noticed). However, it's a superior example of that series and I believe would fetch top whack in any auction. AUNC? UNC? As it's not obvious, I don't think it matters. It's a dilly. I would rather not HAVE to use a machine to grade Peck, I would hate to have a coin damaged by one in the process, but if that is the only alternative to human foibles and greed that will give a more honest consistent grading, then i guess it is an option to consider. I still hate those slabs, I removed a 1964 and 65 kennedy half dollar from them a while back, they look and feel much nicer (for american coins anyway ). I think that's where the 3rd party graders do score - despite their 'orrible slabs, they are far more consistent on grading than anyone else. Conservative - yes, but also consistent. And BTW they are staffed by human beings not machines! I didn't say it was tarnished Peck, i was quoting coinerys verdict of the toning in which he stated "the tarnish" i for one like the toning. As for 60s grading, well we're now in 2012 some 52 years on and things move with the tides Peck which i assume would be grading. Paul, if you bought the coin in EF money then i'm sure the dealer has observed what a few others here did not, which was the rim nicks obviously. Peck, your quote abbout smaller coins should have dispensation because they are "small coins" is utter ballony, where would that stop? I have a 3d smaller than a sixpence or i have a 2d smaller than a 3d etc etc etc. A coin is a coin no matter what size and grading standards should apply to all denominations. Paul, your coin is nice, should you decide to sell it on i for one if i were to view it would appreciate large pictures, not everyone is as honest, but if you sell through ebay then just describe it as high grade with a nice gold tone, it should fly in my opinion.

By the looks of it ski, it was when John took the photo. I've done the same a few times after taking a good picture and spotted something, the Charles II maundy 2d being one of those, i did'nt see an inverted C in hand, but after taking the picture it was more than noticable

I wouldn't class those as anything more significant than bag marks, which on some more modern UNC coins look far worse without affecting the technical grade. Remember that's a sixpence shown at around 10 times real size. I think the obverse is a strong strike, which counts in its favour, especially considering there are UNC Edwards of different dates that have less hair detail than that. And don't forget how large the picture has been 'blown up' which ALWAYS affects how it appears. Grading, as you've seen from this thread Nick, is always a highly subjective art. As for your coin, it's a gorgeous example of an Edward sixpence and anyone who says they wouldn't give it space in their own collection is being economical with the truth. Whether you define it as AUNC or UNC makes little difference in the end. Appearance is everything. There are precious few bag marks on that coin. As for the rim nicks - yes, there's clearly one on the reverse at 6 o'clock, but the others I'm not convinced about, particularly when you appreciate just how small the coin really is in relation to the picture. You don't get perfect edges on business strikes, and some of what you are calling rim nicks, don't look like 'cuts' or 'dents' to me, just the way the rim is slightly folded in places. And maybe not even visible at normal size. If we are going to judge everything on super-size enlargements, then we might as well all throw our non-proof coins into the trash. Debbie - there are many factors to take into account. Not the least of which is that small coins are less collected and popular than large coins, precisely because their detail is much harder to make out without using a glass. However, if you used the same glass where it wasn't needed - e.g. on crowns or pennies - you would soon see a plethora of apparent horror stories, which when you see the coin at normal size would NOT be apparent. But, you still need that glass to see if there is wear on Edward's hair and beard : as you do also on his larger coins, him being one of the harder monarchs to see hair wear on. And the principle is also true that grading should be consistent across denominations; a fairer comparison in terms of picture would be one that 'blows up' that sixpence to the size of a real life halfcrown. The other factor to take into account is that detail on small fine parts of the design (e.g. lion faces) is almost non-existent on UNC examples of a small coin, where on a large coin you would use those very parts to judge the first signs of wear. So size does matter when you look at the grade of a small coin, as the die itself contains less detail than the same design on larger denominations. If the coin was sent to CGS Peck, do you believe it would come back as UNC? Personally i don't think it would, but as i've said, it's a nice coin and for coinerys comment that its "tarnished" well, i'd rather buy this coin than a big shiny one without "tarnish" at least i'd know it had'nt been cleaned