Nick

Did the seller make a typo with the price on this 1887 sixpence? Or am I missing something? I wouldn't pay £14.99 for it, let alone £149.99.

It seems that it is always the rare variety that ends up with a dirty great hole through it. This looks like a type 1+A (ie same as 1887) die pairing with 1 over 1 in the date. Davies quotes the 1/1 as being 1+B but the only example I've ever seen was 1+A and was sold by DNW in September 2011.

How would you explain the fact that proof coins are usually more toned than non-proof? Surely proof coins would be better looked after than non-proofs, but tone more readily due to an interaction between the metal, the atmosphere and the material contained within the presentation case.

(I had to see this via Tom's relinking...) I'm afraid I'm going to buck the trend here. From the description I expected to see yet another artificial 'rainbow' ugliness, but this wasn't. I agree that it may be artificial and the golden toning is a little too rich, but on the whole I love silver coins with a single colour toning - e.g. blue, or gold, or even grey-pewter. That's not nearly as ugly as I thought it was going to be. I'm with you Peck, I like toned silver. Although, in this case the obverse is not very attractive, but I could easily live with the reverse.

It's the same fake that was discussed here a little while ago. It's amazing that even when told it's fake, some people will bid believing otherwise. It's worth a couple of quid for the silver.

let me explain for those not familier with betting odds...... liverpool are quoted as 10-1 to win the premiership this season....what this means is, if you bet £1 on liverpool............................................................................................................................................youve wasted a quid Hm .. wonder what odds you would have got at half-time in the 2005 Champions League Final? i may be wrong but this may be dito for lizzie le deux, ascended to the throne in 52 but got the hat in 53. Correctamundo. Also true for George VI, his brother having abdickered in ?December 1936 (the year of three monarchs). And Edward of scarce silver fame, he deaded in 1910. As scott says, you'd be hard pressed to find someone whose accession, coronation, and first coins, all happened in the same year. George II was the last one where that occurred. Before that there was George I, Anne... They seemed to be much quicker with the coronations in those days.

Just checked the Spink catalogues from 2008-12 and there are only two £2 designs listed for 2007: 300 years since the Act of Union between England and Scotland; and 200 years since the Abolition of the Slave Trade.

What about those listed on page 546 of the 2012 catalogue?

I had a Richard Head in my class at school ... Didn't we all. Oh sorry, you mean a real one.

It doesn't appear to be any better than Fine, so that would be about the £50 quid mark.

I don't think the quality was as good this time. I only had an interest in 3 lots, which is fewer than normal.

If both sides are from the same coin, it is a silly error. The last year to have Victoria's veiled head on the obverse was 1901. It should have Edward VII on the obverse. If only all fakers were as stupid.

How could you possibly know that? I did say 'appears'. I noticed that, in most cases, when the sale of a lot was started with a postal/email bid that was then outbid in the room, there was rarely a counter bid from the initial bidder. This suggests to me that the maximum bid was used to kick-off the sale. You might interpret it otherwise? That does sound odd, but I do know from personal experience of London Coins that I have won many absentee lots below my maximum.

How could you possibly know that?

A lot may be withdrawn for any number of reasons, so it may not be because it is suspect. However, it doesn't look right and the wear doesn't seem very consistent. There are reasons why I think this one is suspect, but I'd prefer not to give the faker the opportunity to do a better job next time.

It looks OK to me. The 5 looks double struck, but doesn't look like it has been altered.

Apparently, depression was great back then.

because they have been given to me as gifts and i like em... i doubt the collection i have would constitute a collection. anybody else want to give me an ounce of silver for free 50p olympic collection now sold due to tight wadded jock time waster. ...and there is no better reason.

They're ahead of you. Philip Skingley's foreword to the 2012 Spink says, "It is our intention for the next edition to split the catalogue into two volumes, separating the decimal coining into its own stand-alone volume." He goes on to say that this will allow both sections to expand. Good news for those of us with only a passing interest in decimal currency! But not for those of us whose interests cross the divide.

If you register with Heritage (www.ha.com) you can get access to their auction archive. The archive is searchable and you will be able to find images of many high grade coins (mostly certified by PCGS and NGC). The images are fairly huge and mostly show good detail.

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era. So for George V shillings and sixpences, missing details for the lion's nose is more likely due to a weak strike, rather than wear, if the rest of the coin looks UNC? BTW what do mean by the "pre-ME George V era"? Thanks again. ME stands for modified effigy which was first used in 1926. Ah, makes sense now, thanks! So do the coins with the modified effigy tend to be better struck? Though these of course are debased 50% silver, though I guess the metal composition will have an impact here too I would say that the ME coins are better struck, but whether that is purely down to the new portrait I don't know. I don't think the metal composition is the reason as that was .500 silver from 1920 onwards and there are plenty of weak 1920-1925 examples. Perhaps the new metal composition, being less dense, allowed the striking pressure to be increased.

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era. So for George V shillings and sixpences, missing details for the lion's nose is more likely due to a weak strike, rather than wear, if the rest of the coin looks UNC? BTW what do mean by the "pre-ME George V era"? Thanks again. ME stands for modified effigy which was first used in 1926.

Nick, did we overlap posts? See my reply above yours! Indeed we did.

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era.

I think it's reverse C.