Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook


The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.


Accomplished Collector
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Nick

  1. 1) B.P. are the initials of the designer of the famous George and Dragon reverse - Benedetto Pistrucci. 2) Perhaps gF to aVF. 3) Spink catalogue for Half Sovereign without BP in exergue (S.3881A) has prices £100, £125, £395, £2150 for F, VF, EF and UNC respectively.
  2. The attached picture of the 2011 Proof set illustrates what Peckris has just described - the Royal Shield of Arms spread over several coins and a fair amount of fresh air.
  3. You buy it and I'll lend you the Brasso. Incidentally, do both Rob's higher grade coin and that on E-bay look as if the 7 has been struck over a 6, or is it just me? I can't see it on Rob's second image, but the other two do especially Rob's first image.
  4. Don't think so. For what it's worth, the two below were on the website in the past couple of years. The first one looks to have the same slightly smaller 7 which is possibly over a 6. Apologies in advance for the autodefocus on the second one. Thanks Rob. Your first image definitely looks like a 7/6 and is very similar to the one on eBay, so perhaps the eBay one is OK. I am always a little suspicious when a rare coin turns up with a different looking digit or a previously unrecorded overdate.
  5. The 1827 shilling and sixpence are two more coins that could be added to the rocking-horse-poo list. The 1827 shilling is rarely seen in a better grade than VF and the 1827 sixpence is rarely seen in any grade. So it is surprising to see an 1827 shilling on eBay claiming to be gEF. However, to me the 7 of 1827 is looking a bit suspect. I wonder if it's had a transplant. What do you reckon?
  6. When I first read this, I just accepted it as correct. But it isn't. The current queen's coin portrait faces to the right.
  7. It was the "Lion rampant on crown, within circle" reverse design, not the usual "oak sprigs and acorns". A certain amount of the price may be due to the provenance that it came from the late Alfred Bole's collection.
  8. Nick


    Not sure he can block postage to Poland now that its been bid on Colin, he can't revise it anymore. Peter, you'll have to do as Colin has said after the listing has ended, unfortunately i don't think you can revise the item now its been bidded on Or you can end the item early and relist.
  9. London Coins have one showing on the preview page for their December 2011 auction, although it's not in great condition.
  10. There was one up for auction in a St James's Auction late last year. It went for £440 and it wasn't even in fine grade. You do see them turn up occasionally on eBay, but usually in poor condition.
  11. Nick

    Ebay's Worst Offerings

    Well, you say that. But it's actually London Coins, a UK firm. Of course it shouldn't be too surprising given their interest in swaying us all to the benefits of slabs. But £80?? For a £2 coin? Will anyone buy do you think? It's the London Coin Company, not to be confused with London Coins Ltd who have the close link to CGS UK.
  12. Try emptying your browser cache or forcing your browser to reload the page. In IE that's the two green arrows circling each other at the top. It may be that your browser is being lazy and loading the old page instead of looking for a new one so it will show your old avatar. Regards Kris Thanks. It was the browser cache that needed clearing, although if the forum software generated unique filenames for uploaded pictures that would not be necessary.
  13. I've tried uploading a new one, but the old one persists. I can remove it completely, but not change it. Any ideas?
  14. Well spotted! Mine doesn't have one... Mine does... but it's not the same extra one.
  15. How can you be sure Nick? The pictures aren't that big (it's one time where "azda size" images would actually help ). I can't make out any scratches at all. As for the toning, the dark patch surrounding GEO is the same on both, but the similar dark patch around REX on the right, doesn't appear on the unslabbed picture (left). Also, there appears to be loads of lustre on the left, but none at all on the right. The only way to completely 'kill' lustre is via scanning, but the slabbed picture must be a photo not a scan. Either way, I wonder at the seller paying £10 to slab a sub-£30 coin - its population rating of 9th out of 9 comes as no surprise at all. What is surprising is that 9 people have bothered to pay CGS to slab a 1929 halfcrown! CGS have made £90 minimum out of that particular exercise. "Nice work if you can get it". If you look at the area around the truncation, there is a spot just to the left of the tip, a horizontal scratch on the neck just up from the tip and another spot to the left (as you look at it) of the X. These all match up on both photos. At a glance though, I would agree that they do look like different coins. I've often wondered why low grade (or common) coins are submitted for grading. Could it be that CGS UK give discounts for bulk submissions? Or perhaps, some people are just deluded into thinking that their coin is the best out there. Here are the cropped photos scaled to the same size (I cheated slightly by downloading the left picture from the CGS UK website).
  16. It's not that Colin - in the slab it looks a bit worn, i.e. EF maximum, but outside it looks not only UNC but most lustre too. It is the same coin though (the tiny scratches and specs in the patina match up). It shows that it's possible to flatter a coin simply by choice of angle of lighting.
  17. I would welcome your comments on this 1911 proof florin. Is the toning absolutely natural, decidedly suspect, or somewhere in between?
  18. Here's a low contrast photo with the reflected light angled straight into the camera. It does at least show the full extent of the toning.
  19. Looking at the way the blue is precisely on all four crowns, but has also slightly 'crept' over the raised top of two shields and contaminated a few random harp strings, I'm thinking it's probably artificial. Having said that, it's certainly not unattractive, but I'd want to see it in 6 months', a year's, time and check if it's still the same. The picture was taken more than a year ago and, having just looked at the coin again, it is still in the same condition. However, the photo is a little misleading as to where the colours are contained. The cyan occupies all of the periphery of the coin and the orange and crimson everywhere inside that. I'll see if I can get a photo to show that.
  20. OK, I'll go first with a classic bit of fence sitting of the 'I would need to see it in the hand' variety. What is the obverse like? Here's the obverse.
  21. yes theyre very good at showing the difference.....sadly ive never seen any pictures as good as these when trying to buy a double florin. Im also wondering if the beads on a double florin lessen the effect of the square rim in photos. i dont think i would have a problem if sellers photos were as good as dereks. cheers azda. ski Here are a couple of pictures showing 1887 Arabic double florins (currency and proof). As has been said earlier the uniformity and 'squareness' of the rim and the sharpness of the edge graining give the biggest clues. The proof in the picture is slabbed and unfortunately the edge is obscured.
  22. It appears to me that CGS UK are becoming even stricter on grading, especially on 20th century coins. I think I'd have been pretty disappointed if this were my coin and it came back as only EF70.
  23. And of course they'll all be choice UNC, full lustre and undervalued.
  24. London Coins 'Realised Prices' archive is a good place to look. As for the R. Ingram example, the picture isn't particularly convincing. I dunno how lot 244 made more than 1179 in those results, 244 looks as though it had some cleaning to the OBV behind the bust of Victoria, very strange result that, 1179 looks far superior to me I agree, although 1179 seems to have quite a lot of surface marks in front of the face. The one thing that is annoying about London Coins pictures is the inconsistent style. Some are large, some are small, lighting and backgrounds vary which make comparisons difficult. They should just settle on a photographic setup and stick with it.