Test Jump to content
The British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

Nick

Accomplished Collector
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,054

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Nick

  1. Nick
    Looks like a case of mismatched photos. The obverse is from the unmistakable 1935 "Rocking Horse" Crown.
  2. Nick
    No, you haven't missed a digit. The PCGS pop. report contains your number, but the certificate validation section rejects it. Anyway, here's the coin:
  3. Nick
    That number isn't valid VS. Have you missed a digit? It has to be a 7 or 8 digit number (according to the PCGS website).
  4. Nick
    Yes, #3 is a D.484.
  5. Nick
    Looking at the end of Victoria's hair, it finishes in a closed loop so is fourth young head. The third young head finishes in an open hook.
  6. Nick
    You may find that your house contents insurance will specifically exclude your coin collection. Even if they do not, an unlisted collection is treated as a single item and therefore would quickly exceed the single item reimbursement limit.
  7. Nick
    Looks like 4th head to me. 3rd head shillings have T of GRATIA directly to bead, 4th head are to the right of bead.
  8. Nick
    No to both. I've got a slabbed 1926 3d labelled as modified effigy, when it isn't. It's not a tricky variety to spot. However, on the upside, I got it for the price of the much more common ME threepence.
  9. Nick
    Yes, you can. It also allows a 'quiet period' where only VIP callers (designated in your address book) are allowed. I have set this to be between 8pm and 8am. Apart from one or two firmware glitches, which I'm sure they've now ironed out, I would thoroughly recommend it. Understandably, it also requires caller id to be enabled. Edit: Forgot about the annoyingly piercing LEDs on the bases that I had to blank out with gaffer tape.
  10. Nick
    I don't recall, but I'm sure you did.
  11. Nick
    I didn't, but I did flag them up as fake on here at the time.
  12. Nick
    The one thing that really stands out is that both coins are just about identical. Exactly the same lumps and bumps, dings and scrapes. LC should have noticed that, especially as the lots are consecutive.
  13. Nick
    The easiest to spot is the broken garter line above P in PENSE.
  14. Nick
    I have a call blocker phone which has resulted in a 99% reduction in cold calls. The system automatically silently answers calls from unknown callers, asks them to identify themselves and press the hash key. If they do so, the phone will ring and announce who is calling, allowing me to choose whether I let them through or not. If they don't follow the instructions, the system drops the call.
  15. Nick
    Yep. Have a look at the two 1818 halfcrowns in London Coins Auction 144 (02/03/2014), consecutive lots 1652 and 1653. Both fake and obviously so.
  16. Nick
    They are all UNC (or close to) for me. A little friction on the highest points of the 1 and 2.
  17. Nick
  18. Nick
    The information is contained in the Royal Mint Annual Reports which started in 1870.
  19. Nick
    If I had the readies, I'd be going for the high grade 1854 sixpence.
  20. Nick
  21. Nick
  22. Nick
    I agree. There will be huge variability in the slab weights. In contrast, the earlier Victorian standards (relaxed in 1890s) were so strict, especially so for gold, that 50% or more of struck coinage was rejected for being out of tolerance.
  23. Nick
    Those are the official PCGS pictures, not Altas. Looks like they've used a rose-tinted filter.
  24. Nick
  25. Nick
    If the result had been to remain (in the same proportions), would you still be suggesting a compromise? The vote was only close in percentage terms - the difference was 1.4 million people, which is a huge number of people.
×
×
  • Create New...
Test