Nick

Here's mine. I've no idea whether it's the small or normal variety.

Peter, You are correct about the detecting of old coins. In fact, one of the members of the Muncie Coin Club, sponsors two (2) trips per year, with about 10 people each trip, and goes detecting for those coins you mention. They go 50-60 miles south of London, but I am not sure exactly where. They always find a lot of coins, though some are common. The only thing they don't like about the trip, is having to turn the coins over to the antiqities people for evaluation. It takes them 6 months to a year to get them back! Ha,Ha. That'll be France then! Nick I got a better idea of the location from my friend, about the detecting area, it was 18 miles East of Winchester! He also said he ran one of his tour groups with the Colchester Group, and was less than satisfied. He said they didn't find any coins! That was the only time he had his group book through Colchester. A nice part of the country, a rural area not far from the South Downs.

Peter, You are correct about the detecting of old coins. In fact, one of the members of the Muncie Coin Club, sponsors two (2) trips per year, with about 10 people each trip, and goes detecting for those coins you mention. They go 50-60 miles south of London, but I am not sure exactly where. They always find a lot of coins, though some are common. The only thing they don't like about the trip, is having to turn the coins over to the antiqities people for evaluation. It takes them 6 months to a year to get them back! Ha,Ha. That'll be France then!

These days you can get a hand-held XRF that will give you an accurate answer in seconds.

For once, I'm on NGC's side Copper Zinc is at least as good a description as Nickel-Brass. Copper and Zinc make up 99% of the composition, so Nickel is hardly even worth a mention.

You see that frequently where there are large price differentials between grades. If the seller can manage to inflate the grade by a fraction, it could make the difference of several hundred pounds for a 1905 HC, whereas for a 1902 HC it's just a few quid and probably not worth the effort. How would you grade this, out of interest? Who are you asking? If me, I'd say obverse Fair, reverse almost Fine.

You see that frequently where there are large price differentials between grades. If the seller can manage to inflate the grade by a fraction, it could make the difference of several hundred pounds for a 1905 HC, whereas for a 1902 HC it's just a few quid and probably not worth the effort.

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'. I also asked bout the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less. That seems rather a subjective judgment. A bagmark is a bagmark no matter where it is located. Although the location of the bagmark may well help you to choose one ahead of the other, it shouldn't affect the grade.

The edge lettering is one of the better indicators of a fake 1847 Gothic crown (see the 1847 fake crown thread), so do check it out before parting with any money. The only question I ever ask myself whether I should buy a certain coin or not is "Is this the best example I'm likely to be able to acquire?" If the answer is yes, then buy it.

I would agree that the 39 sets were in production up until the 1887 sets and even after 1887 would they still have been available via the mint? It is conceivable that the dies could have been used up until the death of Victoria as the sets were "made to order" for want of a better term and the Una £5 would probably have been as desirable then as it is now. Which explains the number of varieties of the Una £5, whereby a new die would be engraved as there were no corresponding currency dies to recut. Have we just reinvented the wheel or does anyone have documentary evidence from Mint Records etc to back this up? The Royal Mint Annual Reports contain summary tables of the numbers of each denomination struck in each of the previous 10 years. Using the reports from 1870 until the end of Victoria's reign show that the only years between 1861 and 1901 when gold £5 or £2 coins were struck were 1887 and 1893. Unless, of course, these later 1839 strikings were considered trials or one-offs and don't appear in the official reports.

If you bought it from China, it's 99% certain to be fake. If you bought it from a private seller in China, it's 100% certain to be fake. Faking Chinese goods in China is likely to end up with the death penalty, so they'll make it obviously not an accurate replica. Faking non-Chinese goods is of course welcomed by the Chinese government.

At the risk of sounding stupid how does a coin end up with a reverse which wasnt used for another five years If you think that is strange, check out this proof sixpence. The reverse is dated 1839 but the obverse is the third young head circa 1880. Rarity R5 in ESC (No. 1738).

I am the same. I could probably select my favourite 20 or 30, but beyond that I couldn't choose.

Nick, I have checked the date, there is no overstrike, just some shade during scan On several occasions I've convinced myself that I have an overdate from a digital photograph, only to find when looking at the raw coin under a strong magnifier that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

But that would reduce what they receive at the moment and they are not likely to do that. London Coins (or any auction house) don't really care what the seller takes home, they are only interested in what they take home.

Yes, but if we mention his name this thread will get pulled.

Obverse looks cleaned, but also looks to have the remnants of another numeral under the second one in the date (1 over 8 ?). That is quite interesting, it looks like a 9 to me - never noticed it! But 1898 is Vicky... I will go back and check other two sixpences to compare. Thanks. The numerals were punched in separately, so if the die sinker made a mistake - any overdate is possible.

Obverse looks cleaned, but also looks to have the remnants of another numeral under the second one in the date (1 over 8 ?).

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion! I don't know why they bother with the grade prefixes at all. Why not just stick with the percentages as a measure. Then those who think that a 70 is an EF and those who think it is an AU can both be happy. That's another excellent idea. Isn't that what the Sheldon scale does? I'm not sure whether the Sheldon scale was originally intended as a purely numerical measure, but its implementation by the likes of PCGS and NGC incorporates a "grade" prefix (ie EF 40-45, AU 50-58, MS 60-70)

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion! I don't know why they bother with the grade prefixes at all. Why not just stick with the percentages as a measure. Then those who think that a 70 is an EF and those who think it is an AU can both be happy.

I'm pleased that I didn't make myself look foolish on the predictions although I was a bit high on some. The only surprise for me was that the 1834 came in as low as it did, but all in all, I think you can have confidence in the consistency of their grading and we'll wait and hope for a good result when you see the proceeds of the sales.

An 1894 penny. Quite nice - except for the fingerpriints. They gave it an AU78. Can I ask which TPG it was? I think Red already told you. AU78 rules out NGC and PCGS, so it's gonna be CGS.

Interesting that you say more wear on that one. I would say less wear, but more weakness. Those lions are notoriously weak on some of the Gothic florins. I'll stick my neck out, with an AU78 prediction. Thanks Nick, that's just my ignorance for you! Don't count on it. It's just my opinion, no more, no less. I'm sure that one of the 'gods' will give you a more categorical answer.

Interesting that you say more wear on that one. I would say less wear, but more weakness. Those lions are notoriously weak on some of the Gothic florins. I'll stick my neck out, with an AU78 prediction.

LOL, Nick, just realized we have similar interest and even names are similar! I haven't reached this level yet - we will see. I am trying to find a good database of numismatic data for 1800 onwards UK coins (e.g. good solution picture with details explained, weight, size etc.), seems there is none I had to combine information from http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk, http://coinsgb.com and also our http://coinsgb.com I think I will end up making own database or webpage soon... maybe I missed some good websites? BTW, if admin can see this, the forums 'read first' post has invalid links to grading etc. The weights of silver coins are pretty easy to remember (or at least to work out). All you need to remember is that a crown nominally weighs 0.9090 troy ounces and the others can be worked out from that (halfcrown = 0.4545, florin = 0.3636, shilling = 0.1818 etc). Then you'll probably need to convert troy ounces to grams which is multiply by 31.1034768.