Nick

Just over 300 (mostly < £5 from eBay) for me, but only 175 turned out to be improvements on what I had already.

It's a thousand and how quickly you get there is entirely up to you.

It's very unlikely to be a proof and for me a coin has to have some eye appeal - and that does not.

I notice that Davies lists four types of 1977 crown: currency, proof-like, proof and silver proof. Does anybody know what form the proof-like was issued in? Is it the same as the specimen in the RM presentation pack?

Every megapixel is sacred. Don't waste 'em.

Many thanks for all the grading suggestions. I'm happy to settle for a grading of aEF (or thereabouts). If only the obverse had the same amount of lustre as the reverse, it would be a stunning coin in hand.

And the reverse...

How about a grade for this one? It has great lustre on the reverse and around the legend on the obverse. As often seems to happen the obverse field is showing signs of light cleaning.

It's the slightly scarcer unmodified head shilling and looks to be in a nice high grade. It doesn't look fake to me, perhaps the collar was a little worn which might explain a slight increase in diameter.

Except for the Maundy coins which were revalued as 1, 2, 3 and 4 new pence.

I often wonder why it is, for the sake of £20 worth of silver bullion, that the counterfeiters don't just do the job properly and be done with it? It depends when the counterfeit was made. A lot of the George III counterfeits were made then to spend as money, so the coin had to be made as cheaply as possible and look good enough to fool. Fakes made yesterday are made to fool collectors so although it would make sense to use silver, that would hit their profit margin - so they use something cheaper.

No. Not many of the Victoria young head maundy sets have shown any increase.

£300

I can save you the bother and tell you that the 1845 Star Stops does not exist Nick. Thanks, that's good news - one more to cross off the list. I did wonder, but thought it unlikely that Spink and ESC would both be wrong. Do you know who referenced it first?

I think those numbers are just arbitrary reference numbers used by that eBay seller.

BM can also refer to the initials of the designer Bertram McKennal which appears on the truncation (the angled surface at the bottom of the neck) of the portrait. McKennal designed the obverses used during the reign of George V.

I am pleased to see that there is now an illustration of what cinquefoils and stars look like. Can't tell you how many 1845 star stops crowns I've looked at only to find that they are cinquefoils.

1050

After a very brief look through it appears that most prices are up 10% or more, with some rarities up by as much as 30%. eg 1841 Halfcrown in UNC is up from £5k to £6.5k

Clashed dies is where a planchet has gone walkabouts (i.e. for some reason isn't where it should be!) - the dies clash together with no blank between them and as a result, the design from one die can leave a faint impression on the other die. This in turn will leave an impression on subsequent coins until noticed and taken out of commission. I'm not sure of the actual physics, as it involves a design that is IMPRESSED somehow transferring (if the design was RAISED it would be easy to explain). Here's an example of a clashed die shilling. The first picture is a merged image to show where the obverse would be on the reverse and the second picture is the actual reverse. A heck of a lot of earlier Victorian coins show signs of die clashing.

Is that not a case of clashed dies rather than ghosting? Could well be a clashed die although the rest of the reverse is struck OK (apart from the 3rd prong). I've had examples with the prong gradually disappearing with no sign of Vickies head.But when the prong has gone completely the head is always there. I think that the two effects (die wear and die clashing) are independent, although a worn die will have had a lot more opportunity to have clashed.

Is that not a case of clashed dies rather than ghosting?

The eBay listing will only persist for a month or two after the sale date. To prevent the images from being lost, here they are:

The more I look at that 1/- the more I'm convinced its wrong. Has anyone dropped a note to the buyer (& seller)? I have a feeling this is all innocent.It would be interesting to trace the history of this coin. I know for certain that this coin has been bought (and returned) on eBay before, but not whether the seller is the same. However, in both cases the seller was from Plymouth, Devon.

I've heard anecdotal evidence about fake 1905 shillings where a 5 has been transplanted onto a higher grade 190x shilling which has the final digit of the date removed. So I would avoid any 1905 shilling where the position of the 5 looks a bit off, or has surface/tooling marks around the 5, or has heavier toning around the 5. There is one on eBay at the moment that I think looks a bit questionable. I just had a look on Ebay and there are several. The dodgy one wouldn't be the one for sale on Saturday at 1:24pm ? Yep, that's the one that caught my eye. In the end it sold for £410. Judging by the positive feedback the vendor received, the buyer seems happy with it - incredible. I did report the item to eBay as a fake but, as usual, they did nothing.