DaveG38

So, pretty much doubled your money. Can't be bad, although I guess it's price today would be even higher than £2k.

Not bad at all. A bit better than mine on the obverse, whereas my reverse is I think a little better. What do you reckon to get for that now?

For me, I recognised that I would never be able to have a completely high grade and extensive collection (unless the National Lottery comes up - some chance!), so I've compromised where I have to, upgraded when I can, and accepted the coins I have may have to be the best I can afford. Taking the 1850 and 54 shillings, I have an example of both. The 54 came from the US and is in only fair condition, but only cost about $5, whilst the 1850 which is GF did cost about £150.00, but when I see one only slightly better than mine going for £2k in an LCA auction, I reckon its a case of accepting mine as it is. To upgrade to even GVF would probably cost many thousands, and to be honest I'd rather spend that sort of money on something older and much more interesting - after all the 1850 is just another bog-standard viccy shilling apart from its date (with due apologies to all the shilling specialists).

I wouldn't disagree in principle with anything people have posted on here about buying the best you can afford, and trying to get a minimum of EF grade. It's a perfectly sensible and practical way to go. However, there are a couple of caveats. Firstly, that's only really a workable policy for readily available coins and dates, unless that is, you have infinitely deep pockets, something most of us don't have. To give an example, if you are a collector of all coins Edward VII, you may well be able to obtain most coins in EF or better for reasonable money. However, if you are a completist, you will want a 1905 halfcrown (and florin and shilling) and you are not going to get these for reasonable money in EF. A halfcrown in Fine alone will likely set you back £500, whilst in UNC you could have to pay around £10k for the best. In this situation you have a choice. Either ignore the hole in your collection or accept that you have to lower your grading goals, at least for this one date and type. Most of us who are completists have this dilemma from time to time and we usually compromise our grading ideals. Only today, there's an example on another thread where davidrj has managed to complete a date run, but the final coin is in pretty low grade, but I bet he's happy to see the gap filled. http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/9947-still-a-completionist-at-heart/ The other point is that those who say that buying lower grade means an upgrade later with more cost are quite right for common coins. However, for less common ones, filling a gap and waiting for an upgrade may be the only way to have the satisfaction of achieving a collecting goal, but it may not cost you money either. For instance, I have a complete date run of halfpennies back to 1672. Of these just about the most difficult to find is the 1689. I bought a River Thames find in near fine condition for £400, some years ago and filled the gap. Eventually, I bought Nicholson's example which is in GF maybe NVF, as an upgrade. I have no expectation that I can find an EF example, and even if I could, that I could afford it, so I have to remain satisfied with the one I have. However, the Thames find subsequently sold for £450, so there was even an up side to the upgrade. I guess the point I'm making is that when it comes to rarities, the idea that upgrades will cost more than buying the best you can doesn't always apply. A final thought and that is that although you can see the ideals for collecting on here, don't run away with the idea that every coin collector only collects in absolutely top grade. It may seem so based on people's comments, but in reality most collectors compromise on some coins some of the time. If they didn't, you wouldn't see the volume of sales on ebay that you do, and dealers wouldn't even bother offering lower grade material, but they do, all the time. It doesn't make you a less serious collector, just because you don't always collect high grade. And finally, finally, for what it's worth, your half farthing seems a perfectly reasonable buy for £4 to me. No, it's not top grade, but it's not the worst either. Based on your pictures, wear is very even all round and the colour looks nice, and I reckon you'd easily get your money back on ebay if you wished.

And what about the parallel lines running across the obverse from SE to NW, but not across the top of the bust?

The differences between GEF and UNC are pretty small, yet the price difference for a specific coin type/date can be huge. For instance, I have seen a GEF with lustre 1895 farthing offered for £85, whilst a BUNC of the same year is offered at £275. Don't get me wrong, the BUNC is a lovely coin, whereas the GEF is much inferior in eye appeal, so the price differential is probably justified, but it does show how the slightest difference in grade at this level can make a huge difference in the price.

Fake slabs maybe???

The 'C' might, therefore, be an abbreviation for Colliery?

An interesting question, one I don't have an definitive answer to. However, if we appeal to logic for a minute, maybe we can get close to an answer. Firstly, the only coins that can truly be described as UNC are those specially struck and contained in the sets or as one-off coins in their RM packaging i.e. coins that are not intended for circulation. In a historical sense you could also include all the patterns that were struck, although as many of these did see circulation this doesn't necessarily hold either. If you then consider coins intended for circulation, these are machine struck and get quite a rough and ready tumbling around before they even get to circulation. Generall, these coins are then bagged up and shipped to the banks for distribution. Technically, between the striking and their appearence in a teller's drawer, these coins are uncirculated, but will almost certainly have marks and dings - often described as bag marks. Again technically, the moment a bank clerk hands over the coin to an individual then it enters circulation. If that individual receives it in a coin bag and puts it into the till in their shop or whatever, then I guess it hasn't gone quite into circulation until the shop owner hands the coin to a customer. That only happens when it goes into a purse or pocket. The problem is that it's impossible to determine whether the marks on a coin are 'bag marks' from the mint or 'pocket marks' from being carried around by the first recipient of the coin. Somewhere along the coins journey from UNC to poor and the melting pot, it will start to show wear and at this point will cease to be UNC, and will be GEF. Based on this quick bit of logic, it is clear to me that unless a coin goes straight from RM/bank bag direct to a collection it isn't UNC, it's AUNC or NUNC, but genuine UNC it isn't. It basically lies in that fuzzy area where it hasn't circulated much at all, and certainly not enough to show signs of wear, but has enough minor blemishes to show that it may have been in circulation or may have just been knocked about in its travels from Mint to bank. From a dealers perspective, the use of UNC basically denotes a coin in this latter condition, but if dealers were pedantic about the description then they would acknowledge that they can't know if it is truly UNC. It is of course in the dealers interest to grade as high as possible, and something UNC or AUNC is a very high grade - the difference in description may make a significant difference in price to the dealer.

But then I've got to clear up the bodies, whereas with a drone I get the fun of chasing the little buggers. Somehow I think that pea-brained pigeons wouldn't get the idea unless I left a pile of bodies around, whereas continuous harrassment with a buzzard would keep 'em off for good. Plus there's the potential for an armed response vehicle turning up after the neighbours start to report a rifle sticking out of the window. How much are they by the way - drones, not air guns.

Anybody know if you can buy a drone that looks like a buzzard or large hawk? Anything to shoo away the pigeons and seagulls. The alternative is an air gun, which might be OK for the pigeons but is a no-no for the seagulls.

http://archive.org/web/web.php is the site to try. It may have 432 Billion pages saved but not the ones we are interested in. However, tadaaah - try this. http://www.colincooke.com/collections/nicholsoncollection.html It doesn't all work exactly as it used to, mainly because the images mostly have to be separately accessed, but the links do seem to work. Haven't checked them all though. Is there any way of saving this for the future, by archiving or downloading?

Anybody know how to get to the cache archive from previous versions of a website? This used to come up on search, but doesn't any more.

For me cricket is about as interesting as examining every coin on ebay one after the other for hours at a time.

In my experience of auctions, the gold rattles through in no time, with prices for the 20thC in particular going at around melt once you take into account charges. Often you see lot after lot of say 1911 sovereigns going through at the same price within 20 seconds of each other. There's little competitive bidding and the prices are always consistent to within a few pounds.

On a slightly different tack, do we know how this coin came to be produced? Deliberate test by the mint, a worker mucking about and producing a mule? And are there likely to be others out there that haven't been found yet?

I don't guarantee these were the correct RM prices as I often bought the sets from people other than the Royal Mint (particularly from Airdales who always sold at a discount on RM prices): 2000 £25.00 2001 £25.00 2002 £25.00 2003 £25.00 2004 £25.00 2005 £35.00 2006 £40.00 2007 £40.00 These are for the standard sets, not any with the fancy packaging.

Is this the same method as used to remove dirt etc. from buried coins? If so, I've got a kit, but will it affect the silver - I have a degree in chemistry, but my knowledge of electro-chemistry is fading now. Just had a look at the instructions for my kit and it says 'do not be tempted to clean silver coins' so I guess that's another idea gone. However, it does suggest using lemon juice (citric acid) to clean the crud off silver. I may well try this one and see how it works.

Is this the same method as used to remove dirt etc. from buried coins? If so, I've got a kit, but will it affect the silver - I have a degree in chemistry, but my knowledge of electro-chemistry is fading now.

Anyone got any ideas about this little conundrum? I've just bought a bulk lot of hammered coins and in amongst them is a group of three silver penny sized coins, plus a couple of slivers of silver, which appear to all be stuck together. From what I can see of the coins, they are fairly low grade and may even be foreign so I'm happy to look to fairly drastic measures to separate them. So what's best? Heat? Oven or blowtorch? Soaking in oil? Prising with a screwdriver (just joking, but......)?? I won't hold it against anybody if a suggestion fails catastrophically.

I'm not sure I see the EU coughing up further cash as its likely to be good money after bad. Two things are a concern. Firstly, its by no means clear what the injected funding is being spent on. There are suggestions that the Greek government is simply using this money to employ more people in the public sector. In other words, its not being used for investment, which might help the economy grow, but is simply being used to garner support for the government. The other issue is the vexed question of austerity and the Greek's ability or otherwise to either service their debts or manage their economy even in default. I've seen it suggeted that even without debt repayments they would find it difficult to manage anyway without further borrowing. Who is going to be daft enough to lend to them in such a situation? Which Eurozone country is going to want to permanently prop up a government that is profligate with other people's money, who have no interest in sorting out the mess they are in, and more importantly have no means of improving their situation? Thank goodness we aren't in the Eurozone - no thanks to Nick Clegg, whoever he was!!

And if there's a 1823 first reverse halfcrown or a 1816 three shillings then bags I first dibs at them!!!

If your box includes a William III crown plus some later crowns plus some hammered, then you will have some value there depending on condtion. For advice you'd be advised to list those early coins and dates, where you can, with perhaps a few pics to give the experts on here something to judge value on.

Hi Dave, it looks like a rev H to me. As you say, G is different in the lighthouse style and base, wide date etc. and Britannia's helmet is a different shape too. J also has a wide date and the sea finishes further from the linear circle as you say. Reverse H should have 4 incuse lines running down from the lighthouse top which would make 5 raised lines. The 2 extra windows sit just above the pair at the top and are much much smaller and shallower than the 4 obvious windows, very easy to miss or even discount them as windows. Even on this coin the windows are just visible http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=733&f=r&s=l Well done and thank you - Reverse H it is. I see the point about the 4 incuse and 5 raised lines now, plus you are quite right about the 4 windows.

I'm having a bit of a job with his penny. The condition isn't great due to corrosion, but as far as I can judge it doesn't seem to fit in with Freeman's descriptors for any of Reverses G, H or J. The date is 1875 with a narrow date, but when I go through Freeman, I've concluded that it can't be Reverse G as it doesn't have a knob on top of the lighthouse and there is a rock to the left of the lighthouse. However, it does have 5 lines coming down from the top of the lighthouse to the brickwork. It can't be Reverse H, as this should have 6 lines down to the brickwork of the lighthouse, plus is should have 6 windows - mine has 4. However, Reverse H does have narrow date numerals. Then there's reverse J, but this has widely spaced date numbers and a thicker lighthouse, plus the sea doesn't meet the inner circle, none of which mine has, so it doesn't look like this type. If I had to choose the most likely option, I guess I'd go for Reverse G, but that still leaves some unexplained features. So, help..... Any ideas?