Coinery

Not so much a laugh, really! I'm beginning to wonder whether the bidders have missed the former reverse brooch mount on this one! 111022820896

The most obvious feature of the forgery is an elongated serif to the 1 in the date, I only have a poor image of a forgery listed last year on Ebay, I have paired it with the Nicholsons coin. Many thanks for that, chingford, much appreciated!

It certainly doesn't, it makes the coin AUNC/EF...but each to their own!

Also, being quite new to post E7, I've noticed how variable the obverse and reverse quality can be. As I compare coins of the same dates and try my best to pick the better coin (buy one, sell the lesser), I am constantly struggling with 'yep, much better obverse, excellent', only to flip them over and think 'oh, bugger, why couldn't that have been simple and the reverse be better too'! And that doesn't even touch on the quality of rims (G5 HC's spring to mind) or bag marks, nicks and knocks, etc. I'm guessing an AU75 G5 HC could have a NEF obverse and an UNCish reverse, or be UNC with poor rims and excessive bag marks, or be a fantastic example of an EF coin? Could I buy those blind and say I'd be happy with all 3 coins? I'd definitely be able to pick a clear favourite from the three coins, but would it be an AU75?

Are there any good quality images of the forgery around, John? Is it a clear spot?

CGS going belly up is something I've thought about! If they were no more, would their slabs lose their value over time, as they fade into memory? What happened to the slabs of the comparable company that folded in Australia, I think it was?

Not being in the least bit legally minded, does anyone know of an idiot-proof template for a privacy & cookie policy, that would cover most the bases for a small coin website with shopping cart, etc, without being unduly complicated?

This one just doesn't look right to me, the devices all look a little cast...I could be wrong, but it could be a contemporary counterfeit! And that's no bad thing if it is!

I've never heard of a 'shift' + key combination being used in that way, it's usually Ctrl or Ctrl-Shift etc. Is that an I-phone thing? Anyway, pressing Shift-R or A makes no difference to my web browsing experience. Yes its to do with phone browsers, some networks reduce the bandwidth by limiting the picture size until you request an improved image. i have never had it happen on my i-phone, but I have heard of other mobile users having similar issues. Thanks Colin. I just did a quick google to find out about it and it seems to be that some mobile internet providers have enabled high image compression by default to reduce the amount of bandwidth eaten up by downloading hi-res pictures. It also appears that it can be turned off if so desired and you're happy to pay for the consequences. On the iPhone the screen it too small for it to make a difference, but on the laptop with Orange Dongle it really screams at you! Every image you move your curser over (including buttons [pay now, etc.]) you get a small pop-up telling you to shift and F to improve the image. It's quite time consuming when you're wanting to do a bit of quick sniping, as the 'improved image' isn't an instant thing, can sometime take a second or two! However, the mobile Internet is cheap enough, so can't complain!

I believe that is something to do with your own internet connection and limited bandwidth, therefore other people would not see that suggestion unless they had the same restrictions in place. Brilliant, thanks, Colin. I only have a 3G dongle to work with, so that would explain it! Really put my mind at rest!

Can anyone expand on my understanding of the 'shift & R/A' action? Basically, I'm putting together a little website, just to sell off my duplicate George coins [and maybe a few others] but, whenever I browse the site 'live', I'm having to Shift & R/A to see each image (including my logo) in its full 'sharpness' (I notice this too when browsing eBay images). So, is this something I can't avoid? Is this just a part of the web-browsing experience, or is it a setting on my computer? Would everyone else view my site and have to Shift R/A to view it at its best?

Top point, I was worried there for a second! Stamps have nothing of the heritage coins have! Phew!

Not Debbie D Dallas? I've just had a horrible thought - what if "our" Debbie didn't realise I wasn't talking about her? She may not be familiar with that eponymous piece of porn... Oh, you're in trouble! Lots of double negatives...Dave fill your boots!

I second that. Whatever our individual views on slabbing, Bill, you have come on here and argued your case in a most thorough and courteous manner. Hear, hear! I'm extremely grateful for your courtesy, and gigantian input into this thread! I cannot say that I am suddenly going to start slabbing all my shillings, but it shines through that you are passionate about coins...and it's passion that counts in this the pastime of kings!

But how many Churchill Crowns, E2 & G6 farthings, to name but a few, could be added to the peanuts list? With Bill's couple of thousand coins, and the E2 pre and post decimal coinage, plus my 10 slabs and VS's mint-flavoured NEF '35 Crown...what was that population report again? Anyway, where's MY '67 penny, then?

The slab plastic costs pennies! Even at non-commercial rates, you can buy the plastic shells for around 50p (I think it was something like that, I do remember it being insignificant when I looked) from the US (made me consider encapsulating my own coins, if the main argument is 'protection'). Without the post, £11 fee, or petrol costs involved, it wouldn't be a such bad day-job, sticking a £2 coin in a slab and calling it AU/UNC etc, and then firing it out to the masses at £20+ a throw. In my view it's only economically viable for one source! I've never heard of any collector submitting a 1967 1d for encapsulation, but I bet they're out there! I bet someone somewhere once had a mint roll of them, and just sat up all night with a tube of glue and a cup of coffee, just before a holiday in Mauritius? According to the CGS population report, they've slabbed 62 of them. A holiday for TWO in Mauritius, then!

The slab plastic costs pennies! Even at non-commercial rates, you can buy the plastic shells for around 50p (I think it was something like that, I do remember it being insignificant when I looked) from the US (made me consider encapsulating my own coins, if the main argument is 'protection'). Without the post, £11 fee, or petrol costs involved, it wouldn't be a such bad day-job, sticking a £2 coin in a slab and calling it AU/UNC etc, and then firing it out to the masses at £20+ a throw. In my view it's only economically viable for one source! I've never heard of any collector submitting a 1967 1d for encapsulation, but I bet they're out there! I bet someone somewhere once had a mint roll of them, and just sat up all night with a tube of glue and a cup of coffee, just before a holiday in Mauritius?

I think this is a major issue. If people are relying on their grading then they need to be independent and seen to be independent of both buyers and sellers. As the Americans might say ... it is Ethics 101. I have my high grade coins slabbed by CGS mainly for protection and ease of viewing. I do find their grading generally strict but I think that's probably a good thing. I too find their intimate relationship with London Coins of some concern. As stated on their website, London Coins (Holdings) Group Ltd owns 51% of CGS. I don't have a real problem with that or the fact that London Coins auctions CGS coins on behalf of clients. However, I just think that the selling of CGS slabs on the London coins website (and the auctioning of these slabs when they fail to sell) raise questions of on the independency of CGS. The problem here is not whether CGS act ethically or not - and I have no doubt that they are entirely ethical and above board. It is the perception that matters. While there is a link to a major vendor - in this case London Coins - there will always be a suspicion that they grade higher to get better prices and therefore higher commissions or profits. And it only takes a couple of unhappy customers to start that ball rolling. I wouldn't say VS is unhappy with his '35 Crown!

Must change my name to Martin Platt - those puppies look like they could do with some cleaning.. by hand of course (oh, now I need a dip - in cold water ) Class Pies! And you too Peckris!

3+C '75 Farthing (H below) and WHAT'S wrong with the ER '22 thrupence? Explain? VC - Oh lazy me: don't have mine available - 530? Not the 1922 bit? (someone had their tongue-in-cheek mode on!)

And there was only the 1736 and the 1746 for George II. Your's is the Young Portrait George, confirming this coin as the earlier dated 1736! The British Museum Collection number for your coin is: BMC850 and catalogued as Scarce (enjoy that bit)! If you've ever heard of the Spink's guide, which is pretty major in this country (though not as important as Peck [bMC]), it is S3717 in that catalogue. Looking forward to your next find! Sorry, just re-read your full post: Market Value would only be a couple of dollars! For around $30-$170 you could get a pretty little companion for it. A really interesting day for you and your son, however, and that's the essence of it all!

3+C '75 Farthing (H below) and WHAT'S wrong with the ER '22 thrupence?

The poor thing, I think you should have left it in the slab! Nice coin!

Shift + R improves the quality of the images! Should I have done that BEFORE uploading to PhotoBucket?

And the unforgiven! Sorry...unconfirmed!