Paulus

Whatever it is, it's completely horrible!

This is what I have been saying Oz, the pics can show/hide a multitude of sins, even without being doctored

It's a journey Hazelman, hang in there! Please take all the advice on here, it saves a lot of time and money!

Richard (that's Tom's real name, Richard2) is an undoubted expert on Charles I Tower shillings on here. I expect him to confirm that the 'bungled' spelling is just a double struck H, the kind of thing that occurs on very many of these coins, and is unlikely to have much affect on value.

Happy Birthdays!

A question for my learned friends on here. I recently picked up a nice example of this coin, which fills a long-standing gap in my collection. In the seller's description, and in other examples of threepences I have seen for sale of this date, they are advertised as Maundy. But, while I now have 2 very nice Maundy sets, I do not collect Maundy oddments, I bought it on the basis that it can't be - according to Spink, the first GIII Maundy set was 1763, so not only must my 1762 3d be a circulation coin, but it is also the only silver denomination to be issued in 1762, and the first for that reign. Is that right?

Could not have said it any better It would be interesting to know if this coin has been sold through London Coins, or one of their auctions

The one you posted the other day? Well there's cheap, and then there's CHEAP! Anyway, I don't believe you!

You're ignoring the significant numismatic value of these historic crowns - quite often I pay more than 10p for a Viccy florin (by way of example)

Why don't we all do it? Maybe we should - bit scared I guess!

I haven't tried this either, but, yes, Coinery (Stuart) can advise, and I am sure one of his pieces of advice would be to practice on a low value/low grade coin that you don't mind ruining

I'm surprised they graded it, I've had coins rejected with less 'damage' that that ...

The power of slabbing? link

How about this for BU http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1863-penny-BU-/331459258624?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item4d2c82e900 As in 'Bloody Uncollectable'?

It's not brown, it's blue! As usual, absolutely stunning Brandon!

Possibly - but they normally say 'Cleaned' if that is the reason for rejection!

lol, ok Dave ... well, some of you got the Viccy half-crown spot-on, and everyone was close - 80 (Choice UNC) The proof crown, 85 (Choice UNC - BU) But in their infinite wisdom, CGS have rejected the GEF (IMO) GIII crown as 'Re-Toned' - quite how they determine that I have no idea! Booo.

Not if you want to sell it!

I know this is bad of me in a sense, but Neil, nF, really??? link

aEF on the 1873 shilling for me

I will post their grades after a few more members have had a chance to guess, but one of the reasons I like to do this from time to time is that it helps to establish whether CGS grading is 'predictable'. We all have concerns over the consistency, accuracy, strictness, vested-interest-ness of TPGs, every little helps - this is not of course, to any degree, a 'quantitative' analysis!. Nick is correct with the 1 + A for the 1887 ('lace open at front of veil')

No nicks that I can see, must be something on the CGS pic. Here is the auction pic: Apart from the inexplicable spot at 4 o/clock on the CGS pic, the CGS pic is considerably more attractive to me than the (DNW) auction pic... photos are everything when it comes to distance selling!

Thank you Stuart for even clicking on the TPG thread! Yes, I'll be keeping that one (and I won't have to worry about paying silly prices for a 1934, like those silly date collector completer types have to!)

CGS grade on their own (unique?) scale of 1-100, with MS64 being equivalent to CGS 80, so I will take that as your guess!

Third (and final) coin: