JLS

Yeah...I wouldn't go so far as calling that a problem coin...but it's definitely been mishandled at some point. aFDC with surface marks, can't be above a PR65. But these numbers are really a marketing trick with US auction houses, I think they tend to get the best number from the TPG that's plausible\. At least we don't have the nonsense of CAC labels with British coins. Looking through London Coin's archives, it's extraordinary to me that you could buy one of these described as "nFDC" for under £2000 less than 20 years ago.

Is it just me, or is this not actually a choice piece? The frosting might be excellent but I don't like the marks in the field.

The mintage is over 700... Must have been a very happy vendor. I can't imagine the prices staying this high because you could buy a whole set ten years ago for around £10-15k - I imagine there are a fair few people who bought back then or earlier who'll be tempted to submit to PCGS or NGC and cash in.

£60k...that was for a Una and the Lion right ? Still crazy. If it's for an 1887 or 1893... 😮 those are not even rare coins....

Here you go ! This medal exists in brassed bronze (as shown) as well as in bronze, gilt bronze, white metal and silver. I have all except the silver striking which is very rare. Not sure if this actually dates to ~1936 or whether it is a later fantasy, but it rarely turns up in pristine condition which to me suggests an earlier manufacture if not contemporary.

Weirdly enough this reverse design was reused for an Edward VIII coronation medal...

I wonder whether it's worth stopping it by putting a few hundred pounds on it and then refusing to pay...

All of the seller's other listings appear to be fake coins. The half stiver is hilariously bad. Some of the rest are pretty good. The only coin I think may be genuine is the Swiss thaler, although it has a strange tone.

Yeah, although a good 40% seem genuine. I think I bought a British Indian coin off him a while back and it was OK.

The fields look photoshopped to me... And yeah, there seems to be a lot more leniency for high end coins or major rarities. You just need to flip through a Heritage auction catalog to see the sorts of things which PCGS or NGC will grade straight despite serious problems.

Hi all ! Anyone know what to make of this 1839 farthing ? With a very high rim like you see on the bronzed proof. The edge has 4 very fine lines scored onto it. I would have thought this was an impaired copper proof except for the die clash under Victoria's hair. Does anyone else have a currency 1839 with a proof-style rim ? J

https://www.ebay.com/itm/274012708581 Fake Bank of England dollar with crazy artificial toning. Doubt it's even silver.

Please do - still looking for acceptable examples of plenty of common tokens ! Let alone the RR and RRR pieces....

Good luck with the Kempson tokens - beautiful things. I have a few from the London churches series knocking about somewhere. The unofficial farthings is probably the most actively growing bit of my collection right now...I just love being able to buy rarities in the series for £15 or £100, not normally a possibility in most other areas of collecting right now for better or worse. Although I'm also doing a date/mintmark set of the French revolutionary copper coinage and have had some good junk bin finds.

I thought so initially too, as that's the commonest type, but wouldn't the obverse have relief lines on the leaves then ?

More recently collected unofficial farthings: here are two which are not photographed in Withers ! W4640 - the Central Boot and Shoe Steam Factory. Listed by Batty so pre-1865. I've wanted this ever since I saw Will1976's piece (photographed above in this thread) and luckily one turned up last week. And W4097, the rarer W Ingman token of Nottingham. Listed in Chamberlain, "Nottinghamshire Advertising Tickets, 1989" - would be very interested to see a scan of the plate piece if anyone has a copy.

I'd go for "about Fair". The portrait is strong enough, look at that great ear detail. Legend a bit too weak as you note. Reverse devices are also not really quite there. But you'd really need to miss a few letters of the reverse legend to get to a "Poor +" grade, or an old-fashioned British "mediocre". Incidentally, now I've looked at the thing for a minute or two, isn't there a big die clash left of the reverse shield ? Think I can see the shape of Victoria's hair tie.

A diversion from the topic of this thread, but my experience collecting the William & Mary and William III halfpennies so far is that a lot of the "extremely rare" varieties are readily available if you're willing to accept atrocious grade. There are also a lot of new varieties and sub-varieties knocking around. I found what appears to be a totally new 1701 halfpenny obverse variety in a dealer's junk bin for £10 at the last London coin fair, and I've got a few more which look interesting but I'm trying to find a better example of to confirm the variety. There's a long history of flan and die flaws being miscataloged in the series.

Ah cheers Rob - I forgot about the Willliam III halfpenny, even though it's listed on eBay right now. Presumably the Anne halfpennies and P490 were officially struck like that as patterns ?

I messaged the seller, who's taken this down now...

Agreed, I am collecting these at the moment and a normal coin definitely has some legend oddities. For the Peck 705 variety there seem to be a large number of die combinations, despite the odd combination of As for Vs in the obverse legend and the large O in the date. The large O punch seems to have been prepared to cover up a misplaced 1 or for a 1701/1699 overdate (both appear to exist), and then used liberally to make new dies.

It's unlikely to be fake. I wouldn't bet much on their ability to detect more subtle forms of damage, and the attributions can be wrong.

I think these are a fairly common class of mint sports - that is, totally unauthorized. I can't see what the rationale to prepare them officially would be, One exists for the pre-1949 George VI penny as well, slabbed and sold by Heritage as a mint sport rather than a genuine error: https://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-george-vi-double-obverse-penny-1937-1952-/a/3000-51891.s There also was a 1969 50 pence double obverse sold by London Coins a few years back in the £300 region. The earliest double obverse coin I know of is an 1831 US cent in the November 1879 Bangs & Co. sale. I think it's since lost to the mists of times, but likely wasn't a forgery given that the catalog was prepared by John W. Haseltine, who was notoriously meticulous.

Anyone recognise the handwriting on this ticket ? Not getting any information beyond the provenance from it myself, but I'm a novice at this.

Also found this great countermark on an 1862 bun penny - probably going to be a research piece for a while unless I can find an example where it's struck properly.