JLS

That's a higher mintage than most 50 pences in gold though ? Maybe they didn't anticipate such high demand.

I really wouldn't grade the obverse VF. The hair detail is there, yes, but a VF coin shouldn't have general areas with loss of detail like the left side of Victoria's neck (no definition on the line), right shoulder, left side of the rim near VIC. This coin is a straight Fine. Some bits are better, yes, look at the hair detail on the obverse, but some bits are worse, look at Britannia's shield on the reverse ! Here's a true VF/gF 1861 penny (6 + F) for comparison: https://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=152&searchlot=2383&searchtype=2, albeit a bit scuffed up.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MORUZZI-PIO-V-BIANCO-Bologna-117740-Pius-V-Pie-V-moneta-papale-in-argento/333453479726 Posting this not because of the coin (nice) or the price (reasonable although on the high side) but because of the ridiculous bar chart which is the final picture. Grade 55/70 - OK, we're in Sheldon (a weird choice for Renaissance Italy but there we go). Rarity 20/100 - not sure what the takeaway from this is. Metal and patina 90/100 - so choice toning ? Coinage - 90/100 - ??????????

Well, it depends on the sorts of coins you lacquer. I wouldn't lacquer a coin with a very poor surface or extensive corrosion. The ideal coin to lacquer is one which has been cleaned or polished and therefore has no natural patina. Example from my collection attached - I didn't do the lacquering but I'm pretty sure it would be a lot uglier without. Notice the pink highlights and the unnaturally smooth/shiny look. Before lacquering most likely a problem coin, afterwards...well I don't mind the look of it.

The British Museum doesn't presently use Ren Wax on ancient coins. However, a lot of the collection has been lacquered by someone or other at some point. I think the real problem with lacquering is that in order to remove the lacquer you need to know the chemistry. And even if you sell or otherwise pass on a coin with a ticket saying that it was lacquered with mineral/organic oil or some other formulation, probably it will get lost before the lacquer looks a bit ugly. Ren. Wax is easy to remove because you can just boil the coin in water.

Are we talking about using actual resin-based varnish, or lacquering ? The first is not a great idea, people still commonly lacquer pre-1600 copper - I've done it myself.

Not sure if these belong in my advertising token or French collection ! It was illegal at this point to counterstamp regal coinage, hence the use of French 10 centime pieces. The left countermark dates from 1884 according to Withers.

There were three of these in the Murdoch sale (Sotheby 1904), see the attached excerpt from the catalog with a full attribution. None in lead, could possibly be an 18th or 19th century imitation as is common with Civil War medals, especially given the lack of provenance.

This is why Peter Withers is always saying that owning a token without researching it is a bit like owning a book without reading it...you can spend hours and hours on some of these pieces.

No, the portrait is definitely of Eaton with that high forehead. "Frangas non Flectes" was Eaton's personal motto too. Compare this illustration: The connection with Paine is tangential but interesting.

The other interesting fact I know about it is that the reverse design tells you where to get it redeemed ! Eaton's publishing house was based at the Cock and Swine, 74 Newgate Street, sadly long demolished. If you're interested in more about Eaton, there's a lot of academic literature which discusses his activities as his friends and clients were basically a who's-who of the radical political scene of 1790s London. Here's the front page of Eaton's edition of the Rights of Man, for reference, where he's "Citizen Daniel Isaac Eaton, Printer to the Supreme Majesty of the People".

Thomas Paine's printer in London ! I'm rather amazed this hasn't got a US premium attached to it yet. Nice example.

I think something which puts off a lot of lower-income collectors is that unless you leave out all the common pieces, a decent sized collection of sovereigns ties the value of your collection to the gold price in a way which a collection of e.g. early milled, hammered or celtic gold doesn't. For the same reason, I'd rather spend a few hundred quid on a choice Napoleon III bronze piece than a common date 20 francs. There is the counter-argument that the gold value might protect you against a general crash in the numismatic market, but as a dabbler in precious metals on the commodity market, I'd feel rather more confident in the appreciation of numismatic assets in the long run.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Rarest-1p-I-have-Honest/303448343442

Really hard to say just based on that photograph, look forward to seeing the reverse. Definitely looks like it could have been cleaned or lightly polished if genuine.

It looks EF or perhaps a tad better. For a coin to be described as "about uncirculated" you really want traces of lustre or at least subdued mint gloss, and really only the most trivial of wear. Regarding the surfaces, they look similar to some 19th century French bronze pieces I have after cleaning with acetone for PVC residue; slightly buffed, but without any real damage associated with the cleaning. You'd have to be pretty fussy to treat it as a problem coin, but whether it affects value depends on how it appears in hand. The effect will probably lessen over the years if it's left alone.

Indeed, if you want to go for a lower mintage figure penny which was intentionally released into circulation in the UK, you'd have to go back to 1848, ignoring oddities like the 1860 copper issue, 1882 London etc. Having said that, the numbers aren't really comparable. There are tens of thousands of Kew Gardens pennies in mint state, given the release of the mint sets. By that metric, the scarcity of these in choice grade is likely comparable to an earlier coin with mintage in the tens of millions.

RRP £23.94... Also... Shilling or dollar ??

Looks nice despite all the usual striking defects, and the reverse scratches. I've never seen a convincing modern forgery of a gun money piece, they always look "too perfect" with nice fields, which is not something you'll find easily, if at all, in the series !

It's plausible that some Wreath crowns may have circulated, as you find them in really low grades, not just VF or Fine. I've seen an example which probably wouldn't even make "Fair". In the early days of the 0.500 silver coinage I imagine a fair bit of 0.925 silver was still in circulation. If you look at the bottom grade Old Head crowns, or George V sterling halfcrowns, some of which are barely readable, this seems pretty plausible. If people were used to accepting Victorian crowns through the first half of the 1920s, if a wreath crown popped up in 1927 or 1930 it's hard to see them rejecting it as not being current. It might be impossible to spend £5 coins now, let alone the silver £20 pieces etc. but then no-one alive today save for a few super-centenarians can possibly remember crown sized coins being in circulation. When it had been less than a decade since they disappeared from circulation it seems rather more likely that they would have been accepted.

Closer to home, I think Sweden has never been invaded by the UK ? Although I guess some of modern day Sweden was ruled by Canute...

I think it's more about the way the NGC and PCGS registries give you points based on the quality (read numerical grade) of your coins. If you want to have the top-ranked set of a popular series like the Memorial cents, anything given enough registry points is going to be worth money to you. Why you would really care about the NGC/PCGS registry points is beyond me.

The "prices only depend on grades" adage does roughly approximate the market in post-1950s US coins. Take a common date Memorial cent with a mintage in the 100s of millions. No amount of eye appeal makes a MS66 worth the bonkers money people will pay for a MS69 coin (I think the record is $10k for one in the 1980s ??)

Doesn't look like a proof to me, although I'm a relative novice to George V silver. Appear to be clear striking deficiencies on the portrait. Don't the proofs have sharp rims too ?

Not to mention the Antoninus Pius medallic sestertius which appears to be a sub-Paduan imitation, probably 19th century at best. Or the "contemporary" forgery of an Augustus denarius which is clearly modern. There's also a Kettle medallion described as a "1/3 guinea struck in silver"...sigh.