JLS

I'm struggling to identify this admittedly very well worn piece, which is clearly a York mint issue of (probably ?) Edward III's florin coinage. The reverse has a quatrefoil in the centre, with a fine cross in its centre. I've only ever seen examples before with a pellet or nothing there. Any help much appreciated !

Even then, if you could get the seller down to £25, not a bad buy.

Yeah, it does look a fair bit nicer in the video. To me, probably a bit better than EF; lots of lustre, minimal wear on devices, just weakly struck with ugly toning.

Looks like a bad contemporary forgery. I'd bet the weight is wrong, the corrosion suggests poor alloy choice. Potentially interesting to the right person at that price - I'd like it if it wasn't in such rubbish condition.

Nothing screams "fake" to me here. The reason it's underweight is more likely because it's clipped, most of these were struck with flans larger than the dies. The straight edge on the right of the reverse looks suspicious. Very easy to get the style of the reverse of these right though - just a matter of doing the lettering; would be interesting to see the portrait.

A really quick but lazy way to do this is to use screenshot software (try "snipping tool" if on Windows) to capture the photo as it displays on your screen.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Very-Rare-or-error-Penny-1854-Victoria-37mm/223916840005 Is it a "beating error" ? No, sadly the beating was quite intentional...

There already is a catalog ! "A Thousand Guineas" by Nielson and Warburton. galata.co.uk/store.asp?storeAction=showDetail&stockID=6523&stockMasterCategoriesID=9 Like the Cumberland Jacks ("To Hanover" tokens), this is a series for people who like micro-varieties and impossible rarities. The vast majority of pieces are common, easily obtainable in top grades, and not very attractive or interesting. Then there are all sorts of fun advertising pieces, and oddities, some of which only very few are known. I dabble in the series as it crosses over with my interest in 19th century advertising tokens....

Very nice - this is a really exceptional quality strike for this issue, even if there's a bit of wear.

Good luck ! I can't find one of the brass ones in nice grade; my collection of these is in a similar state to Will's; don't have the "RRR" one or the silver/gilt specimen listed. Did pick up the following unlisted gilt prooflike piece recently though:

This is more of a MS64 or MS64+ coin IMO. The large gold bruise easily and PCGS in particular are not harsh about minor bag marks or edge damage on these. What will keep it from getting a higher grade is probably the bagmarks on the nose and under the eye.

I've never seen an Edward VII farthing with convincing original mint lustre, but I've seen an 1898 and a 1901 which looked kosher. Maybe just good coin doctoring though.

I'd expect these to exist though, despite the spurious nature of the above example. I've seen Old Head Victorian examples. See London Coins, 2 March 2014, lot 2293, "Farthings (5) 1879 Large 9, 1879 Small 9 (2), 1901 with traces of lustre, not mint darkened, 1907 with lustre, not mint darkened NEF to GEF". As typical with farthing varieties, no-one was particularly interested and it went for £42 + premium. M"

A much worse offender among the seller's offerings is this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/MINT-ERROR-NGC-CERTIFIED-1817-37-NETHERLAND-CENT-STRUCK-OFF-CENTRE-RARE-IN-UNC/222885567656 Hard to believe it's worth even £100 with the hole. Sort of thing I'd feel lucky to pick up for £20 knowing that I'd probably double my money if I decided to sell it down the line.

One ugly coin. This really should be MS60 - an EF coin which technically might have looked like this when it left the mint, but nevertheless has severe defects. The problem with NGC is that they'll take the better than average lustre and OK strike and make that bump it up a few points, despite the metal flaws, "contact marks" *cough* wear, and heavy bagmarking. Ozjohn's coin looks like a MS62 or MS63 piece; the obverse rim nicks will stop it getting a higher grade if the weakish strike doesn't. A much more attractive piece though.

I love the fact that on yours the date is readable ! On my example (similar grade) it's too weakly struck to be clear. Think it was probably an afterthought by the engravers...or they just didn't leave enough space and then panicked because their punches were too large ??

A rarity for the unofficial farthing collection I picked up earlier this week.

Owning a few ex-polished pieces, I wish they could stop being shiny a bit faster....

Interesting. Before after photos much appreciated. What was the fake patina made of, do you think ? How did you get rid of it ?

Agreed - note how the initials K.G. are still legible on the reverse despite the extreme wear. I think the polishing theory is correct - but why would someone do that ?

That's actually very good for a machine translation. Yeah, "coniazione" translates to "striking" or "coining" rather than "coinage" per se. What surprises me is that the seller uses the same nonsense English description on Italian eBay...

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.