Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sword

Accomplished Collector
  • Content Count

    2,223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    104

Everything posted by Sword

  1. No one buy blind from strangers in ebay but I thought the risk is significantly lower from an established auction house... Without pictures or being at the auction house itself, and as was stated by coinery above, the grading is a little generous, so as i said, why would anyone buy blind. Also if it's your first time buying from ANY auction house, then in theory said auction house is also a stranger, no? There's overgrading in a lot of auction houses, having the ability to grade yourself gives you the choice of where your bid goes, having nothing at all to go by is Russian Roulette of the highest order no matter which auction house it is. Azda, I think leaving an absentee bid is always a bit of a risk. The photos you normally get do not often show hairlines and might sometimes hide much worse defects. A scan doesn't show the tone and might not even be able to tell you if a coin has been previously cleaned. I think most of us have made disappointing purchases by absentee biding. Hence, you always have to rely to some extent on the auction houses' descriptions. Work usually prevent me from attending any auction in person. I do grade coins (reasonably accurately I hope) and take the lower of the two grades (mine and the auction house's) when I decide on a bid. On this occasion (the first time I have bid blind), I was tempted to some extent to try an auction house with a low buyer's permium. The item was not high value and I knew it was returnable if there are issues. Hence it wasn't really much of a risk but just annoyance when things go wrong.
  2. No one buy blind from strangers in ebay but I thought the risk is significantly lower from an established auction house...
  3. Here are the photos. It is not looking too bad now but it might get worse with time. I haven't paid for it yet so I guess I will be able to return it. (How many auction houses would send the goods to a new buyer before they get paid?) It is not a high value coin and so it is either returning it or keeping it as it is for me.
  4. If it is definately plastic damage, then it is easiest just returning it, as the coin might just get worse in the slab. I have never tried cracking a slab before (or cleaning a coin with chemical either) and will probably just make a mess of things with my current luck! (what are the chances of getting plastic damage on a PCGS slabbed coin?) I am aware that their grading at the high end can be somewhat "optimistic" according to the previous reviews on the forum. However, I thought that I might give them a try due to the very low buyers' premium. I bought about 4 coins blind from there...2 uncs barely made EF, and the other two were 1/2 grade lower. Great auction if you are attending but, personally, I would'nt ever blind bid with them again! Charging low premium by cutting down overheads like photos and catalouges is a great concept in theory. But if the grades are not accurate, then it doesn't do anyone any favours and will surely cost them business.
  5. If it is definately plastic damage, then it is easiest just returning it, as the coin might just get worse in the slab. I have never tried cracking a slab before (or cleaning a coin with chemical either) and will probably just make a mess of things with my current luck! (what are the chances of getting plastic damage on a PCGS slabbed coin?) I am aware that their grading at the high end can be somewhat "optimistic" according to the previous reviews on the forum. However, I thought that I might give them a try due to the very low buyers' premium.
  6. I agree that there is no point trying to describe some 1935 raised edge crowns as "cameo" and others as "deep cameo". I read in a review that there are also non cameo (no frosting) 1935 proof crowns but have never seen one myself. Has anyone seen one before? If so does anyone know why the different types exist?
  7. Great coin Mike! I didn't manage to buy a coin for Christmas and so spent the money on a cheap break to Spain instead. Had a good time and the weather was dry and relatively warm.
  8. The saving grace is that they are faking these in silver plated base metal. The problem will be more serious if they start using sterling silver for forgeries.
  9. I am a little confused with what is the “current†accepted definition of FDC. At the beginning of my coin collecting days, I have taken FDC to mean the perfect coin, i.e. without contact marks, wear or hairlines and perfectly struck. Hence only proof coins can ever be graded as FDC and this definition is similar to the American MS 70. Then it soon occurred to me that no coin can really be “perfect†especially under magnification. Some auction houses are happy to describe their predecimal proof coins as FDC but there are virtually always defects even visible to the naked eyes. Others prefer the terms aFDC or nFDC or FDC with “defects†described. What are your expectations of this grade?
  10. Sword

    FDC Grade

    Merry Christmas to you too Coinery!!
  11. Sword

    FDC Grade

    Might be it is best to leave discussions regarding slabbing and TPGs at least until the festive season is over? Lets wound down rather than heat up before Christmas! :) :)
  12. Sword

    FDC Grade

    Most experienced collectors would spot the tell tale signs of a coin that has been dipped, as the "lustre" appears flat, and does not radiate from the surface in the same way that natural lustre does. Interesting article here Many thanks for the article 1949. I don't think I am experienced enough at the moment to distinguish between the different types of lustre but I prefer toned silver coins in any case. Nice photos by the way, Azda. Last year, I brought a matt proof 1902 crown with a really nice golden tone. (The coin is not quite FDC because of a tiny contact mark on the reverse which was almost invisible in the original auction photo. The tiny bits of grey in the photo is due to reflection of some kind and is not seen on the acutal coin in hand). If nice toning like this can potentially lower a coin's grade from FDC, then so be it in my view. FDC or not FDC, I still prefer toned silver coins. There are lots of sweeping faint lines on your photo of the coin Sword, what do you put those down to? I am not sure why it has toned like that. I can't see any hairlines under magnification and it is much less noticeable in real life. Photo 2 attached.
  13. Sword

    FDC Grade

    Most experienced collectors would spot the tell tale signs of a coin that has been dipped, as the "lustre" appears flat, and does not radiate from the surface in the same way that natural lustre does. Interesting article here Many thanks for the article 1949. I don't think I am experienced enough at the moment to distinguish between the different types of lustre but I prefer toned silver coins in any case. Nice photos by the way, Azda. Last year, I brought a matt proof 1902 crown with a really nice golden tone. (The coin is not quite FDC because of a tiny contact mark on the reverse which was almost invisible in the original auction photo. The tiny bits of grey in the photo is due to reflection of some kind and is not seen on the acutal coin in hand). If nice toning like this can potentially lower a coin's grade from FDC, then so be it in my view. FDC or not FDC, I still prefer toned silver coins.
  14. Sword

    FDC Grade

    That's interesting. Traditionally toning hasn't affected a grade of FDC as long as the coin is technically perfect; possibly because so many collectors regard attractive toning as superior to no toning at all? It's where the toning is ugly that I have reservations, but that makes it all very subjective, I agree. I have read Derek's book and it is indeed excellent work. If a trace of toning would exclude a coin from graded FDC, then could any silver proof coins prior to say the 1930s be described by this grade? I think all silver proofs inevitably tone over time (unless it has been sealed in plastic since day one). As Peck pointed out, if the the toning is really beautiful, wouldn't this make the silver coin even more desirable? Beautiful toning is valued with currency coins and there is no reason why this shouldn't be the case with proofs. I would suspect any silver proof more than 80 years old and with no trace of toning as having been previously dipped. If the toning has been removed by dipping but without imparing the lustre, then would the coin qualify for FDC again? I do think that that the term FDC has been affected by grade inflation somewhat. London coins recently described a 1935 raised edge crown as "choice FDC". This is of course impossible if FDC is already prefect. The said coin has only been graded by cgs as UNC 88 (88 out of 100) and so is hardly prefect. Some interesting ideas, and food for thought there. If a toned coin lost its FDC status by virtue of that toning, then by definition, it would be virtually impossible to obtain a FDC silver coin over a certain age, even if it had never seen any circulation whatever, having spent its entire life in a collector's cabinet. With regard to dipping, you'd surely have to say that such a process would immediately invalidate the FDC status. If a proof silver coin has not been impaired by light dipping (i.e. it has retained its full lustre and is blazing white afterwards)then I think it would be difficult to deny it the FDC grade. Afterall, no one can prove it has actually been dipped if no damage has been done? (I have never dipped a coin before and so am only thinking about this as a theoretical situaltion. Is it even possible to dip a coin without damaging it in someway?) I feel that the seller would be misrepresenting the truth if describing a dipped item as FDC. If I knew, then I certainly wouldn't accept such an item as FDC ~ would you ? Interesting question! I would certainly prefer to collect coins that have not been tempered with in anyway. Hence, I do prefer nicely toned silver coins over blazing white ones. But what if a coin has not been damaged by dipping and has changed hands several times since .... Then the latest owner / seller might not be any wiser. Personally, I would want to pay less (as a matter of principle) if I suspect a coin has been previously dipped but has full lustre. It will tone back in time in anycase. However, I am unlikely to buy it altogether if the lustre has been dulled by dipping.
  15. Sword

    FDC Grade

    That's interesting. Traditionally toning hasn't affected a grade of FDC as long as the coin is technically perfect; possibly because so many collectors regard attractive toning as superior to no toning at all? It's where the toning is ugly that I have reservations, but that makes it all very subjective, I agree. I have read Derek's book and it is indeed excellent work. If a trace of toning would exclude a coin from graded FDC, then could any silver proof coins prior to say the 1930s be described by this grade? I think all silver proofs inevitably tone over time (unless it has been sealed in plastic since day one). As Peck pointed out, if the the toning is really beautiful, wouldn't this make the silver coin even more desirable? Beautiful toning is valued with currency coins and there is no reason why this shouldn't be the case with proofs. I would suspect any silver proof more than 80 years old and with no trace of toning as having been previously dipped. If the toning has been removed by dipping but without imparing the lustre, then would the coin qualify for FDC again? I do think that that the term FDC has been affected by grade inflation somewhat. London coins recently described a 1935 raised edge crown as "choice FDC". This is of course impossible if FDC is already prefect. The said coin has only been graded by cgs as UNC 88 (88 out of 100) and so is hardly prefect. Some interesting ideas, and food for thought there. If a toned coin lost its FDC status by virtue of that toning, then by definition, it would be virtually impossible to obtain a FDC silver coin over a certain age, even if it had never seen any circulation whatever, having spent its entire life in a collector's cabinet. With regard to dipping, you'd surely have to say that such a process would immediately invalidate the FDC status. If a proof silver coin has not been impaired by light dipping (i.e. it has retained its full lustre and is blazing white afterwards)then I think it would be difficult to deny it the FDC grade. Afterall, no one can prove it has actually been dipped if no damage has been done? (I have never dipped a coin before and so am only thinking about this as a theoretical situaltion. Is it even possible to dip a coin without damaging it in someway?)
  16. Sword

    FDC Grade

    Some interesting thoughts, and food for thought there. If a toned coin lost its FDC status by virtue of that toning, then by definition, it would be virtually impossible to obtain a FDC silver coin over a certain age, even if it had never seen any circulation whatever, having spent its entire life in a collector's cabinet. With regard to dipping, you'd surely have to say that such a process would immediately invalidate the FDC status.
  17. Sword

    FDC Grade

    That's interesting. Traditionally toning hasn't affected a grade of FDC as long as the coin is technically perfect; possibly because so many collectors regard attractive toning as superior to no toning at all? It's where the toning is ugly that I have reservations, but that makes it all very subjective, I agree. I have read Derek's book and it is indeed excellent work. If a trace of toning would exclude a coin from graded FDC, then could any silver proof coins prior to say the 1930s be described by this grade? I think all silver proofs inevitably tone over time (unless it has been sealed in plastic since day one). As Peck pointed out, if the the toning is really beautiful, wouldn't this make the silver coin even more desirable? Beautiful toning is valued with currency coins and there is no reason why this shouldn't be the case with proofs. I would suspect any silver proof more than 80 years old and with no trace of toning as having been previously dipped. If the toning has been removed by dipping but without imparing the lustre, then would the coin qualify for FDC again? I do think that that the term FDC has been affected by grade inflation somewhat. London coins recently described a 1935 raised edge crown as "choice FDC". This is of course impossible if FDC is already prefect. The said coin has only been graded by cgs as UNC 88 (88 out of 100) and so is hardly prefect.
  18. Sword

    CROWNS

    Vicky, here are the photos of the '65 in question. Sorry the original photos are too big for posting and hence the small images. (If you want the original images, then log on the cgs website. Type in "20205" in the UIN box. Then you get the images.)
  19. Sword

    CROWNS

    Most VIP proofs wouldn't cost any more than a common uncirculated larger silver Victorian coin - say £500 to a couple £K, so we aren't talking megabucks here. In fact a lot of people are prepared to spend far more on currency coins than they would have to lay out for a VIP proof, particularly in the penny department. I've occasionally thought about VIP proofs, but unless they are of an existing rarity (1949 3d, say), then I can't see the appeal - most post-1937 VIPs look no better than your average 1950 1951 or 1953 proof coin anyway. It's rarity appeal only, and as you say, much better to get a decent currency 18th or 19th Century coin instead. I think we all share the same opinion. I am not "prepared" to pay £500 for a VIP proof but am happy to pay more for a decent 19th / 18th century currency piece. Hence I only consider them to be "quite" interesting. Rarity certainly has some appeal but that alone is not enough for me to part with a lot of money.
  20. Sword

    CROWNS

    That's understandable. The olympics is indeed one of the things worth commenorating!
  21. Sword

    CROWNS

    and not so often seen in our pockets , but sold as extremely rare on ebay I have got almost no interest in modern commens (and hence have even forgotten about their existence earlier). I used the word "almost" as VIP proofs can be quite interesting but cost more than I would ever be prepared to pay. Why would anyone want to collect "coins" that are usually produced in huge numbers, often uninspiring in design and are always abundantly availabe in untouched condidtion? One of the first things I learnt as a kid was to never buy any Isle of man coins as they commenorated anything and everything.
  22. I am only saying that it is not a crime to deface a coin (e.g. by pressing it into a token). However, it (most likely) won't be legal tender afterwards!
  23. Section 12 of the Currency and Banknotes Act 1928 states the following:- I cannot find any legislation relating to the defacement of coins. Defacement of coins used to be an offence. In the old days people have received the death penalty for clipping silver coins (e.g. Thomas Rogers). The 1936 coinage Offenses act prohibited the defacement of "current" coins. However, the defacement of any coin has been legal since 1981 when a new act came into force (Forgery and Counterfeiting Act). Hence you see notices next to machines which allow you to press pennies into souvenirs saying that the practice is legal.
  24. Sword

    CROWNS

    Being that there was an unbroken run of crowns minted from 1887 to 1900 I think it would be safe to assume missing 1 year to 1902 that the 1902 crown with a mintage similar the the Victorian years could be assumed to be minted for currency use. And as proof crown only enjoyed a limited mintage and were in general passed out to dignitaries and the aristocracy could they not be considered commemorative. I'm not sure a limited mintage defines a commemorative, Gary? Surely a commem is struck (sometimes in vast numbers - viz. the Churchill Crown) to 'commemorate' a special occasion, e.g. a Royal wedding or anniversary, death of someone special, anniversary of something like all those commem 50p issues, etc. You could argue that the first year of a new monarch is something to commemorate, except that the 'proof' of the new coinage wasn't traditionally issued for that reason? The even more limited VIP proofs were certainly handed out to dignitaries, but didn't commemorate anything. I'd separate - at least in my own mind - a proof from a commemorative; the latter being a modern phenomenon and not known before the 1935 Crown? Before that, it seemed that the medallion was used for this purpose, with no legal tender. Whereas proofs have been known for most of the milled era. As for the non-proof 1902s, I was only thinking aloud when I wondered if it was simultaneously a business strike and commemorative - as commems were unknown at the time, I guess it must have been only for circulation, as you say. But I can't think of a single other denomination that was discontinued in a particular form after the first year of a reign, especially when you think of all the work and expense involved in producing new designs, dies etc. Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into: 1) coins intended for circulation 2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event) 3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1) Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not . The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins Yes, I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for that, Sword. (I'd disagree with you only about commems being usually for collectors? After all, the Churchill Crown, and every "anniversary of.." 50p and £2 and £5 have been regular circulation currency strikes, but only for a single year.) Edited - no, not the £5 coins - they ARE mainly for collectors! You are absolutely right Peckris. I forgot about the commenorative circulating coins in the decimal era and in our pockets!
  25. Sword

    CROWNS

    Being that there was an unbroken run of crowns minted from 1887 to 1900 I think it would be safe to assume missing 1 year to 1902 that the 1902 crown with a mintage similar the the Victorian years could be assumed to be minted for currency use. And as proof crown only enjoyed a limited mintage and were in general passed out to dignitaries and the aristocracy could they not be considered commemorative. I'm not sure a limited mintage defines a commemorative, Gary? Surely a commem is struck (sometimes in vast numbers - viz. the Churchill Crown) to 'commemorate' a special occasion, e.g. a Royal wedding or anniversary, death of someone special, anniversary of something like all those commem 50p issues, etc. You could argue that the first year of a new monarch is something to commemorate, except that the 'proof' of the new coinage wasn't traditionally issued for that reason? The even more limited VIP proofs were certainly handed out to dignitaries, but didn't commemorate anything. I'd separate - at least in my own mind - a proof from a commemorative; the latter being a modern phenomenon and not known before the 1935 Crown? Before that, it seemed that the medallion was used for this purpose, with no legal tender. Whereas proofs have been known for most of the milled era. As for the non-proof 1902s, I was only thinking aloud when I wondered if it was simultaneously a business strike and commemorative - as commems were unknown at the time, I guess it must have been only for circulation, as you say. But I can't think of a single other denomination that was discontinued in a particular form after the first year of a reign, especially when you think of all the work and expense involved in producing new designs, dies etc. Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into: 1) coins intended for circulation 2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event) 3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1) Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not . The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins
×