Sword

We are all in agreement that the bottom coin is better struck. For me, I often prefer a well struck George V with a trace of wear over a less well struck UNC example. However, I find the earlier portraits of George V notoriously difficult to grade from photos. For the coins in questions, I am not a fan of the strike or tone of the first coin and prefer the second.

Have you got this the wrong way round? I think the bottom coin is better struck esp. for the reverse.

Edward VIII didn't exactly follow tradition. His portrait on coins points the wrong way and his marriage was just a tad controversial by the standard of those days.

According to BBC news, the new coins will be in circulation before the end of the year. I think from a financial view point, there is more money to be made if the RM delays commemorative coins until after the coronation. Coins commemorating QEII will sell very well as they will be the last coins of the queen. People wanting to buy Charles III commemoratives now are even more likely to do so if they have to wait after the coronation next year. The RM didn't have any issues with continuing to mint coins with the portrait of a late monarch in the past as far as I am aware.

Traditionally, no money is issued in the name of a new monarch until after their coronation.

Image from BBC news and it took me a bit of time to warm up to it. I think the portrait appears friendly and approachable rather majestic (which was probably the intention).

Their T&C does state that "28 days after the sale our books are closed and no refunds will be made for any reason, and no returns accepted." Hence, I think you have passed the window of returns. Otherwise, I agree with Mike that it would be very bad for their reputation not to accept the coin in the damaged capsule. Although auction houses are not obliged to describe every imperfections (and esp to the case and capsule), ignoring complains of this type would again cost them in reputation. I once brought a slabbed coin and the cracks on the plastic slabs were not mentioned. I never brought from them again.

You really can't blame yourself for that. Slabbing a coin would generally decrease the possibility of the surface of copper / bronze toning. But there is always a chance that it won't. However, there is no guarantee that your coin would be any better off if you didn't slab it. At least it wasn't something like verd developing due to sealed in moisture. I wonder if anyone has ever used Lighthouse Quadrum Intercept Coin Capsule . The blur states that "The insert has been modified to neutralise harmful atmospheric substances inside the capsule, so that your coins are stored in a non-corrosive microclimate. The advantages of the QUADRUM Intercept coin capsule: Active protection from tarnishing for up to 15 years" Of course "up to" is not particularly comforting. Might be worth a try for copper / bronze?

I think that is due to copper coins being more reactive than silver and is more susceptible to the effect of moisture and gases in the atmosphere. Hence copper is more likely to change even after slabbing.

I think most of us do from time to time. The problem is that a blemish might be insignificant, but you will keep looking at it after it has been spotted.l keep mine in quadrums and so I don't need to worry about new scratches etc. But l do ask questions like if lustre has subdued on one side over time or is a carbon spot or other type of spot becoming more noticeable.

I think you also wrote a number of articles for JN Coins on the coinage of George V during you period of absence from here. I very much enjoyed reading them.

I suppose the test would be to send them the silver £2 with gold plated rims where the whole coin is in one piece. If these come back with no issue, then it would confirm my suggestion. Can't say I am particularly enthusiastic about the idea of paying to "conserve" recent proofs though.

I think there can be gaps between the brass rim and the inner nickel plated centre where some of the "cleaning" liquid can get in. The dirty liquid comes out after time and hence the problems. Looks like sending them these bimetallic coins for "conversation" isn't a good idea.

I do wonder what would be a good or even defensive investment today. Inflation is sky high, sterling is rock bottom, FTSE is not doing well and a (possibly long and ugly) recession is just around the corner.

Not if you factor in inflation. The 1970 sets were issued at £3 each which is £35 in today's money. I brought a set for £17 about a year ago and thought it was expensive then.

I am thinking of getting a nice Elizabeth I 6d for my next purchase too. It will be a nice change from milled for me.

I do wonder how much police resource (if any) was actually devoted to his case.

The listing has now been withdrawn. I hope others like him will do the same soon. The queueing on the Royal mint website has virtually disappeared too.

Since the Royal Mint is government owned, wouldn't it be nice if its profit in 2022 is shared between the charities the queen was patron of? It won't be a lot of money of course but it would still be a nice gesture.

I don't understand some people's mentality and I just had a look out of interest. Those unc sets are still available for order at £60 each but delivery will take up to 3 months. Doesn't look like the number of sets are limited and people can buy as many as their hearts' content. Not for me of course as I already have plenty of tasteful QEII coins to commemorate the Queen.

Brilliant! I felt deflated this morning but do feel much better on reflection. No one's life is worth celebrating more. God has already granted the 70th anniversary celebrations earlier in the year, which meant so much to her and to the nation.

If items can be fakes, so can the bids.

Most people in the country had only known one monarch. She had been the one unchanging comfort in our lives when so many things come and go. Always the voice of reason, dignity and compassion. It is indeed a real shock since we weren't aware of any serious health issues.

I am a bit late to the discussion. I think these paragraphs from this solicitors' website explains it concisely. https://www.howatavraamsolicitors.co.uk/selling-goods-online-when-do-you-become-legally-bound-to-deliver/#:~:text=By%20placing%20an%20item%20in,confirms%20receipt%20of%20the%20consideration. "Displaying items for sale on a website does not constitute an ‘offer’ under UK law. Instead, it is an invitation for third parties to make an offer to buy. By placing an item in a shopping basket online, a consumer is making an offer to buy those items at the price and on the terms listed on the website. However, a binding contract will only be formed online when the supplier accepts an order and confirms receipt of the consideration." "To avoid customers insisting that goods are sold at the price listed on a website, many businesses delay their acceptance of the customer’s ‘offer’ by first issuing an order acknowledgement. This enables the supplier to decline a customer’s offer if it transpires that there are errors on the website or that the item is no longer available. If a confirmation or acceptance is automatically issued on receipt of an order, a binding contract has been formed and the supplier will be in breach of contract if they fail to deliver on the terms originally listed. In order to avoid allegations from consumers that they have been misled, the supplier’s standard terms of business should set out the contractual process and make clear at what point the legally binding contract will be formed." Hence there is definitely no contract in scenario B in my view. The displayed price is only in "invitation to treat". You are making an offer and the seller has the right to reject the offer. In scenario A, I think it is invariably the case these days that you get an "order acknowledgement" when you have given your card details to buy something. Then you get a confirmation of the order at a later time (usually within 24 hours). The T&C would very likely also confirm that there is no contract until the order is confirmed. Personally, I don't feel comfortable with buying something that has obviously priced wrongly. E.g. something worth £3000 priced at £30.00. However, I do agree that not "updating" your price on your website is extremely poor on the seller's part. (Incidentally, I once saw a real leather briefcase at Debenhams with an original price of something like £150. Then it was reduced to "£5" after Christmas. I said to a sales assistant that surely the price cannot be correct but she said it was. I went ahead and brought it even though I didn't need the case.)

I wonder why they still bother about printing a catalogue now that the auction is essentially postal. The online version is good enough for nearly everyone and saving the printing money must be attractive to them.