Sword

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The listing has now been withdrawn.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.

The crown is remarkably free of any contact marks!

My 1818 crown has the first 1 with very faint RH serif and the second 1 with no RH serif. CGS documented this as a "variety" but the reason is probably due to die filled and so it isn't really a variety. I have just noticed that the 1819 (9 over 8 ) crown also have the same features: weak RH serif with the first 1 and no RH serif with the second 1. I wonder if the die for my 1818 was later changed into the overdate? My 1818 is the first photo. The second is an example sold by LCA. The third is an example currently on sale on Chards.

Have you considered using a 2x2 self adhesive coin holder? It will keep the pieces together and you can see the coin in "one piece" through the window.

I agree. You need to ask yourself the reason for wanting to "restore" the coin. I cannot believe it make any financial sense to do so. The only reason I would consider spending money on it is if it has very strong sentimental value. Sentiment is priceless after all. You might even consider gluing it together yourself if you really want it in one piece and after you are satisfied that it doesn't have monetary value in its current state.

I am not certain what's happening. I click on their link in numisbid and it directed me to some Japanese site! It is not so easy for any auction house to get quality back once it has gone downhill...

That must be a consequence of no live or even room bidding.

Sept catalogue now online if interested.

A possibility could be on how coins were minted during the past millennium. From hammered to screw press to modern times. Some museums have dies and reducing machines etc on display and might be happy for you to make a non commercial video if you ask them.