Sword

I was debating that point with myself. There are quite a few marks on the obverse but they are not deep. Will soon be able to see how it looks in hand.

Shipping to UK is practically selling ice to Eskimos.

Latest addition and awaiting delivery. High grade Jubilee Head florins (except for 1887) are not easy to come by. Hence, I have got this instead of waiting for an UNC example. How would you grade it? GEF?

How about a mouse mat?

I think it is unlikely that the coin is returnable. It was obviously not brought from a specialist coins auction as the coin would not have been described as a proof in such houses. Non- specialist auctions often have clauses that their descriptions are only opinions and cannot be relied upon as statements of fact. If it is returnable, then I would return it. Otherwise, it is not an expensive mistake and can be put down as experience.

That's a truly wonderful example. High grade and beautiful tone. And almost no contact marks! Can look at this all day!

I understand what you are saying and rarity is a matter of opinions and guesstimates. However, it was somewhat disappointing that the 6th "Fully Revised" Edition (published 23 years after the 5th edition) has not made any (?) attempt to update the rarity values given in the Fifth. One would imagine that a token effort involving several experts could have been made. E.g. if a couple of experts say that several examples of a coin is known, the R7 shouldn't be given. I do take your point that one has to know your area by experience and auction archive searches. The ESC is a bit like a tabloid newspaper. It makes an entertaining read but just don't trust it too much.

I have checked my 1992 edition and it has got the same information. I am also disappointed that the rarities have not been updated going from the fifth to the sixth edition.

I rather liked the Scottish Shilling until you said that! Now I need to tell myself that the lion is doing squat exercises.

I took these photos in a museum. It is really difficult to see how they can be identical busts. The hair detail is so much finer on the later bust. But it is not easy to discard information which came from the Mint.

It's from the latest 2015 edition of ESC.

The extract from ESC is shown below. Like I say, I am not really convinced by it. I do think you are right in that there was a new bust.

Why do I get the feeling that this tread will not be quite as long as the other one? :D On a more serious note, it is nice that "best buys" can mean things we really want rather than items that can generate large profits.

I have read in ESC that the obverse wasn't recut then. The mint according to ESC, said that the new (and harder) alloy resulted in a shawllower portrait. The pressure of strike might have also been reduced so that the dies won't wear out more quickly. I must admit I am still not totally convinced.

The easiest way to learn is to compare a suspect coin with a genuine one. This type of fakes is not convincing as the the design is crude and is formed from sharp and deep cut lines. "Cartoon-like" as Paddy has put it. Paddy has also listed the things to look out for.

I wasn't just thinking about George V. I think 1887 and 1902 are also generally very well struck. First year of design use new dies. The mint would probably have shown more care. Neither do I. Will hopefully get one at some point. I love the first George V portrait and none of my current currency specimens has a fully struck observe.

I think coins in the first year of a design tend to be better struck than later years. The reverse of all four 1911 halfcrowns above do not show weakness at the top of the shield.

Yes, I was wondering if it was a photoshop job or a genuine plaque.

I am probably in the small minority of people never to have brought from eBay or or whatever. I probably wasn't being clear earlier. I was just laughing at the common occurrences of blatant misrepresentation by some sellers on that platform.

Ebay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Maslin#:~:text=Internet memes,Bucklesby – a misanthropic failed author.

"Bright" is a suspicious word in auction descriptions. I think it often implies an unspecified "cleaning" issue. The problem-free word is probably "lustrous".

It was pasted from Wikipedia. Source of free information.

Those hairlines (particularly behind the veil) would suggest cleaning or at least wiped by something inappropriate. But not too bad. I don't like the rim by the horse's tail either.