Sword

The metal needs to react with substance(s) for toning to form. I don't believe light on its own can cause the loss of lustre but it can accelerate the reactions of metals with substances in the air. Alternatively the lustre will be hidden if something like particles in cigarette smoke are deposited on the surface. I remember Rob mentioning that a coin of his remained lustrous for hundreds of years as it were trapped in the bottom of a glass tumbler. If I have a valuable lustrous bronze coin, I would probably want to slab it just to reduce the chances of it tarnishing.

I have noticed that too and was also surprised by the grading. I wonder why do people use phrases like "nearer EF than VF" in the first place when GVF or NEF are available. By the way I think you have a superb shilling there Dave. To be fair to LCA, many would say yours is quite a bit better than GVF

I have asked before and they e-mailed me the photos (but it was for a more expensive lot). However, I don't trust their descriptions enough these days to be buying blind. Have a look at lot 2295 "Halfcrown 1887 Young Head ESC 717 UNC and graded 78 by LCGS". If they didn't mention the rim damage at 10 o'clock, they might not want to mention a range of other defects either.

I love the Wreath Crown design and think it is Kruger Gray's best work. It was also a very original design and has deservedly achieved iconic status. This idea of plants coming out of a coronet was no doubt inspired by the excellent works of Leslie Durbin shown on the 1984-87 pound coins. I really like Durbin's works and the only set of decimal coins I have brought was the 1984-87 four coins piedfort.

This is a photo of the original design. Apparently there were more than 6000 entries including adults. The design was then refined by the coin artist David Lawrence. Don't get me wrong. I am very pleased for him and I think it is a totally fantastic for a 15 year old to win the competition. However, if I am honest, it really just look like the work of a (talented) schoolboy rather than a pro. I understand that he tried to be PC and so the leek, rose, thistle and shamrock are similar in size. But it just look odd for the leek to be the same size as say the shamrock. For me, the coronet is also out of proportion to the plants. The rose, thistle, shamrock and leek are somehow just sitting next to each other without any sort of interlinking. The quality of the engraving (which has nothing to do with his design) just doesn't do it for me. Then again, many of the modern designs also look rather poor. That's why I don't collect modern RM offerings!

Great photos. Thanks! I do get the impression that museums don't always treat their rare coins well unfortunately ...

I laugh at the cheap and ridiculous scams some people try to pull nowadays. If you Google "Nicky123 Coins", you will find that another and perhaps unrelated Nicky123 has posted " I have to unfortunately sell my collection of UNDATED 20p COINS Mint Condition: More than 500 pieces Very Good Condition: 150 pieces ... " in another forum. The said person has since claimed that she has received a "good offer". Someone then posted "And now they're miraculously sold, without any proof. Congratulations; you win 'Least Convincing Scam, February 2017". http://thesilverforum.com/topic/8037-undated-20p-received-a-good-offer/#comment-104302 Oh, I found two 1933 pennies when sorting out old coins ... I wonder if they are valuable .... anyone interested?

This post suggests that they were collected in change. But no one can believe that it is possible to find 700 that way... Rob's post really says it all.

I think any coin with a UIN of less than 25000 would have the traditional grade (e.g. EF70, AU75, AU78, (or EF75 & EF78 for early slabs)) stated on the slab unless it has been re-slabbed later on. CGS dropped the prefix grading letters after march 2013. Hence UIN of 9285 would certainly have UNC 80 stated on the slab unless it has been reholdered.

Talking of the Standing Britannia design, I recently put a commission bid for a British Empire Dollar. It went for £20 more than my bid. Not a candidate for this contest of course but a nice looking coin all the same. (It was designed by de Saulles but I still prefer the florin design)

The Petition crown is one of my top choices because it is a coin ahead of its time. The incredibly lifelike portrait of Charles II, the stunning shield reverse and the amazing two lines petition on the edge. It was indeed a real tragedy that that Simon’s design wasn’t adopted. The Oxford crown has a very impressive equestrian portrait of Charles I in front of the beautiful and cityscape of Oxford. One can recognise the Magdalene Tower and the University Church. I am also sentimental towards Oxford as it is the town I lived in after leaving home for the first time. And there is the historical declaration on the reverse. The fact that Charles I was exiled in Oxford at the time make this coin even more interesting.

I think you might want to use the "ring" test. Put the coin on your forefinger and tap gently on the edge with another coin. Bronze, cupro-nickel, sterling silver, 50% silver all give very different rings when taped. A bronze coin gives a long clear ring. A cupro-nickel coin gives a dull short ring. You can compare the rings of your two 1944 pennies. Since the coin is not in the highest grades, I don't think any harm can be done by this test.

Leaving prices aside, my two top choices would be the Petition Crown and the Charles I Oxford Crown.

Shot up to £398 in the last few seconds. A nine bob note has apparently been auctioned by Spink

"Chavs" was an unfortunate choice of word. But I understand what you are saying. And sometimes decent coins just get passed on or inherited by people who know nothing about coins. I do feel rather sad that so many quality coins have been ruined by careless polishing.

I think this is quite a sensible thing to do. Leave the coin alone but keep a close eye on it. Then you only need to consider doing something if you see the faintest signs of marks developing. And you might never have a problem.

It was a trial coin.

I am just a little surprised that the Royal Mint e-mail didn't quite say explicitly why the coins shouldn't be sold.

Can't see them now.

Personally, I won't risk rubbing with a spectacle cloth. The matt proof surface is kind of delicate. I have never tried acetone with coins but would consider dipping in acetone being a (much) safer option than water. Acetone evaporates easily and dissolves grease well. If I were ever to clean a coin, acetone would be my first choice. If the coin is a normal proof with mirrored surfaces, then you will not get away without damage after handling it like that. As it is a matt proof, then perhaps you might be lucky and finger prints marks won't develop later on? I am certain the more experienced collectors will give their opinions.

Thanks. I am sure that I have seen one for sale on ebay last weekend but it has been removed now. If I remember correctly, the bidding got to just over £30

Not sure. My guess would be that the 1937 3d were not trial pieces but advance release of the final article. They were issued to various business probably with no strings attached. However these £1 coins are clearly marked trial pieces and might be issued with the caveat that they cannot be resold and remain the property of the mint?

Shocking way to handle a coin. I didn't even notice the fingers until Azda's post.

That's a matt proof crown for sure ...

Undoubtedly. And hence undoubtedly it was initially brought from the Royal Mint for "investment". It will turn out to be a very bad investment when it is sold in the auction I am afraid. How can anyone tell if there are still coins inside? Someone could have removed them long ago and resealed in a box of junk ...