Sword

Every time I am in Oxford, I can't resist dropping into the Ashmolean Museum to have a look at the Oxford Crowns on display. Unfortunately, the Heberden coin room can only be visited by appointment. Nevertheless, there are still a number of impressive / interesting pieces in the permanent exhibits. I have attached a few photos just in case they are of any interest.

For the sake of completeness, the rest of the rarity grades are R3 (extremely rare), R2 (very rare), R (rare), S (scarce), N (normal), C (common), C2 (Very common) and C3 (extremely common)

I just don't understand how TPGs interpret the Sheldon scale sometimes. The crown is extremely attractive indeed. However, MS 60 is supposed to have bad eye appeal, lots of contact marks etc. which is clearly not the case here. It appears that coins with a trace of wear but has good eye appeal can be given low MS grades by TPGs in contrary to the definitions of the Sheldon scale.

I have read on p285 (on George III crowns) that there is a "W (Wyon) on buckle". I confess I didn't know about this before. After checking out my crown and a bit googling, surely it must be letters WWP ( on three sides of the buckle) referring to William Wellesley Pole and not Wyon?

It's like saying "it's REAL money, providing you don't try to spend it" It wonder if you can pay your taxes with them. i.e. do taxes count as "debts" to the government?

I have read that they were wiped at the mint. Does anyone know why they did it? Nice set by the way. I particularly like the crown.

It would be really great if you could post photos of some of your best currency coins (i.e. those that can be pass as proof). I would love to see how good currency coins can get.

I too wonder why he wanted to keep his identity secret in the first place. If I ever accumulate a nice collection, I certainly want it to be named after me when I eventually dispose of it.

I think the term "finest known" is simply misleading and "finest graded by ..." is a lot more accurate. Having said that as (Mike as pointed out), it's meaningless unless a sufficient number of coins have been graded. I suppose they can do worse and call coins with a population report "1 of 1" as the "only example known".

This 1887 is CGS 75

I have brought two last year. This 1888 is CGS 78.

If I am buying a 1927 crown to keep, I would be happier to pay a lot more for a decent proof than an impaired one. Obviously, its a different story if buying to sell.

Nice coins!! The inverted 1 is now believed to be due to a filled die rather than a broken punch. The new ESC has very nice photos showing coins with full left bottom serif (normal), trace of lower left serif (partially filled die) and no lower left serif (completely filled or "inverted 1") I have brought a rather nice 1888 double florin recently but it is a normal variety as I didn't want to pay extra for the inverted 1.

Our own Chris has written an article on this in predecimal.com! http://www.predecimal.com/newpence "Approx 450 minted (although there is no accurate figure)."

So I assume that the majority / most of the rarity figures were simply done by "impression" by Rayner, Bull and a few selected colleagues. Thanks for the figures for the LIMA halfcrown Rob. Didn't realise they are as rare as R4. Wow. LCA should a couple at around the £1-1.2K mark I think. Not that expensive if it's around R4.

I very much enjoy reading my copy of the new ESC. It's very interesting to see images of patterns not available to collectors in particular. One thing I have noticed is that they have missed out (probably unintentionally) the meaning of the rarity terms like S, R1, R2 etc. That's of little importance of course since everyone know the definitions already and most would have the 5th edition. However, I think it would be very useful (but would probably be too much work in practice) if it specifies the rarity of grades that collectors want to know. For example, the 1746 LIMA halfcrown is given a rarity factor of C3 (very common). However, I don't care about how many worn pieces are available but would be interested to know the rarity of an EF or UNC example. I also don't understand the rarity factors allocated to certain coins. For example the proof RE rocking horse crown is given a rarity of R and they are readily available in auctions. The proof Arabic I double florin is given a rarity factor S despite a lower mintage. Also The Roman I which is so much rarer is also given the same R factor.

Thanks for the above. The coin is indeed the one that Paul has picked.

Swanny No TPG would ever use any "tests" which would cause scratching on coin surfaces. Virtually all coins are graded exclusively by visual inspection and weight. I don't think it is possible to conclude from your photos that any damage has been done to the coin during the grading process. The best thing to do IMO is to therefore assume that no damage has done. Otherwise you would be annoyed every time you look at the coin and will get much less enjoyment owning it. In any case, those marks are really quite insignificant (esp. when there are contact marks on the neck and hair).

I agree that the marks on the right definitely existed before submittal.

I think you need to post a photo of the coin before slabbing and another with the coin still in the slab ...

Merry Christmas and a happy new year!!

However, if the coin is for sale in a charity shop, I would still pay the £3 but I will then make a donation.

Of course I would pay the dealer £3. He obviously paid the person selling to him for less than £3. So why should the dealer benefit instead of me?

Nice coins Paul and thanks for another grading exercise.

I will have a go but I have never been much good at guessing CGS grades. My last coin took almost two months to move from Level II to Grade available (Encapsulation pending). So I guess we won't be getting the answers soon. 1899 crown: CGS 75 (has this been dipped before?) 1707 halfcrown: CGS 25 1911 halfcrown: CGS 88 1911 florin: CGS 88 1902 florin: CGS 80 1736 shilling: CGS 45 1911 shilling: CGS 85 1674 sixpence CGS 35