Sword

1888 photo

I have recently brought two double florins from LCA. The 1887 was described by cgs as a new "variety" with "Broken J in J.EB." The 1888 is just a standard variety. I just can't see what exactly is broken with the J in the 1887. Photos of both coins are shown. Any ideas?

Thanks guys Yes, they are CGS photos (but I brought the coins raw)

One possibility is that the auction house has received another commission bid of the same amount as yours. In this situation, the bid received first has priority.

Won two lots this time. Both under my max bids by £10 and £20.

Many auction houses reserve the right to bid on behalf of the seller up to the reserve price. So if a high reserve have been set, the auctioneer can start at your highest bid (if it is the same or less than the reserve) I guess.

Probably on Monday I think. They have been very prompt with publishing hammer prices in the last few auctions. I am rarely lucky with proxy bids in auctions. The lots I won were usually at my max bids. The few I got below my max bids have issues not apparent from the photos. The descriptions in LCA are generally rather good though. Made two bids this time.

Two of my most colourfully toned coins.

The coin is currently being offered on Ebay for $4495 and the item is in the US. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1483-85-England-Silver-Groat-4P-Coin-S-2156-Richard-III-NGC-VF-20-Scarce-AKR-/201075752106 His cheap trick would surely fool no one.

I didn't think it was quite EF either, but my grading experience is decidedly limited. I would like to get a really good unc double florin at some point.

A few years back, cgs offered the option of no photo (for 2 or 3 pounds less) if the value of the coin was less than £200. However, they have removed that option and photograph every coin now. I agree with Dave. There is no point in sending it back to cgs as it is impossible to prove who is at fault. If the photo shows the edge knock, then cgs will say it was like that when you submitted it and it has already been taken into account when the grade of 82 was given. If photo shows no edge knock, then it is just as likely that NGC has caused the damage when taking the coin out of the holder. NGC would of course say it was done by cgs.

No you didn't - you meant holey dollar Try again. Third time lucky. Thanks Rob

I meant holely dollar of course.

Talking about the Land of Aus, I think there is a holy dollar on display too. But I could be wrong and saw the dollar in the British Museum instead.

Yes, it is part of the B of E Building.

I had a spare hour yesterday in London and dropped into the Bank of England Museum. It is a small museum but has some good displays including sets of coins for each monarch (from QEII to W&M) + some hammered coins. The coins were stored in wooden display cases with glass tops which allowed close viewing. Highlights include 1935 gold crown, Charles I Pound, circulated 1839 £5 etc.

I really like Nick's and Mark's examples. This is from the FAQ section of the CGS Forum: "When grading a whole range of attributes are considered. Although a coin may have the appearance of being brilliant uncirculated without any apparent blemishes, if the striking is not exact and deep it could end up with a grade of VF45 something that can frequently occur with early Victorian Bronze pennies yet many dealers and collectors would assume the coin to be uncirculated. That is the point of the CGS service, if a coin is determined to be UNC80 then it will be worth at least the common catalogue value for UNC. When it is higher grade it is likely to be higher value that any catalogue would suggest." Looks like CGS has not always been consistent when it comes to strike.

My understanding is that the CGS grading system is by type, therefore there is no theoretical reason why a circulation non-proof coin could not achieve a grade of 100 ... this despite some anomalies in their descriptions for the grades, CGS 88 and above referencing FDC which normally refers to proof coins only. I have non-proof coins graded as MS70 by NGC ... True, I agree that in theory a non-proof can be graded 100. But I think the mint might not be bothered enough to use perfect flans and handle the resulting coins so carefully for ordinary coins.

I personally find the dint on the Charles I significantly easier to live with than the one on Cromwell. Sometimes I am annoyed with myself that I just can't help focussing on the worst part of of each coin in my procession (e.g. minor wear on key part of design, minor carbon spot or contact mark in field etc). I can't stand looking at that Cromwell. If I own it, I would either get it repaired or sell it immediately at any price I can get.

I didn't get one at the end. Apparently, CGS has already graded 68 of these things?! 5 are at CGS 99. Rather surprised by the 99 since they weren't minted to proof standard. Some individual (coin8x.co.uk) is even trying to sell one at, wait for it, at the £999.99.

1) CGS 75 2) CGS 88 3) CGS 70

Davies is usually good at picking the best features for determining varieties, but for the Jubilee head halfcrowns he didn't. I could never work out what the open/closed lace at front of veil was all about. Michael Gouby's method makes it much easier. Thank you! Gouby's method is really so much clearer

But the UIN 33327 indicates that this 1882 has only been graded very recently (within the last 3 months). So it does indeed confirm the views that verd / corrosions are tolerated on low grade and /or rare coins.

:D Funny (esp. because there are probably people who would describe an underweight coin as a rare variety)

Thanks.