ozjohn

Thanks Paulus.

Just as a matter of interest how much do you get / oz. for .500 scrap silver.

Exactly.

History is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of Americans do not care about civil war siege pieces. Check out the price paid for an Australian holey dollar which is worn a Spanish eight reales with the center stamped out and counter stamped around the space where the metal was punched out with New South Wales 1815 on one side and five shillings the other at about $500000. It's all down to supply and demand. Another anomaly is the GB 1927 proof florin with only 15000 minted with a price of about GBP 150.

It seems that I was wrongly informed about the WW1 medal only being inscribed with the name rank etc. in Australia. Just goes to show you should always check things your self rather than accept what someone told you in passing.

I can't say I have ever seen any sign of poorly struck WW1 medals although they use the same effigy of the King which is sometimes blamed for the poor quality of the coins because of its size, It has to be said the WW1 silver medal is thicker than the florins and halfcrowns of the time more the crown size which may have allowed the metal to flow during the striking process. Just as an aside all WW1 silver medals in Australia were inscribed around the edge with the recipients name rank etc. whereas in the UK they were not unless requested for at a charge.

The article gives a credible explanation for the war years but the mint's quality suffered long after the war. Alloy changes may explain the problem but it still exposes design flaws in the original design as the same problems still occurred on coins minted after WW1 with the only response was to introduce the low profile effigy from 1920 to 1926. It still represents an inordinate amount of time to correct the strike quality during this period and as stated before the Royal Mint managed to produce some high quality coins for Australia from 1910 to 1916 using exactly the same presses and blanks. Of course the dies were different. I guess all of this points towards the original designs for these coins.

I think you are probably right. I just wonder why it took so long to fix the problem.

The series that are being compared ie 1910 to 1916 were both struck in .925 silver probably from the same blanks as they were struck at the same mint and for all intents and purpose the same coin with the exception of the design. The Australian coins are well struck while the UK coins were for the most part poor. The only difference is the design. Again the Edward coins before these were for the most part well struck and free from ghosting. If it was the design why did it take so long to correct it with the modified effigy and redesigned reverses. The copper coins also suffered similar problems.

A serious discussion would be a good thing.

I would have thought someone would have a view on this.

Thanks your coin ain't bad either. I think azda is right about the reverse designs for these and the 1825 - 1829 halfcrowns.

Nice. I posted a similar coin dated 1820 on page 3 of this thread.

Maybe I have missed something but when I try to download new content I receive a message telling me that no new content is available which is wrong as there are new messages when I look in the various forums. Perhaps this facility is no longer available. Can anyone shed some light on the matter?

A nice example of a 0.500 toned KGV 1933 florin.

Your opinion and no more as is mine. The only difference is I tried to compare with a known reference something missing in your opinion.

Opinion sought opinion given with reasons stated.

With reference to the supplied photo and The Standard Guide to Grading British coins I would judge this coin as EF to AU. However there are significant knocks on the obverse of this coin that detract from the eye appeal. As the coin has possibly seen a little very light circulation the chances of it being a genuine example of this coin is more likely. I guess it comes down to price.

Another toned example I have.

GENUINE UNC? MS 60 - 65, FDC UNC. There are many versions of GENUINE UNC. If you have long enough pockets go for slabbed coins but even then opinions are different.

With reference to Rotographic Grading British Coins and the fairly poor phot I would grade your sovereign as better than VF but just shy of EF say abt. EF. In all a very nice coin.

Very Nice.

Can't say I've seen any counter stamped civil siege pieces either. As far as I can see they are counter stamped bits of silver produced from silver not originally intended for coinage.

Azda, at the risk of digressing from this thread further I suggest you take a look at Australian holey dollar prices and gradings it is all in the counter mark the original coin is of no consequence. If you think about it someone has butchered a coin by removing its center or making a dent in it using a metal stamp. Normally these coins would be only bullion value after such action but in this case the marking is official thus making the coin rare. This again is true for civil war siege pieces of silver where it is the counter mark that makes these pieces different from any other piece of silver. In all cases beware of fakes.

azda the point was the coin was graded on the basis of the original Mexican coin not its counter stamp as it should have been. However my observation is dragging the subject of this thread away from its original intent something that happens a lot in these forums. The UK and Sheldon scales are probably better discussed as a separate thread.