ozjohn

Yes but the milling is pristine and in my experience the milling receives a lot of wear during circulation. Also the obverse field has none of the usual scratches bumps etc. In fact in hand the fields of coin appears to have much of their original lustre. Maybe it was damaged some time in its life? Who knows but it does serve to illustrate the difficulty in grading poorly minted coins.

Yes the weakness of the strike on the reverse is obvious on the second scan but harder to decide if it could be wear on the obverse of this coin which brings us back to the difficulty in grading this series of coins. Sometimes the milling can provide some clues. However with NGC slabs the milling is completely hidden although it would have been visible to the original grader. The scan of the 1916 halfcrown shows what looks like wear on the obverse especially on the top of the king's ear although the reverse is pretty good strike. Examination of the milled edge shows it to be in pristine condition ( not scanned as it is hard to do on a flat bed scanner). From that I would conclude this coin is in pretty close to UNC condition with a poorly struck obverse. I know the TPG try to gage the strike when appraising a coin but IMO this one would struggle to receive a VF grading if it was determined that the obverse condition was due to wear rather than a poor strike.

The first scan is a NGC slabbed halfcrown graded MS 62 while the lsecond scan is an ungraded 1917 halfcrown. My view is that the iungraded coin is the better coin perhaps MS 63/64 when compared with the slabbed coin. Any thoughts would be appreciated

I have already reported this item https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/One-florin-1870-Great-Britain-England-UK-United-Kingdom-1-gothic-silver-coin/273003745559?hash=item3f904a9117:g:zEoAAOSwBjdaSA-i to no avail. Perhaps a few more reports may move Ebay to remove this item.

A couple of years ago I was in Fremantle WA and visited a coin shop called Sterling & Currency where I was shown some British coin dies featuring KG VI. I am not sure if they were made in Australia or imported from the UK. From memory I think they were crown dies and assuming they were used here in Australia they would have been used for the 1937/38 crown coins. While I was there I purchased a stunning UNC 1904 halfcrown.

I What ever! mentioned in your initial post.

True but the reply gave the impression that halfcrowns were not used in Australia which is not correct.

There's still plenty of us Cranky old bastards who are not politically correct.

Halfcrowns were issued in Australia up to 1910 and perhaps later to use up coins remaining in the mint vaults and were in circulation until the early 1930s. Probably due to people coming from the UK to Australia. Both countries shared the same currency until 1932 when the pound used in Australia was devalued to 15/- sterling. Australia continued to use sterling silver until 1946 when it was debased to 50% silver. UK 50% silver coins that were brought to Australia after 1919 until 1932 were redeemed by the BOE for the full 92.5% silver rate. As an aside UK bronze coins were in circulation until the late 1960s and were still recognizable design date etc. relatively intact. If the coin found buried at Geelong was dated 1898 it would have been less than 30 years of age when lost and should still be in pretty good condition unless it corroded while buried.

What was the denomination of this coin?

One piece of vital information required here assuming a TPG is involved. Who was the TPG?

Bitcoin. Basically a Ponzi scheme. This one is wrapped up with high tech mumbo jumbo They always look good until the s### hits the fan and somebody wants their cash. Even the so called founder is scared to show his face who knows what his real motives are. One thing I am convinced of is they are not there to benefit the "man in the street". So far nothing convinces me that their intentions are honorable. Remember CDRs of the GFC the financial product of the century. If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is. Better to stick to real coins in these forums perhaps.

Picked this one up today. OK for 1910M a bullion sovereign.

I've had this coin for over 20 years and although it shows some severe edge damage at 9 O' clock on the reverse and is lightly struck you get attached to things you have had for a long time. Regarding the edge damage I'm wondering if this was inflicted when the coin was minted or at a later stage. Any thoughts are welcome. I didn't pay much for the coin probably $AU 20 - $AU 30 with the portrait looking much better in the hand than the scan suggests. Thanks

I have heard that Cu penny and two penny coins were used as one and two oz. weights which would have saved them from being circulated.

Nice coin. What grade was allocated to this coin?

TPG again. Judge the coin on its merits. In particular pay attention to the excelent book on grading british coins produced by predecimal.com and make your own judgement. IMO with reference to the book on grading I think the coin has been under graded by NGC . No worries remove the coin from its slab and enjoy. It seems, in some people's mindset that when a coin is graded by a TPG it has been branded for all time. When in fact it is an opinion by a system that is littered with inconsistencies that can be easily rectified by the means suggested above.

An example of the product of NGC's exhaustive procedures. The whole concept of TPG is consistency which so far has not been achieved. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Great-Britain-George-V-Florin-1915-KM817-MS63-NGC/192366387787?hash=item2cc9ee224b:g:UC4AAOSwTQtaDdod

Nice coin perhaps undergraded. Here in Australia we do not pay GST and duty for items under $800.

Buy the coin not the slab!

A 100 year old coin still bright that hasn't been cleaned in some way unlikely. Perhaps the question should be how carefully was it cleaned?

Yes. I doubt if it will do any good. A large response from members of this forum may produce a more positive result.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1829-HALF-CROWN-/172806982068?hash=item283c1949b4:g:t8wAAOSwGrNZhLNm Another copy the seller hasn't even described it as such. In my book a deliberate attempt to deceive. The only saving grace is the quality of the copy is so bad that it would not fool an experienced collector. However perhaps a less experienced collector could be. In any case items such as this are against EBay's listing rules and should be removed.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1916-King-George-V-Great-Britain-Silver-Halfcrown-Half-1-2-Crown-PCGS-MS64-/362050010579?hash=item544bdcbdd3:g:qLcAAOSwfsFZd2ty This coin lacks eye appeal and looks like it's been cleaned at some time yet still manages to achieve a PCGS MS 64 grading.

Fantasy coins for the most part are Edward & George double florins which never existed as coins minted as legal tender so probably do not qualify as replicas. As for 1952 & 1933 pennies most people are aware that these coins are rare as rocking horse #### and very unlikely to be genuine but should be marked as copies. My real problem is with copies of circulation coins that are not marked as copy/replica although described as such being sold on Ebay etc and then being offered as genuine by a third party seller which have the potential to deceive. I have to say I am very reluctant to bid on George 111 and Victoria YH halfcrowns because of this.