ozjohn

Yes see my 1920 halfcrown upgrade post its heaps better than this one.

Hi Inforapenny, Try classic coins on ebay they always seem to have a lot of English silver coins in VF and above condition at fairly reasonable prices.

An upgrade to my halfcrown collection. Finding a 1920 halfcrown in reasonable condition is difficult although it is not a rare coin the mint quality is problematic and grading these coins is difficult. There are a couple of marks on the obverse however I think on the whole it is a pretty decent coin

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1929-HALFCROWN-NGC-MS64-PLUS-HIGHEST-GRADE-POP-1-0-GREAT-BRITAIN-/182008992738?hash=item2a6094d3e2:g:70UAAOSwa-dWoSSM How does a coin like this be graded at MS64 ? The reverse is not bad as far as you can see from the out of focus photograph but the obverse leaves a lot to be desired. Some wear on the earlobe several digs all over the sovereign's effigy especially on the beard, nose, neck and forehead also general scuffs in the field. The price of GBP 100 is also on the heavy side for an UNC 1929 halfcrown. Just goes to show buy the coin not the NGC etc. grading.

Ebay item # 262269184358 which is an 1843 halfcrown of 13.5g weight all most certainly a base metal reproduction was sold for GBP 113 and attracted 22 bids. What more can I say.

I would grade your sovereign at NVF with surface digs on the obverse side located on the chin and neck of the queen. Spink Coins of England 2016 catalogs your coin at F 600 VF 1300 & EF 4750 GBP. Probably worth hanging on to.

I've had this coin for a while and was brought graded as VF for $12.00. After looking at this thread I took it out of the cardboard coin holder to compare it with the other posts and noticed that the milling was almost pristine with very sharp edges. (Hard to show using a scanner). However it does show how poorly some of these coins of this period were minted. On the whole I think the reverse is a better strike. Although it doesn't show on the scan the coin has good luster. than the obverse

find

This coin has been in my collection for the best part of 30 years and has never been dipped in that time. I am sure there are many people out therewho will think it has been dipped. Moral to the story if you cannot fid something nice to say don't

Every coin seems to be dipped?? A die crack over the lion or ghosting perhaps. Who knows but that is how the coin was made?

Mr T. I think the mint quality of the florins is probably the worst for the reign with most UNCs looking like GVF or worse which may help to explain the difference you have described.

Don't send it to CGS for regrading they will be sure to reject a toned coin like your one.

Overall a nice reverse bright while still retaining some mint lustre and some small nicks and scratches. No real evidence of cleaning as such but as to dipping who can tell if it is done well. With adding the caution if in doubt do not dip.

True but when it comes to halfcrowns with the exception of 1892 the other dates are fairly common whereas in the case of florins this is not true. As mentioned initially in the post the double florins are common although some with different 1s may be rarer also I cannot see people hanging on to what was considered to be an unpopular coin.

I have been trying to complete the run of jubilee florins 1887 thru 1892. 1887 seems to be the easiest date with the rest uncommon especially in the higher grades. I can understand this for 1891 and 1892 as they are low mintage years however 1887 thru 1890 should be fairly easy as they are of mintages of over a million. When you look on Ebay for these dates there are plenty of double florins but the normal florins are very thin on the ground with the exception of 1887.Does anyone know the reason for this? I have heard that double florins were unpopular at the time as they could be confused with a crown even though the reverse was completely different. Even so I cannot see anyone wanting to hoard an unpopular coin I would have thought they would pass them on asap. Any way there seems to be plenty of double florins except for 1892 as none were issued and very few florins for the other years. I do have a high grade 1892 which I obtained many years ago but 1889 - 1891 in high grade elude me.

As always with reference to The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins I would grade this as Near EF. With reference to the grading guide it just misses the EF grading due to the wear at the beginning of the queens plat on the obverse and on the reverse similar wear on the breast on the harp decoration also the body of the thistle. Overall still a pretty nice coin. Attached scans of the godless florin in my collection which I think grades at EF perhaps a little better but not UNC. Noting that the reverse scan is upside down the bottom The crown and lion with One Florin around it is a little weak due to the strike as the opposite crown and lion is fine. As an observation about grading it seems to be more about disagreement than agreement.

Interesting to read the report from the Melbourne branch of the Royal Mint where they had a Chinese general visitor who told the mint that shield back sovereigns were far more acceptable in the far east as the St. George reverse showed the dragon, the Chinese symbol in an humiliating positon. Just goes to show you can upset people without even knowing it. On the other hand I believe Greeks love St. George reverse sovereigns as St. George is held in very high regard in Greece. I wonder if the Chinese are still offended if they see a St. George reverse sovereign.

I was looking at some coins at a stall in our local market when someone asked the dealer about an British1865 penny. To which the dealer said it was worthless. As these coins were the circulating coins in Australia at the time they are part of the Australian series and the dealer should be familiar with the prices of such coins. The coin was not shown to the dealer so its condition was unknown. In conclusion dealers who behave as this one did not deserve to be told about a rare coin he may be selling at a low price as he is unaware of its value as it is self inflicted due to the dealer's ignorance .

I would give CGS a big miss myself. Their grading is too inconsistent and biased towards coins they are trying to push thru their retail outlet London Coins. As for rejecting "cleaned" coins CGS's attitude is completely unreasonable as all they need to do is note it on the capsule along with any other defects such as edge nicks/knocks etc. CGS coins for sale thru London Coins often have scratches digs etc. that do not effect their grading and are completely ignored by CGS "graders".

Not sure what integral to the life cycle of a coin means however cleaning a coin covers a simple wash with water thru scrubbing with steel wool. The decision to clean a coin must be taken on a coin by coin basis weighing up preservation issues, appearance etc. while minimizing the impact on the coin in question. Also with a caution if in doubt DONT.

It's all semantics. Acetone is still cleaning as it is removing dirt grease etc. from the surface of the coin. If you managed to scratch the coin whilst cleaning it with acetone the effect would be the same as any other medium put on the coin. The "cleaning" word seems to be misused in these forums as a way of putting down a coin. If there are obvious marks on a coin due to a cleaning process it doesn't really matter how they got there and the coin is damaged and if the cleaning process does not damage the coin in any way who really knows. I am not suggesting for one moment that coins shouldn't be cleaned with acetone but it is still cleaning as cleaning is the act of removing grease dirt etc. from the surface of an object. Perhaps we need to find a permitted cleaning agent and procedure?

I think a zac was a 3d and dinar 6d in Australia. Both survived as 50% silver coins until 1965. A shilling and two shillings were a bob and two bob. The halfcrown was lost in 1910 but survived as a circulating coin until the 1930s due to earlier releases and imports from the UK by migrants settling in Australia.​

I can remember prices in guineas in Australia in newspaper ads for posh shops as late as the 1970s long after the introduction of decimal currency in 1966.

Swanny, The hardback version of Rotographics for grading British coins is very good but if you have an iPad the Kindle version is very convenient for coin fairs and has the added advantage of being able to enlarge the illustrations for a better view. In addition if you can scan or photograph your collection you may be able to store a record of your collection on the iPad for reference for when thinking about a coin with a view of upgrading it when at a coin fair etc. It may avoid some expensive mistakes.

Sorry but I have to differ. With reference to Rotographics Standard Guide to Grading British coins I would grade the example of the 1924 sixpence at at least EF with the other example at UNC. I would give the higher grading as the wear on the King's ear is minimal and on the obverse the lion's nose has a similar amount of wear. As this is a 1924 dated coin the mint quality was beginning to improve and a coin in this condition minted in 1922 or earlier would probably be graded higher.