ozjohn

Perhaps but it is no use whinging unless you are prepared to do something. As a matter of course I report these items if I see them.

If you follow Ebay's report item procedure starting with Report Category and select Copyright and trademark from the pull down menu. Then go to the Reason for report and select Counterfeit item or authenticity disclaimer from the pull down menu. Finally select Detailed reason and select Counterfeit fake or replica item from the pull down menu and complete the report. I do not know if Ebay takes much notice of this but it is their procedure for dealing with issues such as this. If all members of this forum complained every time they saw these items it may help to have these items removed by Ebay. Most of these items are not museum copies as these are usually stamped with copy, replica etc.

A very interesting question but very hard to answer. The only true UNC coin is one that was taken from the mint production directly after minting with provenance to support this. Anything else may have been uncirculated maybe not. Also this question applies to the quality of the mint production. It is possible that an EF coin may be in a much better condition than a badly minted UNC coin. This is true of George V silver coins. Proof coins which show no sign of wear probably come closest to UNC. Just try to get the best example you can.

A better definition may be to ask the question. Is the person describing the coin a buyer or seller.

When does a rim nick become an edge knock?

I just noticed this .500 silver 1939 halfcrown in the back of a draw of a cabinet where I keep my duplicate coins. Nothing rare but the toning is well developed for a .500 silver coin.

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.

Looking an the quality of the first series of George V silver the product from the Royal Mint is of very poor quality especially the florins with pronounced ghosting on the reverse, poorly defined lions in the upper shield on the reverse and poor detail on the effigy on the obverse some examples being so poorly struck that they would be graded as fine for an UNC coin if you did not know better. Looking at the Australian florins minted at the same time and same mint up to 1916 with the exception of some being struck at the Heaton mint these coins are of the highest quality and show no sign of being poorly struck. It has been said that the poor quality of British silver coins was due to WW1 diverting skilled labor into other industries but this is not apparent in the Australian issues in fact the quality did not really improve until the modified effigy appeared in 1926 while the low relief effigy of 1920 did little to improve the situation. However by 1924 the reverse of the florin seem to fully struck in the upper shield although the striking of the obverse was still weak. Maybe some of the issues with the coins after 1919 may be due to the alloy composition being changed but this does not explain the constant poor quality over this whole period. I guess this still begs the question as to why the output of the Royal Mint was so poor when they managed to produce high quality coins for Australia. Any ideas?

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.