Colin G.

Don't you just love daylight robbery!! Those charges are so infuriating when you are on the receiving end

Your example is showing signs of some form of machine doubling, where the machinery involved has caused the die to chatter resulting in the "effect" of doubled lettering in the legend. It is usually more evident in the legend/outer areas of the coin, you will notice that the doubling will all be to the same extent in the same direction.

Can't help with your question, but I would be interested in similar for the 1 & 2 double coins if anyone does have the information.

The coin shown appears to have the portrait of a colonial coin such as a Straits Settlements cent. The coins referred to in Peck between 1860-1868 which show numbering are much fainter in terms of the scratching and are explained in detail by Gouby (images can be seen on his website..I think).

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each. Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely? I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but there is a weighty tome explaining the entire working of the Royal Mint (c. 1870) in excruciating detail (and I really do mean that) which may contain some useful information. If not, it's a handy cure for insomnia. The publication is "The Royal Mint by George Frederick Ansell" and you can download a PDF free from Google books. The pages relating to matrices, punches and dies are 63-67. Thanks Nick I will have a look through

This is an area I am currently looking at and struggling to find any certain information, from information i have, it appears that three tiers of production were used (matrices, hubs/master dies, working dies). The "matrix" is an incuse image of the design, and is used to strike "hubs/master dies/punches" (which are positive) from which "working dies" were then produced (again incuse). A fault could easily occur during the striking process when creating master dies and therefore, this flaw transfers to a number of working dies and then these flaws can potentially be repeated across a vast number of coins. The matrices and master dies were produced in fairly low numbers, with quite a few working dies appearing to be struck from each master die. If anyone does know of any good sources of information on this subject please let me know!!

You're quite right, Gary: 1915 top, 1916 below.... So how did one die make so many coins? You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices.

Yes that is a big problem. If the micro variety is rare enough so that its value goes above the threshold where you have to give an individual valuation its no longer a problem. We need Spinks to take more notice of micro varieties otherwise we're screwed. This is one area where CGS may offer some real benefit, it would be interesting to know how their valuations have held up in the case of a claim, but certainly the item is catalogued, photographed and valued....which must offer some benefit

Technically yes, but if you do a verification check on the coin it will come up as rejected, and the yellow label also highlights this fact. However it is something that needs a bit more prominence on the CGS website. On a separate issue a few coins I submitted are due to be collected tomorrow less than 30 days after they were submitted.

You get the same with 1895 OH farthings, bright finish but there are some really nice proof-like examples out there.

I believe about a 50/50 split. In CCGB they are priced roughly the same. Both are easy. Thanks, Peter, much appreciated! I agree, not far off 50/50

Yup Peter is spot on you have a George IV farthing

Dan, Welcome to the forum, it will be difficult to give nay advice without a photo of the coin, there are just so many possibilities. Even if the picture is not brilliant at least we should be able to narrow it down for you. Out of curiosity which way is Britannia facing?

They may have done, but I find the "edge view" holders ugly, if CGS go down this route Bill, please ask them to look at a more attractive alternative!!

The fact that the other datal figures have a similar stepped top, would make my initial thought damage where something has spread the top of the digits. I can see why you are questioning the 3 because the top looks more curved, but it does not align with either example I have. You would need a much better example to be certain of it being a separate type of 1843/2 die, although it is likely there may be other 1843/2 dies out there.

Yes, welcome aboard, Adam! They're a good bunch on here! Welcome to the forum, what are your collecting interests?

I gave up and walked away in the end...someone else can have my cash instead

Those farthing prices were crazy!!

I just bid on a proof, it said bid sent and then nothing...and then it sold to someone else again for less than I would have been willing to pay

I could understand it from a small regional auction house but this is ridiculous

The first time I have "tried" to use their online bidding software....what a nightmare Is it just me or is this the single most useless piece of online bidding software around....I notice there are not many internet bids....I wonder why!!! Described as powerful and sophisticated and operated by a market leader.........oh dear

I understand it was more the fact that the sizes/weights had started to align in different countries due to the same blanks being used, and the quality of the coinage was also comparable with many of the countries using the same suppliers (Heaton et al). Therefore people had become confident in accepting the foreign coinage in transactions. It is surprising how many foreign bronze pieces are found when metal detecting, it was obviously a fairly common practise.

Doing my home town proud...at least it proves the education system around here needs work

This was my favourite : "Mint State Also Uncirculated. A coin in the condition in which it left the mint. Never circulated. IN THE BEGINNING there was the word Uncirculated, and it was good. Then, over time, God created adjectives to modify His word. At first he proposed but two: Choice and Gem. Apostles, like Q. David Bowers, hoped to affix a third: Select. However, Select failed to adhere. Then, when God's adjectives proved inadequate, a numbering system was devised. This numbering system the Apostles borrowed from the Order of Large Cent monks. Up to 1976, Mint State numbers for Large Cents included 60, 65, and 70, with 70 meaning full mint red. These numbers were pressed into service on other coin types, then modified and augmented over time. Mint State was called 60; Choice, 65; and Gem became 70. Later, 70 transmuted into Superb Gem (a glorious new adjective). Finally, the ultimate grade of 70 evolved to mean God's Own Perfection. Intermediate numbers therein followed: 63 arose earliest, in the later-1970s; a few years on followed 64 (when 65 proved too weak to distinguish the fine quality shifts in a Mint State coin). Eventually, all eleven integers found their way into the numismatic liturgy: Mint State 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and (now rarely seen) 70. IT CAME TO PASS that other disciples hit upon the idea of adding a small 'PQ' to the number to signify Premium Quality. Still others bethought they could see thine selves reflected in the field of certain Morgan silver dollars. With this, prooflike was born. Eventually, those wanting separation from the rabble of everyday prooflike collectors enlarged the term to include 'deep mirror' prooflike as well. And so, from its lowly beginnings as a single usage, the grade Mint State--in the case of silver dollars at any rate--has come to include one of sixty-six possible permutations. Is that, or is that not, progress?" I was chuckling at that....brilliant!!

My biggest fear when receiving back slabbed coins is fluff. You send off a 100% lint free specimen only for it to come back to you with a piece of what can only be described as belly button fluff stuck to the coin. Almost invariably this problem occurs with a prized coin which the grading company have duly recognised as such by giving it a high grade and valuation. There lies the dilemma... do I de-slab it and lose the grading, do I send it back and risk coming across as an OCD complainer, or do I just learn to live with it? OCD complainer every time, if I saw something wrong with a coin I had submitted, I would expect it to be slabbed correctly and therefore would complain and return it