jelida

My take on this is that removal of material, eg mud, grease, wax or varnish which is not integral with the structure of the coin should be considered as different from anything that affects the coin itself, ie patina, surface metal, integrated corrosion products. The former can usually be removed by judicious use of water, solvents, soft brush or cocktail stick and the actual coin will be unchanged, and more stable in the future. This could be seen as conservation, others might say surface cleaning. I consider this acceptable, sometime essential to the prevention of future corrosion. The latter will materially alter the appearance of the coin itself by chemical action or physical abrasion, and involves removal of some integral part of the coin. This could be seen as cleaning, and is generally undesirable. That is not to say that judicious removal of active corrosion eg bronze disease is not essential, otherwise the coin will simply not be around for future generations to enjoy. The removal of local corrosion in a controlled fashion while not treating the coin as a whole could be considered conservation. I find it unhelpful to take a dogmatic negative view with regard to conservation (as opposed to cleaning), as by definition conservation should enhance the longevity and survivability and ideally preserve as much as possible the original state of the coin. ‘Cleaning’ in most collectors minds is conditioned by images of wire wool and brasso, silver dip or a buff with a soft cloth, and understandably carries negative vibes. Conservation is not the same. Neither will be required for most collector coins, though most will already have had the soap and water treatment in the past and we are none the wiser. Jerry

The reverse is (more or less) that of a late C18 guinea or half, and could not be 1701 , which is why I queried 1791 as the 9 and 0 are not dissimilar overall outline. But a better quality gaming token remains most likely, I think you would get what is shown. Jerry

I would say that if the date is 1701 it is a gaming token, if 1791 it could be a guinea or half, without checking comparative sizes. But not my field either way. Jerry

As Zookeeperz will know, I frequently disagree with the varieties proposed, but this one looks good even to me. Nice spot, look forward to your own photos. Jerry

They must surely be OK, they are coming from China via Moussaeiff Jewellers in the Hilton, on Park Lane! And the gold £5 are only a tenner apiece too! Count me in! Not. Jerry

It looks OK to me from the photos, if a genuine half sovereign is worth about £100 depending on current bullion prices at time of sale. Jerry

We need more clues, size and pictures would be a start, weight if you have accurate scales. When you say ‘found’, do you mean detected? If picked up cheap in a car boot sale, it could easily be a replica. Jerry

Reported, a Russian newcomer. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Coin-Britannia-Georgius-III/253468946417?hash=item3b03ed2ff1:g:s-sAAOSwZDdanR6j Jerry

It will be worth five Australian cents, less than 5p I believe. I would put it in a charity box, the warm feeling you will get is worth more than 5p. Jerry

Super coin, I’ve never found a milled Lizzie, but dozens of hammered! Jerry

They at ‘Boy Bishop’ tokens, mediaeval lead alloy. Not uncommon, lots of varieties and are collectable. Lots of info online. Jerry

Thanks Mike, this post may have saved me a pointless drive in the snow, they clearly don’t have my current email address. Jerry

Not, though it may be a doubled '8'. Jerry

Yes F73 but not a Gouby ja reverse. They are not always easy to spot, I try to spot the slight convexity of the back of Britannia’s helmet, which is normally concave, as on this one. Practice on narrow date 1875’s, all of which are ja. Jerry

Yes, there is a lot of variation in ‘H’ position. And yes, F71 I agree. Jerry

Lacquering was common, Lindner sold a kit, I had one back in the ‘70’s. It was meant to help preserve the coin by excluding oils, moisture, salts etc, but was prone to varying thickness and dribbles.(sounds like me on a Friday night!) I don’t think it did much harm, though the ‘coin cleaner’ dip that one was meant to use first can’t have been good. It should come off easily with acetone dip, though whether your coin is lacquered I can’t tell from the photo. They usually look pretty obviously varnished. Jerry

Yup. The signature can be seen as well. Jerry

Santa's pic is of the new obverse, which is referred to as D*, there being no suitable sequential letter to allocate to it! D* is very rare so far, and has two extra teeth which alters the letter/tooth associations. First described on this forum by Terry Eagleton a couple of years ago. Jerry

Actually I should revise my statement above; obverse 3 post DG colon points to the right of a tooth, not fully to the gap. But the illustrated coin is still obverse 2, with the colon pointing to the tooth or slightly to the left. Jerry

It is obverse 2 with the incomplete rose and the colon after DG pointing to a tooth, colon is to a gap on obverse 3.

The weak area is variable, as it depends on the depth/force of the die strike so not always present, but when it is present it seems invariably to be found on obverse 2. Jerry

What I see are tonal differences in the photograph that give a false impression of a wider gap, and anyway don’t detract from the probable presence of the signature, visible in both obverse images but particularly the first, and the Obv 2 type indentation half way along the lower bust line that Mike’s post photos show clearly. Nor can the point made above about the R in BRITT be ignored if stating this to be an F28. Unless it is a new obverse, and allowing for wear, the visible identifying features have to be all or nothing, not pick and mix. I hope this coin is soon in the hand, Mr Badexample, so we can have some photos we can agree around, though this debate is rather fun. Jerry

True Pete, we had fun with that one. It is a nice example. I haven’t sent pics to Richard yet, will do so when I can get at my PC 😣 , furniture stacked everywhere and dust by the bucket😡. Jerry

I think that impression may be a photo issue. I certainly get the impression of a signature along the lower border of the bust, and the slight ‘recess’ mid way along the lower border is characteristic of obverse 2. I also don’t see the cut away section of bust margin on the right that would be compatible with obverse 5. Another issue is the slight misalignment of the R in BRITT. I have seen this on some obverse 2 dies, but it does not feature on the F28 obverse dies so far noted (refer Richards’s site). If it is F28, it would have to be a different combination of Obverse 5 plus Reverse G dies than the others so far found. I stand by F20. At the very least this topic demonstrates how we all see different things in the information presented to us. As noted before, I would not be sorry to be wrong, time will tell. PS I see Bernie agrees with me, that gives me some confidence ! Jerry

I’m going for F20, 2+G, I think there is a signature on the bust, and the lower margin of the bust and rose looks right, and the colon after ‘G’ of DG points to a tooth. But I won’t be upset if it’s F28, fingers crossed! Either way a rare coin. Jerry