youliveyoulean

Hi, a shameless plug i'm afraid! The auction for these finishes tomorrow. Just 10 of each of these were issued by the Royal Mint (4th portrait and 5th portrait) so thought they may appeal to some of the more seasoned penny collectors (although they are modern and in slabs!). They were part of a 16 coin set for which I only have an interest in some of the coins, but not the pennies. Pretty certain these are the only ones that have been offered individually. The 50ps are up also. Thanks all.

no one has mentioned the Spink auction a few weeks ago. huge demand and some of the strongest prices i've seen for a lot of the coins recently. i think i read somewhere a record number of online bidders (for obvious reasons).

I'm pretty certain it is around 398 - that would be all of the 400 sovereigns struck on the day of Prince George's 1st birthday less the 2 that didn't sell (there was a maximum coin mintage of 400 with only 398 released). Hi Rob, from memory the appearance is most definitely proof ie highly polished blank on one side only which has been struck at least twice so I assume the different proof / non-proof strike is deliberate. What dies were used I've no idea. I say deliberate as I think this also took place on the double sovereigns of the same year and also on other sovereigns of recent years. Probably not a mule but that is what the grading companies and many dealers have labelled it (PCGS describe the coin as "mule - incorrect obverse die"). The Royal mint describe the coin as BU in the corresponding booklet. Hope this helps.

Hi All, has anyone had dealings with the above? They are listed on Sixbid and are an authorised PCGS dealer apparently. I have never bought a coin from Japan before but they have a few in an upcoming auction which I really wish to bid on. Thanks in advance.

Hi, die numbers relating to operators looks possible up until 1871 and 1872 where suddenly there would appear to be literally 100s of new employees producing half sovereigns as 100s of new die numbers appear. Any thoughts on that?

Hi, attached is a list by Marsh of the die numbers so far known on the young head half sovereigns 1863 - 1880. I have never spent much time looking at these before but stumbled across a couple in my tray which weren't on the list. Perhaps there is little interest in them and the list has not been updated since the revised edition of the Gold Sovereign by Marsh came out (I have a 2017 copy)? As per the list, I also note some of the dies were used throughout the entire series of the type 1B shield for the 17 different years (according to the book, die number 3 for example would appear to have been used for most years including the 1st year of issue in 1863 and the last year 1880). Is there anyone who can provide some background why some of these dies were used so many times in different years? Thanks in advance.

"Are they saying, though, that such deteriorations as do appear post slabbing, are due to changes that were initiated prior to slabbing? For example, it can take months for a carbon spot to appear, after a tiny drop of saliva lands on a coin surface." The American TPGs have gone to great lengths to absolve themselves of any responsibility for any changes which occur to your coins. They are covered from every angle. I believe the hefty premiums paid for PR70 over PR69 in many cases by collectors are a ticking timebomb as the coins evolve. For PCGS, I recall reading somewhere that in the unlikely event that any collector tries to bring a case against them, it is my understanding that the case may only be tried and heard in a Californian court - where PCGS is based. Can anyone confirm?

back to the original question - saw him last year up in Scotland. Friendly chap.

Surely if VIP proofs were made for the lesser denominations, one would expect a corresponding version for the Crown (can you honestly imagine the powers that be giving a VIP a sixpence etc. without a larger denomination!?) although Rob's point must be right and is very perplexing! I must admit, although not technically correct, I work on the principle if it is not an obvious proof to the naked eye, then I would seriously question it. If you can clearly see some of the sixpences etc. as proofs (which you most definitely can), then you should sure as hell be able to spot a VIP proof Crown. There should be no doubt. That 1932 proof Crown falls into my criteria of no way Jose!!

Good morning, does anyone have any thoughts on what has taken place with the '6' in the date on this guinea? This was sold at the most recent London coins auction. They describe it as a continuation of the lower loop. Also, can anyone recommend some literature on the early guineas - I'm interested in the period up to 1760 (Charles II - George II). Thanks.

Thanks for the response rpeddie. I thought it would be worth mentioning in the article by the TPG either way to at least acknowledge they carry out a check on the metal composition...perhaps they don't! I guess the size and weight of these fakes would be correct which would be a strong indicator they are in fact gold, although again surely the quickest method for a TPG would be to blast coins (in bulk where possible) with an XRF gun? Does anyone have any insight as I know little about the history of forgeries. Is it a case of melting down fraudulently obtained gold into small, reliable, saleable items (a common dated sovereign being an obvious choice)?

Hi all, was just reading the following article:- https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/5626/counterfeit-1928-south-africa-gold-soveriegn/ At no point does the TPG mention the gold content of these fakes which I assume would be incorrect. Spotting fakes will be easy if you get 4 together, but in this day and age, I had assumed the first check for authenticity a major TPG would do to save time would be to analyse the metal content with some flash XRF equipment. Any thoughts?

I think the TPGs SHOULD be able to do a reasonable job of splitting coins into 3 categories of ordinary, cameo or deep cameo. Much easier than grading on a 1 -70 scale say! I did once read on a forum somewhere once that they use a tried and tested method of reading font from a side of A4 in the reflection from the field from certain distances to determine cameo or deep cameo (ultra cameo). The problem with that is it doesn't measure the amount of contrast between the fields and the devices which is surely what cameo implies!?. Has anyone else heard of such a theory?

Vickysilver - apologies having a studied a little closer, I think you are right about it being softly struck.

Vickysilver - in my opinion the coin graded MS64 is not softly struck but shows significant signs of wear (in all the obvious places). If you believe the coin is softly struck, then I'm sure you must be correct!