rmw

I'm glad that this may end up being sorted out.

Where's Dragon King? Long time no hear from

I did mean Ricky

There is lots of Roman imagery in British coins.

And there are close to 300 types of Roman Coinage listed as types in the British Standard Coinage catalogue.

I clicked on your link to the Gem piece. Wow!!

The seated Britannia on British farthings , halfpennies and pennies starting in the seventeenth century are taken after Roman pieces of Britain.

Thanks Kohaku. I am still adding to my collection, in fact I got a Napoleonic Wars era Bank Token (1812) in MS 66 just yesterday, and started a new competitive set with it and a matching 1811 in Ms 65. Many more will be added to registry sets in the coming weeks as I have over 30 pieces in for grading right now, including the 1665 pattern farthing I recently posted on these pages. 

Are you planning on getting a piece for each emperor, usurper, wife if applicable, etc? That would be quite a collection. Byzantines as well?

Best of luck on your quest!

From time to time I have had some difficulty in getting registry sets for Britain properly set up. In those cases, rather than acting passively I called NGC to try to get things corrected and to refer them to the Standard Catalogue of British Coins or other standard references, which, it was plain, were not being used. I know they have the Standard Catalogue now and have got the corrections I was asking for. Numismatics for world coins is a vast subject and it is hard to keep track of 26 centuries of making coins. Sometimes help or a nudge is what is needed.

There is a companion short hair version available. I know where it is and might get it (another 1665 pattern farthing, that is).

The 1699 is far better than the picture shows, and has great luster and toning but does not have a complete strike. It should be kept in mind that the screw and pulley press machinery used at the time (no steam power) almost always did not exert enough pressure to give a complete strike and so some detail was often lost. Any silver coins made prior to about 1800 had the same issues,which is when steam powered machinery was finally installed and more force could be brought to bear on the strike.

Not necessarily rim damage, might be a flan issue. It can't be emphasized enough how primitive the production conditions were then.

As to RB vs BN , there is a trace of red on the coin . It would be a judgement call but really, I would let the coin speak for itself.

As to your birthday, many happy returns!

More proofs and patterns coming.

Next instalment will include a piece almost certainly handled by Sir Isaac Newton, a 1717 proof farthing.

Yeah, Ive noticed slow traffic as well, but in my case more understandable as Im not collecting US.

And as for your sentiment Chris B about enjoying your collection, I agree 100 percent. That's the point of it.

Here is my example of a 1911 proof set, for the Coronation of George V. This is the no gold version of the set and was bought raw, but has since been slabbed.

I have bought a proof 1911 half sovereign separately. Here is a picture of that piece as well as that of a spare proof halfcrown of the same year.

There is  a proof set of coins from 1953. I have one of them.

This is in common with previous monarchs either during their Coronation Year or soon after, such as Victoria in 1839, Edward VII in 1902, George V in 1911, and George VI in 1937.

But I havent seen a mention of an official Coronation Medal. Several unofficial ones were made.

Welcome as well Mike

I like your Medal and your great writeup.

Keep those articles coming!

Thanks for the kind words about the medals. Ive tried to get the best example of each official medal that I can (they can be found in gold as well but that is beyond my snack bracket, so I stick to brass/bronze/copper and silver).

However I would argue with a couple of your comments. 

First, the designs of coins for much of this period were not made to be acceptable to the general public but were (and I think, still are) approved by the monarch himself or herself. Having said that, there were examples when the designers went back to the drawing board if the public did not like the design.

Second, their manufacture according to weights and measures can be made to mean different things. While it is true that, once a design is approved for a coin of a particular denomination, care had to be taken to ensure consistent weights and measures for that denomination,in fact, prior to the Napoleonic Wars of the late eighteenth and early 19th century, they also had to be worth their intrinsic weight in the metal they were made from. For example, a shilling had to have a shilling's weight of silver in it. If it didn't, by and large it would not be accepted by the public. The concept of token coinage that we have had since, says that a piece of metal , officially stamped with an approved design, was worth a shilling because the government said it is.The old view created issues of its own, from rampant shaving of metal off of a coin in the hope of passing off the difference as the full value (have a look at a lot of 17th century pieces to see what I mean) to problems keeping coins in circulation should there be inflation or deflation in the price of the metal involved in the coin. When the metal price changed, all existing coins either had too much or too little metal value in them. This could require a recoinage with a change in the weights and measures of the coins involved.

In addition, while it is true that medals could in theory be made with less political restraint,or based on whim, in practice and by definition, official Coronation Medals reflected the official views of the government and the monarchy itself. Take a look at the reverse  of the James II medal I posted earlier and you will see a crown handed from heaven, signifyi ng the idea that the right to rule was given by God himself and that therefore others had no right to interfere, that is, that the monarchs right to rule was absolute. And in general, such was the grip on the reins of power by the upper classes that any other medals deemed seditious could bring a world of hurt to their makers. So these medals, especially the earlier ones, were made under different political conditions than we are more used to in the modern day.

Keep on keeping on Eicky

Thanks. More medals to come in this journal so stay tuned.

The others Ive shown in previous journals have received very high grades as well, usually 63 or 64, even the 1685 James II Coronation Medal in silver.

Which one, Chris B, the Coronation Medal or the 1686 sixpence?

I'm biased I think, but both are pretty good.

Sounds to me like THN has a standard reference project to do.

As I said if they have this kind of rub I wouldnt expect more than a 62 or so if it is exceptional otherwise, like I think this 1686 is (obverse strike is excellent and there are none of the usual haymarking/imperfections in the silver that mark many pieces from this era, due to primitive metallurgy).

But it is true that GEF /AU mean more/different in the UK than in the US, usually 61 62 or 63 here. If the rub is really obvious then maybe a 58.You have to pick your spots with reputable dealers. There are many of them in the UK.

The British would call this "as struck", or at worst "virtually as struck". Almost all of them never use numeric grades and even when the same terms are used, they may mean different things as grading there, as it is here, can be imprecise.

So it makes it a challenge to buy raw coins from there , but I like the challenge and buy a lot of pieces raw. 

Although in most cases there are pictures, in some cases the pictures arent as good as you want to get the fine detail needed to determine 64s or 65s or 66s.

A lot of times I will call the dealer or auctioneer before committing or bidding in order to double check things such as "cabinet friction" or surface quality. Brits are extremely strict on cabinet friction, far more so than in North America, where many can still be graded as 61, 62, rarely 63 or even 64 if not careful. More often than not this relates to an uncirculated coin resting in an old fashioned British coin cabinet for decades or centuries. A coin would rest in a hole in a shelf in a wooden cabinet with a plush velvet bottom in the hole the coin would be sitting on. Over time, the cabinet opening and closing would cause ever so slight wear on a coin as it jostled back and forth in its hole, the hole being bigger than the coin. Brits would call such pieces GEF (good extra fine) or AU (almost uncirculated).

If a coin has this friction the Brits will say so. North Americans most often would not. This medal doesnt have any friction I can see and most likely was in an original case, undisturbed and even if it was, the case would be custom made and no jostling causing friction would take place.

Here is an example of a piece with cabinet friction, a 1686 sixpence. Its graded as a 62 which in US terms is a fair grade.

On the reverse, there is no rub that I am aware of. It doesnt have any significant marks as evidence of seeing circulation and so it is uncirculated.

But take a look at the dark area on the cheek/jawline and high points on the obverse. Some slight darkness, right? that is where there has been ever so slight cabinet friction. I bought this piece raw and was aware of the friction. But its otherwise lustrous (especially the obverse, as shown in the picture) and mark free/uncirculated. I doubt that there are very many pieces saved for over 3 centuries of this type without at least a bit of friction, although I could be wrong. But I havent seen any. So for 1686 this is as close to as good as it gets.

You can also check whether they get it right in the submission status area, where they properly identify (or not) the coins when they are received. that is how I intervened on the 1891 3P issue I mentioned before. So I called and emailed them to get that straight before they finished.

I also as much as I can , identify the variety on the paper insert put in each coin flip, rather than just putting on the invoice and line number.

So those are other ways to skin that cat.