arphethean

I have available a few mint presentation packs containing commemorative stamps. Postage will be 50p extra Heraldic Beasts post and go stamps Current face value is £5.70. Face value after 3rd April is £6.60. Price is £5.50 Queen's Beasts 5 x 26p Price is £1.20 Occasions hallmarks. 5 x 1st class Face value currently £4.75. Future value £5.50 Price is £4.50.

I have some graded pandas available today fresh back from grading, and duplicates in my collection. Early pandas are excessively rare to get in 70 grades! Prices do not include postage which will be just £5 for SD 1990 large date in MS69. £105 This is the more common variety but with a superb prooflike mirrored fields and fantastic frosted design. 1989 in a baffling MS67. £65 SOLD A beautiful coin and why NGC choose to award this an MS67 is a mystery as I can barely see anything wrong with it and certainly nothing worse than on my 69s! 2003 1/4oz gold, frosted bamboo variety in MS69. £550 A stunning coin! 2003 silver, frosted bamboo variety in MS69. £110 Very close to flawless at a fraction of the price of a 70.

Great work - if you would like to have the spreadsheet automatically update with live spot I can help you with a script for it

There are two very different markets. The scrap market where coins have passed through multiple dealers all of whom have sifted through it with varying attention to detail, so there is virtually no value left in it besides the silver content. In pre 1947 I charge around 5 percent premium for this stuff. Grades will vary from unreadable date to high grade 40s coins all of which have no rarity/low demand to justify selling individually. Pre1920 is far more sought after and goes for a higher premium for equivalent mixes of grades, say 8 to 10%. This is because even "fine" grade coins can be sold individually sometimes and coins back to 1816 are commonly found in these bundles. That's the scrap market. For coins of high grade, buy only from trusted sellers. I say this not because of fakes as I'm not aware of fakes, though this may be a factor, but because experienced sellers will generally know the grade and the value fairly accurately and know it is a futile exercise to attempt to sell overpriced coins. I'm talking about real experts with websites, high quality photos, grades and honest accurate descriptions on every individual coin. Silver coins in high grades will often sell for more than their gold value! I bought a Queen Anne shilling weighing 6g for £420 recently and a few have congratulated me on what a great price I paid! So the percentage premium is not a term that's relevant anymore. The scrap market is very easy to enter. You need to know what the silver content is so the lot needs to be accurately sorted by pre47/20 and weighed and then you can easily calculate the silver content and hence price. Do not pay over 10 percent unless you see a hidden gem. If it hasn't been weighed but you can see which denominations are included, that's more time consuming but you can pick up a bargain as not many people will bother to work out silver content. Just remember to make an adjustment for wear, maybe 90 to 95 percent of minted weight. The numismatic market on ebay is a minefield however. Prices will be all over the place, people will overgrade and overprice, photos will be horrendous. To enter this market, initially only buy from dealers and read up as much a you can first. Happy to recommend some books. It sounds more like you are interested in the scrap end market. I am happy to help with that and have about 18kg in stock right now.

I have a few hundred. Happy to meet up next week and you can have a browse

https://weightoncoin.co.uk/ has a good range

Indeed. I have deliberately left my photos exactly as they were taken with no post-processing or even cropping. Not purely out of laziness! I just wanted to show the results using axial lighting with no doctoring. As it is, DrDave has not been online in a couple of weeks so might not be fulfilling new orders. As for mobiles, there would be no need for adaptations for different models. They would just rest on a flat platform with a hole for the lens to peep through. Doubles as a light shroud to prevent any stray light. Very simple and very effective as it frees up the users hand to tap the screen to focus, or adjust the glass angle etc. Shame you are not going all in on it but totally see why not.

Good to know Lawrence. Looking forward to seeing your one. If I might make a suggestion if there's still time for that. Have a shroud all around the glass to prevent external reflections to prevent need to prop up a black book. As much as this is for "proper" coin photography with a DSLR, the reality is that the majority of people for the majority of purposes will likely be using mobile phones which are much more convenient and rapidly closing the quality gap with DSLRs so please do consider making a smaller mobile friendly version with a little platform to rest the phone on flat and parallel with the coin and allow around 5 to 6cm minimum focus distance 😀 I am sure you would sell more if them than a larger version

Having had a few weeks to try out @DrDave's axial lighting box (ALB) I thought I would share the results here in the form of a photo-rich review so you can see what it does, how easy it is to use, and what the results are like. What is the axial lighting box? So firstly, the premise is a simple kit to enable you to photograph coins with axial lighting - that means light that is coming from the same direction as you are shooting from, which means no shadows across the coin and all features evenly lit without reflections. Of course this is impossible with a normal camera as you cannot have a light source where the lens is, but this piece of kit uses a sheet of glass to reflect light from the source down onto the coin and you photograph through the glass. The advantage of this is that you can photograph the coin straight on so the coin appears round, and not cast a shadow with your camera. Your light source is out of the way at right angles. Out of the box DrDave put together this simple 3D printed kit for this. It consists of the glass-holding unit with a cut out to put the coin in, and a baffle to prevent the light source shining directly onto the coin, the sheet of glass and a translucent diffuser sheet. The price was £24.99 posted and this unit was not provided for review purposes by DrDave. First impressions are good. It's a well designed and executed holder made of 2mm thick plastic which seems sturdy. The glass itself has sharp edges and corners so care must be taken. The glass just rests on the holder at 45°. Useful to know is that the height of the kit from the coin to the top edge of the glass is 12cm. It is possiblbe to get a phone to around 10cm from the coin as it is a bit smaller in width but that leaves no room to rotate, so 12cm to be safe. Also with DSLR lenses etc. you need to factor in the length of these. I believe minimum lens focus distance is measured to the sensor which is at the back of the DSLR body so to achieve macro focus there is a lot in the way. Set up The set up is simple. I used my anglepoise desk lamp fitted with a 10W LED bulb and took photos with my Samsung S10 mobile phone on 2x zoom, so no special kit whatsoever. I propped the ALB on a small box so as to put it more in line with the light source. I also used a black book propped up to the right of the ALB to prevent reflections coming off the top of the glass. Results So on to the results. I photographed a variety of coins to show how they appear under different lighting conditions and show the differences in the results. Firstly a large shiny coin - a 1oz silver panda. The coin in the capsule fits into the coin opening with a couple of mm to spare all round. The opening will allow coins up to 47mm diameter so perfect for all 1oz coins but too small for e.g. 2oz silver Lunars. This is photographed without the ALB with the light off to the left Using the ALB without the diffuser results in a strange reflection of the light source. Using the ALB with the diffuser makes the lighting more even and eliminates the strange reflections. Comparing with the image taken without, it is a much more "clean" image without the harsh contrast, however, the milking on the coin does not show, nor does the contrast between frosted and mirrored surfaces or the fine texture on the frosted areas. It may be more suited to a "stock" image as it shows off the design effectively and TBH makes the coin look better than it is! Now a 1oz Matte finish coin - ASE Without the ALB Note many areas either have overexposed highlights or no definition. Camera is not straight on to the coin so there is a focus gradient With the ALB, no diffuser Really makes the image pop. Some surfaces are quite dark however. With the diffuser the whole lighting becomes much more even though loses the "pop" of the previous image An 1830 polished gold sovereign WITHOUT the ALB Lighting to the left. Note how prominently the scratches perpendicular to the light source show. Light source in line with the coin almost overhead. Camera straight on to preserve focus across the coin (well, in theory - I see the right side is pretty soft). Note horizontal scratches now show more. Also note uneven lighting with the top half being overexposed in areas and the bottom half a bit dull. This photo with lighting directly reflecting off the coin, so the camera is not straight on, resulting in out of focus areas at the top and bottom of the coin, also a yellow cast caused by the bright reflection making the camera adjust the white balance. With the ALB. No diffuser Soft focus notwithstanding (my bad), the coin is evenly lit, the surface shows well (although hairline scratches disappear) and focus is flat across the coin as it's taken straight on. With the diffuser, the light is too even and all contrast disappears. The diffuser is not suited for this scenario. Now a Morgan Dollar Without the ALB Lighting off to the left in this shot, there are strong highlights and other areas lacking definition. Reflection directly off the coin in attempt to make lighting more even results again in focus gradient. With the ALB (no diffuser) A much more professional looking photo that shows off the details really well but does disguise some of the scratches on the cheek shown in photos above. Note the optical illusion that makes the letters appear incuse rather than relief! With the diffuser, there is no contrast and many features vanish. A shiny quarter dollar Without ALB and lighting off to the left shows off the coin well and with it being a small coin focus is fine. With the ALB, some reflections and dust on the glass start to become a nuisance. Glass must be kept clean, and the rest of the room needs to be dark. A large black surface opposite the light source is a must. However, the coin is shown off at its best here and hairline scratches are hidden. Don't use the diffuser for anything other than proof mirror-fields.... Last coin, a very small platinum panda No ALB Mirror fields go black as they are reflecting the dark room, and contrast nicely with the frosted surfaces. ALB with no diffuser. This being a graded coin means there is a plastic surface in front of the coin which reflects the light back at you resulting in the ghost image of the light source. No good. With diffuser, we can now see the coin much better although I am missing the mirror/frosted contrast again. No ALB seems to be the best in this scenario. Conclusions: I think this is a good product which in the right situations can make a coin look superb, although often at the expense of total disclosure of the condition. You can understand why dealers and auction houses love using it It seems to work especially well with bullion or circulation coins with an even matte texture such as the ASE, but also crowns, Morgan dollars and similar. Proof coins present difficulties but I find just using a dark background and a bit of zoom to get close to "straight on" work best. The ALB removes the frosted/mirrored contrast which in my opinion is a loss. For smaller coins this kit is not so useful for me using a mobile as I have to use excessive zoom to fill the frame with the coin. With a proper camera with macro/zoom lens this will likely be less of an issue as the minimum focus distance is anyway larger. The closest I can get my phone to the coin is about 9cm which is perfect for 40mm coins but 20mm coin photos will need to be heavily cropped. A smaller format "phone version" with a ~5cm minimum focus distance would be ideal for my use. If I would make a suggestion to improve the useability of the product it would be to have the glass slot in to a rail like the diffuser. This would prevent cuts on the glass, and make it easier to store it and move it around without the glass falling off. However, it is a good product for using axial lighting for coins and I found it pretty straightforward to use. Thanks for checking out my review. I'd love to know all your thoughts: Which scenario do you think the ALB really comes into its own? Which is my best photo in this thread?

Just to add my experience. I bought a QV YH half sovereign which when it arrived I thought didn't match up to the "good Extremely Fine" grade given to it in the description. To be fair to them the photos were adequate to make out the grade but I took it on the description rather than looking too closely at the photos. So they would have been well within their rights to decline my request for a refund but they swiftly invited me to return the coin and have issued my account with a credit for the full sum. So I am surprised that they have not treated you with a similar service and have let this drag on!

How does that help?

I don't believe there is an established definition for the term "world coin", and I'm not sure it even is a term in common use. So I guess you can define it how you see most appropriate and work out which coins fit that definition but someone else will have a different idea what it means. For me the term sounds problematic because all countries are in the world, so either all silver 1oz coins are "1oz silver world coins" or none of them are as they are rather national coins not made by a world mint as one doesn't exist. You wouldn't primarily call a Maple a world coin, you'd call it a Canadian coin, right? But if by world coins you simply mean coins that represent a country, that will include basically all 1oz coins with any country name on it. So you'll need to hone what it is you are talking about as I'm not sure we have a commonly understood term. I think a Venn diagram may be necessary, then you can choose which segment you decide is worthy of the term world coins.

Got these awesome pieces from @MintageSeller today As a Big JWST fan I had to pick these stackers up. I'm reluctant to remove from the OMP otherwise would have been cool to stack them. That's a little pin I wear in the middle. And always loved the Aztec calendar theme and this is another stacker that is very impressive! Pictured here with my 5oz copper one.

It is a strange phenomenon, I seeit all the time with sovereigns going for way over the going rate. They are rarely good grade or scarce years so that doesn't explain it. I wonder if people don't like buying online. Going to auction is like going back in time. Lots of very old items and the people buying them seem of a similar vintage so maybe they don't use the interweb and don't trust buying blind. Other theory is that some buyers have a deal with the auctioneers for lower fees. Round where I am auction is the only place to buy sovereigns other than pawnbrokers and one jeweller.

Some of the BU coins were made in tiny numbers and they are very similar to proof in finish. NGC usually mistake them for proofs and give them an PF grade, so they're weird from a few points of view!

Thank you all. I didn't want to mention the dealer as i didn't want the thread to get side tracked (not that TSF members ever would!) about dealer listing practices or bias towards the dealer and rather focus on the technical difference between the terms BU and bullion in relation to sovereigns. Now i have that question sorted happy to share the full story I don't have a link, but the poor chap who reached out to me for advice was sold this set of 4 coins including a bullion 2002, 2012, proof piedfort 2018 GV privy and proof 2022 (an eclectic mix of items by anyone standards) by Hattons of London. Smart case and booklet and all. For £6300. I had to break the news to him that he would be lucky to get £2700 for the set even with the increased demand for these coins at the moment. I am hoping that Hattons may be good enough to accept they were a bit liberal with their description and offer a full refund.

A set of 4 Royal mint sovereigns has a 2002 and 2012 bullion sovereign in it described as brilliant uncirculated or BU and I'm wondering if this is misleading. They are bullion sovereigns and in uncirculated condition but I think BU is a very specific term used for struck on the day sovereigns only? I am trying to help a local chap get his money back as I think the set was described in a misleading way as there were no 2002s produced in BU finish and I'm not sure the 2012 is the BU version (although they are difficult to distinguish I think). However, maybe it's a grey area as BU can be used to describe coinsin mint state (or is that strictly BUNC?) Any info on this would be appreciated

Conservation or restoration by experts can remove milk spots without introducing new defects. I'm not sure what process they use. Some kind of alchemy using goats bladders and frogspawn I heard. This would be worth it for special, rare or proof silver coins worth £100 and up but not much help for normal bullion. Unfortunately it does affect saleability as people often like their coins to look good if they're paying any premium for it.

Yep. I know it's not infallible - I have had a few inconsistencies before so just wanting to explore the issue a bit with a case in point

Interesting... Does this mean the silver content is a bit out?

Last night I was sorting through a parcel of silver crowns that came in and testing them on my Sigma. I came across this 1972 Elizabeth and Philip crown Initially I put this it aside as "not silver" as it tested way out of the box whereas all the other sterling silver coins had the marker well inside the box, as did my Victoria jubilee crown. 1972 "Sterling Silver??" crown, 1889 sterling silver crown, 1977 sterling silver crown, CuNi crown I noted that the COA mentioned the same coin was made in CuNi and Silver and just thought the seller must have mistook this as a silver one. However I went back to check it and noted that the weight, diameter and thickness matches the silver crowns. I also did a magnet test and the magnet slid slowly down the coins like with the sterling coins. Above: On the left, the 1972 "Sterling Silver??" crown, on the right, 1977 sterling silver crown Above: on the left, 1977 sterling silver crown; on the right, CuNi crown So in dimensions it matches a genuine silver crown but the Sigma shows it has higher resistivity (999 silver (lower resistivity)shows the marker to the left, whereas Cuni (higher resistivity)has it way off to the right). So what is the Sigma telling me about this coin here? Is the composition of Sterling slightly different, perhaps with a more resistive metal in place of some of the copper but with the same 925 silver content?? Does anyone with a better understanding of the Sigma's operation and coin metal compositions know what's going on here?

@Solachesis I was just about to message you re: this coin!! Arrived this afternoon, yes, by SD

I won't win any prizes for my photos but my kit is simple, convenient and cheap, and the results show the condition of the coin. Yes, I could get better photos with a DSLR, a dedicated lighting kit, tripod and macro lens, but the inconvenience and cost would vastly outweigh the minor benefits. I use my Samsung S10 phone which has a telephoto camera with 2x optical zoom and is f/2.4 so no need for bright lighting or slow shutter speeds. Yes, narrow depth of field but not excessively so and rarely a concern for photographing coins. Need to bear in mind that depth of field is also linked to sensor size, and the microscopic sensors on mobiles lead to comparitively large depths of fields. When photographing small things and wanting to maintain high quality rather than digital cropping I prefer to magnify using an add on lens. I use this clip on which cost me £20 or so. Seems very high quality. Here is a 1g coin with the native 2x camera on the phone at minimum focus distance And magnified with the clip on macro lens at minimum focus distance Yes, a little depth of field issue due to tilting the phone due to letting in some side light being in so close, but hoping to remedy this with a photo box from @DrDave , and will have to see how close this allows me to get. In daylight this would be no issue but being up here in Aberdeen we are basically now in permanent night until March. Note nice gold colour. This is due to Tungsten lighting and the white balance recognising the colour of the subject must be gold. This is using all auto settings but if needed I can adjust the WB in pro mode. I find the S10 to have one of the best cameras of any phone I've tried and they are now cheap as chips.

Let's hope nobody mentions the other 3 Platonic solids, or the 13 Archimedean solids, or the 92 Johnson solids, or .... 🥴

A very weighty arrival from @BackyardBullion and, oh my, what a package! Just over 2kg of poured, hammered, mallmarked silver posh paperweight deliciousness. A cube and a cylinder to complete my 2022 Jubilee hallmark geometry collection. 20221201_101826.mp4