Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Bronze & Copper Collector

Accomplished Collector
  • Content Count

    1,295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Posts posted by Bronze & Copper Collector



  1.       Amongst my pet peeves is one regarding those that say “I COULD care less”.

    I have always said “I COULDN’T care less” inasmuch as it, to me, is more logical.

    If you could care less, then it has at least some modicum of importance to you.

    If you couldn’t care less, then it is of the absolute least possible importance to you.

    Yet, for some reason, both are used interchangeably, and accepted as meaning the same thing.


  2. 4 hours ago, secret santa said:

    Of course, I'm not actually hopping mad but this hasn't stopped the word "literally" from becoming the latest word to enter the populist vocabulary like a tornado. Just listen to anyone on the TV or radio and they'll slip the word into every sentence that has a verb in it. People literally don't understand when to use the word. It has become the only adverb available, just as "amazing" has become the only adjective to expressive some degree of value.

    Zoe Ball is the current record holder for frequency of use of the word "amazing".

    So, that's literally amazing, simply uniquely fantastic.

     

    Not wanting to split hairs (or hares, as the case may be). I also find certain egregious misuse of the language to be abhorrent, especially when presented by "professionals". What has happened to pride in presentation. I have seen errors in syntax, spelling, etc. in newspapers, on television, and other mainstream venues. Too many to list.

    Possibly it's merely that everyone has become an expert with that assumption supported by the use of spell checkers, grammar checkers, research done on the internet. After all, we are well aware that computers don't make mistakes, and that anything published on the internet should be taken as gospel.

    • Like 2

  3. 5 hours ago, Sword said:

    The answer is not a very comforting ...

    "If Guarantor determines, in its sole reasonable opinion, that Owner is entitled to a remedy under this Guarantee, Guarantor will offer a remedy as set forth below.

    Guarantor is committed in all cases to proposing a fair and reasonable remedy. If Owner does not accept such remedy, the Coin will be removed from the NGC holder and returned to Owner along with a payment of the grading fees originally paid to grade the Coin and any reasonable shipping expenses incurred in returning the Coin for correction. In no event will (i) a Coin that has been determined to be not genuine be returned in an NGC holder; (ii) a Coin that has been determined to be overgraded or incorrectly described be returned encapsulated with an incorrect NGC label; or (iii) an “Authentic Hand-Signed” label be returned with an autograph that has been found to be not genuine."

    Of course that is best suited, if at all, to the original submitter. A buyer of an encapsulated coin would simply return it to the seller. Although one caveat to that scenario is that most sellers will NOT accept returns of encapsulated coins. Additionally, assuming the seller DID accept returns, they want it returned as sold, not regarded or removed from the slab.

     

    And then there is always that one TPG that when challenged about its variety determination, simply creates a new, nonexistent variety to accommodate their attribution.


  4. 5 hours ago, Varietalis said:

    From NGC's T&Cs

    'An owner of an NGC-certified Coin (“Owner”) who believes the Coin is overgraded or not genuine shall submit it for evaluation under NGC’s free “Appearance Review” service. It is not necessary to be an NGC member to submit a Coin for Appearance Review.'

    Aside from the possibility of the coin being downgraded, what compensation or benefit (term used loosely), does the owner/resubmitter/complainant receive?

    Are they compensated for the difference in value or do they just get a 'Thank you for catching our error' letter?

    It's a very vague statement on NGCs part, which I can understand from a business point of you...


  5. 57 minutes ago, Bernie said:

    How do you explain the wide colon dots after F:D:

    I reexamined the images and still think it is an obverse 11. To my eyes the spacing of the F:D: (letters and colon) match closer to obverse 11 than 12.

    Possibly slightly reminiscent of obverse 13 which I eliminated due to the lack of uneven berries.

    I also don't see the spacing as similar to obverse 13#, which, as I stated in the original post has the uprights of the R's in BRITT and REG pointing to a tooth. The coin in question has those 2 features pointing to spaces.

    Again however, images can be deceiving, although unintentionally, and the best assessment is done coin in hand.


  6. 18 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

    A little help please. Thinking this is obverse 13. I'm using the last colon of F:D: as my identifier, in relation to the linear circle. Sellers photo.

    Alternatively, confirmation that it's not 11, would be equally helpful.

    Screenshot_2021-11-19-22-32-03-965.jpg

    Based on the image, I don't believe it to be an obverse 13 which has uneven berries nor an obverse 13# where the upright of the R's point to a tooth.

    Comparison of the image of the coin in question with images of obverses 11 & 12 and the corresponding respective descriptors lead me to believe it is an obverse 11.


  7. 12 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

    "Earnest" the word, not "Ernest" the name.

    Subtle but big difference. 

    Bit like when people write "your" instead of "you're". The difference between "your shit" and "you're shit"  ;)  

     

    Lol... I should "have" (not "of") read your post first..... 

    You're absolutely correct. And I love your example.

    The only caveat to blaming people entirely is the dreaded spell checker.

     

    Text from his neighbor

    I am so sorry Bob. I've been riddled with guilt and I have to confess. I have been tapping your wife, day and night when you're not around. In fact, more than you. I do not get any at home, but that's no excuse. I can no longer live with the guilt and I hope you will accept my sincerest apology with my promise that it won't happen again.

    The man, anguished and betrayed, went into his bedroom, grabbed his gun, and without a word, shot his wife and killed her.

    A few moments later, a second text came in: Damn autocorrect! I meant "wifi", not "wife"

    • Haha 3

  8. 21 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

    Yes, that's technically and chemically correct. However, PROOFS are described as either "copper proof" or "bronzed proof". To describe one using both terms appears to be a deliberate move to cover up uncertainty ?

    My interpretation of those distinctions is that both coins are struck in copper.

    While the Copper Proof is 'As Struck', the Bronzed Copper is the Copper coin subjected to Bronzing.

    A Bronzed coin (or Medal), without distinction, COULD be struck in ANY metal (I'm not saying that it IS struck in any metal), and then Bronzed.


  9. 15 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

    This one is described as a bronzed proof, yet seems to have lustre.

    I suppose my underlying point here is whether it's worth buying another proof of the same date, on the basis that it's bronzed rather than copper? If it's a gilt proof, no problem as they are very obviously gilt. 

    The assumption is that the cataloger got it correct. Granted that they have MUCH MORE experience than I have, and I am loathe to dispute their attribution, but we all know that mistakes occur.  Caveat emptor.

    • Like 2
×