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.

Peckris

Expert Grader
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    9,800

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

Posts posted by Peckris

  2. Posted

    26 minutes ago, copper123 said:

    The Eu was winston churchills baby wasn't it he always wanted a united states of europe to avoid another world war.

    The french however made sure that we never joined till after churchill was dead , so he never really saw his baby born

    I guess I'll take Madness's hint and take this to the Dog Pit from now on. 

    However, as it relates to your post - yes, that's exactly how it was. De Gaulle applied the veto to all our efforts to join, and it was his death or retirement - rather than Churchill's - that was the removal of the stumbling block.

  4. Posted

    11 hours ago, jelida said:

    Grammar aside, I am really not sure what you are getting at here. If you go back far enough, we are probably almost all the product of African human evolution and migration, with multiple further phases of subtle racial and tribal genetic concentrations within populations and subsequent migrations and conquests. 

    Yes, true.

    But even the Roman and Anglo Saxon and Norman population movements were no more than a few percentage at the time, and the inevitable incorporation of their genetic markers into the general population over time and reproduction  (and we were in those days talking of populations in the single figures of millions)  does not somehow confer a European nationality as opposed to  the multi generational ‘British’ nationality most of those of us born within the UK feel. So while I certainly accept that most if not all of us have a host of markers reflecting the population movements of humanity , what is your point? The majority of the population of Europe will also carry markers of their African, and subsequent Celtic, British, Scandinavian, Teutonic ,Germanic, Slavic, Arab and a multitude of other heritages.

    Sorry, what is YOUR point? Britain, along with the rest of Europe .. and America, and the Antipodes, and South America, and Asia, is - as you say - a big genetic melting pot. The EU on the other hand is not a nation, it's a confederation of nations each with their own genetic melting pot, that was formed to prevent obscenities like WW2 from ever happening again, at least in Europe. To that extent it has succeeded, even more than Winston Churchill - its great exponent - predicted. So now that the US is turning back in on itself with tariffs, and we're about to lose our membership of the world's biggest single market with no-one outside falling over themselves to make deals with us (as even Rees-Mogg admits), what on earth is Brexit all about?

    Nationality is not a matter of genetic origin, it is a state of mind.

    Jerry

     

  5. Posted

    Yes - I could have added Greenslade, also Henry Cow (though perhaps an acquired taste, like Gong!). I could also have mentioned Rush, but they don't float my boat. I detest ELP which is why I didn't mention them - I'd call them 'keyboard metal' rather than prog, especially as they do a lot of classical 'interpretation'; The Nice were better IMO, especially their version of West Side Story's 'America'.

    These days you have Porcupine Tree, Dream Theatre, Steve Wilson, Goldfrapp, Sid Arthur, Mercury Rev, Flaming Lips, Big Big Train, The Besnard Lakes, and many others .. and there have been plenty of other progressive artists over the years, such as Björk, Kate Bush, again too many to mention.

    • Like 2

  6. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Madness said:

    The first piece is actually Renaissance.  Love the stuff.  When I was a teenager our music teacher said "Who wants to learn an instrument?  Any instrument you want"  I told him I desperately wanted to play the lute.  He thought I was trying to wind him up.  Now I play renaissance instruments vicariously through multiple devices.  

    Prog is a more recent love dating back only a couple of years.  So much depth of talent to explore.  Can you recommend any?

    How do you know when Paul McCartney isn't really Paul McCartney?  Does that have something to do with a conspiracy involving a car accident and a body double?

    So much to choose from! My first love was Genesis and they still stand up. Yes I now find sterile apart from The Yes Album. An enduring love is the Canterbury Scene : Soft Machine, Kevin Ayers, Caravan, Robert Wyatt, Hatfield & The North. Of course you can't say Pink Floyd aren't prog, despite their mainstream status. Then there's King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Gong, and so many - but that's a start.

    No, I don't actually subscribe to the 'Paul is dead' conspiracy - there are more  holes in it than a sieve! However, there are two puzzling unanswered questions :

    1. What was Heather Mills' enigmatic remark about, knowing stuff about Paul that would put her life in danger if she revealed it?

    2. Why did Paul wear a black rose when they descended that staircase in Magical Mystery Tour? (I do have my own theory about that one, and Paul's own explanation is absolute rubbish).

    • Like 2

  7. Posted

    20 minutes ago, Madness said:

    For those after something extremely relaxing, ethereal:

     

    For those after something funky and weird:

     

    For those who need more mellotron in their lives, and, honestly, who doesn't

    Very nice mix. Baroque, prog rock, and pop proto-prog.

    Of course, you know that's not the real Paul McCartney...?

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    11 hours ago, Madness said:

    Source: Rob's first test shilling

    I've marked the image.  Red circles indicate wear.  Blue circles indicate die issues.  Green circles indicate possible engraving variations.  Running out of time, so didn't do much with legend or reverse.

    My guestimate of grade would be somewhere in the region of VF for both sides.

    Please criticise!  

    0N4Rpw9.png

    I think you're being too harsh. That's at least AEF in my opinion. Remember, these 1787 shillings and sixpences weren't intended for general circulation so we don't often get to see genuinely circulated worn examples. Also remember that the more you enlarge a picture from its life size the more you will exaggerate any flaws.

    However I wouldn't argue too closely with your markups, though a few of your red circles might indicate die wear rather than coin wear.

    (Oo-er, 9999 posts. Getting on the edge of unwanted - and quite probably undeserved! - Legend status..)

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    The real giveaway (apart from the ridiculously oversized teeth and cartoonish appearance already noted) is that the portrait is the young pre-1874 one (possibly even from 1860-61 for those in the know?) which is quite impossible for an 1882. I'd suggest this isn't a forgery, more a replica not intended to fool the genuine collector.

  15. Posted

    1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

    Could you help me out I recently purchased this crown it has some nice details but has obviously been cleaned and is a dull grey all over, should I do anything ?  really I only want it for educational purposes and can just as easily use it as is to teach the kids about the Great Fire of London (in that summer they had similar weather to the one we have right now) How would you all grade it the edge is pretty sharp but there seem to be weak spots like the garter on the reverse ....your advice Ladies and Gentlemen please 

      yes I know it is 62 not 66

     CM180721-134217002 (271x300).jpgCM180721-134321003 (268x300).jpgCM180721-134506005 (236x300).jpgCM180721-134554007 (162x300).jpg

    If it looks like the third photograph I wouldn't touch it to save my life - that's a gorgeous colour. Unfortunately, the first 3 pictures have such wildly different colour it's difficult to advise. 

  17. Posted

    2 hours ago, Guest oldcopper said:

    Old Copper here, but I've forgotten my password. The differences pointed out above confirm what I am thinking ie Spink have illustrated a second Obv 12 instead of an Obv 11, so have 2 Obv 12 photos in their standard catalogue. Also there is no curl at the back of the neck in their "Obv 11" picture and the hair in both Obv 11/12 pictures is identically wavy, as far as I can see and Secret Santa's joined-up letters are there in both. 

    This must have changed since 2012 then - there are very tiny and subtle differences between the two in that edition.

  25. Posted

    14 hours ago, Madness said:

    I see coins as tangible, and sometimes beautiful, artifacts that are representative of ages, events and historical figures; Something you can hold in your hand that has passed through the pockets and purses of ordinary people of times past. I've also decided to collect a small number of meaningful coins rather than going for bulk.  With this in view, I'm focusing, perhaps unwisely, on Australian proclamation coins.  

    I'm about to start looking for a 1787 shilling.  Here are a few questions:

    • How do I tell the difference between a poor strike and coin wear?
    • I'm aware of some of the pieces of evidence of cleaning/dipping.  Is there a comprehensive, illustrated guide somewhere?
    • Do you have a preferred variant of this coin?  If so, which and why?
    • Could I get one in extra-fine condition for somewhere in the range of 100-150 pounds?
    • Are there any trustworthy sellers you could recommend?

    Hi Madness, Welcome to the forums . :) 

    Trying to answer your questions as best I can:

    • In relation to the 1787 shilling, you don't really need to worry about weak strikes. It was a limited edition strike using a revolutionary new method - compared to standard early milled - made available (at the time) only to BAnk customers. This is why so many exist in high grade; in fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen a worn one?
    • Evidence of cleaning / dipping is either obvious, or it's more subtle and you would need to see the coin in hand, or else post good pictures here 
    • No, not personally. With or without semée of hearts makes little difference to me (I think my shilling is one type, my sixpence the other?)
    • Yes
    • There are members of this forum who will give you excellent advice on good sellers.
    • Like 2
×