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.

Coinery

Expert Grader
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    7,620

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    92

Posts posted by Coinery

  5. Posted

    11 hours ago, TomGoodheart said:

    IMG_20200406_112945.jpg.67fde64fcb860d2aed070ae39d97f9e3.jpg 

    I think the attached shows what you could call cabinet friction. The edge where it protrudes from the rest of the design. Of course, it's just wear. And I suspect the term is used less frequently these days. Probably more significant on milled coinage as that was supposedly more 'perfect' to start with. I'd call it 'light wear to high points' myself. And more likely on coins that have been in dealers' drawers for some time where there's been regular opening and closing (this coin ex Michael Sharp and probably Baldwins) than us collectors who probably don't access our collections every day.

    You could even argue in this case that cabinet friction can actually lift the value and eye-appeal of certain coins, where the design is nicely and artistically picked out by contact with a surface…where the tone has been partially removed to highlight the detail like a well-executed brass rubbing.

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    I’ve always held it to mean the minimal removal of tone from the highest points of the design, spoiling what might otherwise be an immaculately toned coin. Nothing that you could call wear, but definitely a less pleasing coin on account of it.

  9. Posted

    1 hour ago, jelida said:

    Well they have agreed to pull it now,  having been shown this thread. Polite reply, but no further explanation. My correspondence was with their London office - 'incorporating Seaby Coins',  but the auction and I presume cataloguing is in the USA - though I agree it should be obvious, unless of course they have the original from which the fakes were copied....nah!. 😁

    Jerry

    They never even bothered to respond to my email, I sent 2 other examples too.

    I’ve just taken a look on their app., they’re certainly in no rush to pull it, it’s still ticking away.

  12. Posted

    10 hours ago, DrLarry said:

    OK so you were advising me to talk to someone on the forum thank you for the context.  

    I didn’t think it too much of a presumption to assume you knew who I was talking about; you’ve been a member for over 6 years.
    It’s a relatively well known fact that Rob has a large library and sells books. I mistakenly expected you to have stumbled across that with a 700+ post count. Always a pleasure to help.

     

  16. Posted · Edited by Coinery

    Here’s an example in the bottom right of one coin that didn’t correlate with the template. It has larger rings on the ‘chains’ too. BCW state there’s only one portcullis punch, meaning either  they are wrong or the ‘no mark’ coin is suspect? OR they refreshed the bolts as the punch broke up and started to spread?

    39EFA2FF-D6E8-46C1-A5CE-A0AAF81BA99A.jpeg

  17. Posted

    4 hours ago, Rob said:

    Yes, but the portcullis is double struck (at least). Use the translated strike and it is in the right place. The question is which bit refers to which impression - which is why I said 'I think' 

    Ah, yes, I see what you mean!

    I found a template I made up for the portcullises whilst looking out your coin. Very useful for spotting some of the counterfeits.

     

    B0773C4D-FFAE-47E2-80FF-D4C4FA42AFAC.jpeg

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    9 hours ago, Rob said:

    That's all right. :)

    I think this is the same obverse die as the Cypher over Anchor I got from you. Different reverse though.

    :)

    I notice the cypher over anchor is still the only overmark missing in the halfpenny section of BCW’s 2021 memorial update. Amazing that they’d never come across one…hens’ teeth and all that!

  21. Posted

    A decent enough example of this rare mark.  Only 60,000 ever produced (BCW), divided between PM O and PM Anchor, so few and far between today - roughly the weight of 3 bags of sugar were minted. 

    Paid around half the price you would for a common variety, so delighted really :) 

    E6C57D1F-F4D0-4F3F-AB57-A36910277682.jpeg

    75FD9BB3-5962-48B6-8B5A-0DE7DC816C7B.jpeg

    • Like 2

  23. Posted

    3 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

    The shadow sharpness is a function of the distance from the light source and the angular size of the light source.

    A very small  light source will cast as sharp a shadow as bright sunlight.....it doesn't have to be bright at all....

     

    That shadow is the shape I expect, and the fact that it is the same when the coin is either way up shows me the coin isn't bent either....

    The shadow's thickness would only be a concern if this coin is usually thin.

    Yes, these coins are usually paper thin. A thick coin would not be good.

×