TomGoodheart

You may not have been able to find another example because your coins is a Scottish Two shillings of Charles I . Spink 5544. ... Possibly. Certainly the first few Scottish (Twelve) shillings of Charles I bear an earlier bust of James with a new legend, so they may have used existing dies for smaller coins too. Nice! .

I'm guessing a Museum Reproductions Lincoln Cnut penny: http://www.museumreproductions.co.uk/shop/viewitem.php?productid=837 Also available through Dorchesters: http://dorchesters.com/reproduction-coins/viking-anglo-saxon-coins/cnut-short-cross-type-penny Not original I'm afraid ... .

I find what's important to me in a coin can vary quite a bit, depending on my mood at the time .... and how long it is since I last bought a coin! I tend to cite eye appeal as most important but thinking about it, 'balance' is also very important for me as a collector of hammered coins. What do I mean by balance? Well, is the coin centrally struck (points will be lost for being off-centre)? Is the strike even (better if there aren't weak patches, though I'm usually more forgiving of weak legends or reverse if the portrait is well struck up)? Is the flan full (you can often get full weight coins on small flans. Personally my ideal is to have all the design from the edge beading inwards, in which case I'm not bothered if the weight is light). Hammered coins are very rarely perfect, so it's usually a compromise between the above factors. If the coin is weak in some respect then there needs to be something about it to compensate .. that's the balance. Lustre? Meh, I tend to prefer pleasing toning. While a crisp strike is good I find that sometimes a more worn coin will appeal a lot more if the toning brings out the detail. Grade? I don't really give my coins a grade or pay much attention to how a seller grades a potential purchase. Grade for me is part of the eye appeal thing I guess. After eye appeal, balance and toning then things like rarity and provenance come into play. But I probably would not (now) buy a coin only because it was rare or had been owned by a particular collector. It would need to be attractive first. . .

Welcome JS. No, not the most valuable coin, but a great history! Thanks for posting. Are you a collector yourself? .

I suspect not, as there is some sign of the X showing. However it's in the thin area so there's no real way to make it out clearly. I seem to remember seeing a coin where the mark was over a reversed one but I couldn't claim this is one on what I can see. Oddly however I did notice the reverse stops on the triangle coin look more like contraction marks than the usual circular stops... but only saw it when I reviewed the listing and larger pic just now! .

Thanks. I'm hoping the new photos might help. I could certainly do with the money!

And 151790035813

Just listed on eBay: 151790076337 151790055665 .

The bust doesn't look right ... http://www.cngcoins.com/Search.aspx?PAGE_NUM=&PAGE=1&TABS_TYPE=2&CONTAINER_TYPE_ID=1&IS_ADVANCED=1&ITEM_DESC=nero+denarius&ITEM_IS_SOLD=1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_1=1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_3=1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_2=1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_4=1 .

Not my area Gary but it looks too perfect. Here's what came up in my search. http://www.cngcoins.com/Search.aspx?PAGE_NUM=&PAGE=1&TABS_TYPE=3&CONTAINER_TYPE_ID=2&IS_ADVANCED=1&ITEM_DESC=Theodosius+II+Miliarense&ITEM_IS_SOLD=1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_1=1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_3=1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_2=1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_4=1 Compare it to this one for example: .

Which, if you draw out the vowels and remembering J is a Yuu and W is more a Vee sound, is not too far off Jórvík ... (I sometimes find reading the legends as if I have a Scandinavian accent gives me a clue. Handy those Nordic Noir programmes on TV!)

Corrected it for you.

Ah, OK. I'm not an expert on the series but it looks like the normal variation you get with hammered coins to me: http://www.coinarchives.com/w/results.php?search=cnut Plus, wear can 'blur' or 'enlarge' details. Particularly on smaller coins. Remember the dot of the eye, for example, was probably formed by a pointed punch that was more cone shaped than uniform in thickness. Consequently as the detail wears (from A to C) you see more silver as the design becomes less sharp... If you see what I mean? .

Bulky? Not sure quite what you mean RD. Looks genuine to my inexperienced eyes, though both softly struck and a little worn (The reverse is softly struck, suggesting the flan is concave on that side. Conversely, assuming the obverse design stood proud of the flan it would have been more exposed to wear. As I see it of course ...) .

Sound has this one listed at £95. Not perfect but nicer to my eyes... .

Shame they're such didly things or they'd be quite nice! (And had you thought of just phoning Paul or Benthe and having a chat?) .

I think that maybe the problem is that the government that the people really want doesn't exist. Our system is based on party politics. But maybe the majority of people don't think in party terms, but have differing views depending on the issues? So while they might agree with one party on the NHS, they like what another says about immigration. In the end maybe they don't vote because each party has as many policies they can't stomach as ones they agree with? Perhaps what we need is a new perspective? Certainly I think we need broader debate. And discussion of some of the issues JC has raised and which (perhaps surprisingly for some) have attracted interest surely can't do any harm? Well, less harm than more of the mind-numbing 'centre right' we've been getting from all three main stream parties for decades.... Politics has gotten boring because there's little choice. Time for someone to make it more interesting again I reckon. .

Don't you mean New Labour Peter?

Electoral Reform Services Limited, the commercial arm of the Electoral Reform Society .

I just can't decide whether the nay sayers are right and it will spell the end of the Labour party or it heralds in a new type of politics, where the principle that a political party is only successful if it can exert power by being elected, is replaced by one where working to build openness, justice, benevolence towards others and just plain old ‘fairness’ in society are seen to be of value. But I am hopeful ... .

LOL Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall and Jeremy Corbyn... but yes, perhaps as you're most local to AB ..?

Well done Jeremy! OK, a lot of people probably dislike him or think him crazy. But he has made the current Labour leadership contest interesting! It could so easily have been otherwise. For example I only remembered that another party had recently elected a new leader when I read it on the BBC's webpage. As to his name... who knows? Or perhaps cares? But few people aren't aware that some sort of contest is going on within Labour. And by all accounts a lot of those who showed little interest in politics until recently, may not even have bothered voting, are getting excited. Because as Russell Brand highlighted, the middle-ground style of politics we've had for the last few decades has sadly seemed uninteresting, or even irrelevant to an awful lot of people. Which is pretty bad for democracy really. 63% of voters didn't vote for the Conservatives. And of course, a lot less than 100% of those eligible to vote did so. So really, something that gets people interested in politics and voting seems like a good thing. Will Jez win? No idea. The votes in Scotland have clearly showed that it's not that people don't like radical ideas. A recent YouGov poll showed people generally hold quite a few 'radical' views (both Left and right wing, often at the same time). Just that Labour ideas weren't what they wanted. Will I vote for him? Not sure. In my younger days I would have been delighted with a candidate like him. But now a bit older I find myself balancing electability with charisma, government with vision. But I shall be voting (as a £3 supporter). Because to my mind democracy (as we have it) requires a government that includes an opposition. To hold it to account. To broaden debate. And to remind it that the elected party is there to work for everyone, not just those who voted for it. And to do that I think we need the Labour party. Jez and all. .

Personally I refer back to Spink who say; " Uncirculated. A coin in as new condition as issued by the Mint, retaining full lustre or brilliance but, owing to modern mass-production methods of manufacture or storage, not necessarily perfect." Though I'm not sure it particularly matters what you call it, providing a general consensus can be maintained so that the majority of people can agree and recognise the agreed grade of a particular coin. If Americans can tell the difference between an MS64 and MS65, fine. If as a collector you are happier with a CGS 70 over a 69, the system works. I guess the problem with the older system over a numeric one is that the terms have significance outside numismatic. To describe a car as being in 'fine' condition would seem to be hardly a glowing endorsement, whereas a 'particularly fine Picasso' might be a very different animal. So long as other people get the right idea from a description and don't feel deceived I'm not sure the terms matter. Of course I say this from the perspective of someone who collects hammered coins and doesn't seriously worry about grading. A coin to me is either a nice one that I like or it isn't! OK, it's more scientific than that little bit of subjectivity suggests (I have to work out if I'm willing to pay the asking price after all and so how much I like it comes in there somewhere) but in essence that's how it works for me. Really it seems to me that what we're generally interested in is "Is this coin worth the asking price?" "Do I think it complements my collection?" "If I sell it have I got a decent chance of getting my money back?" And if a grade helps you decide that, go for it! .

Personally I use a three year-old 14MP Olympus point and shoot with macro. As MH says above, steadiness is essential. If you're taking photos hand held you need enough light to ensure the camera exposure is fast. Or a tripod. The coins I photograph are generally toned. Easier to photograph than shiny ones I find and even then you often need to adjust the angle of the lighting to show the detail to best advantage. A lighting set up would probably be more flexible but I'm too lazy so just take lots of shots and choose the one I like best. I also take photos on a surface. But unlike Azda I find a neutral colour is better. Doesn't matter what, as long as the tone is close to that of the coin. Otherwise if I use white the camera adjusts the exposure and the coin comes out too dark and vice versa if I use a black background. Once I have the images I combine the obv and reverse and use a simple picture editor (I use Microsoft Paint) to paint in a background. Depending on whim I end up with either a black or white background. .

They all look as fake as fudge to me. And yet.. people are bidding.