TomGoodheart

True. But I doubt I'm alone in being more forgiving if the wear is to the legends or reverse, leaving a nice portrait. And if the portrait is as sharp as a razor but also weak, it will probably be less desirable to me than a coin which has circulated but shows the design well. In other words ... eye appeal is King!

Modern copies of some series do exist. And though most appear cast, some are quite good and cleverly, not of top end expensive coins that undoubtedly would attract the attention of the more knowledgable collectors, but more modest coins that pass for £20-£40 on ebay. That said, there are ways of spotting dodgy ones, even if you don't have the coin in the hand to inspect. And you can always ask here for an opinion. Plus the number of genuine coins still vastly outnumbers the copies. So really, the real difficulty is more the natural variation in hammered coinage where legends were changed, or more commonly, the coin is worn or bits missing making it difficult to nigh-impossible to make out the essential details. However, that's partly what makes hammered coins such interesting things to collect. And what makes better examples desirable, of course!

The real bonus is the strict pricing applied in the US where a 61 is a non-coin and hence can be purchased cheaply. Number collectors will turn their noses up at excellent examples of coins simply on the grounds that another example has been graded higher. Again a perfect example of how difficult it is to see anything useful through a slab. It certainly doesn't stand out to me and my feeling is there are flat areas on the reverse (rims, tail, nose) where I'd expect more detail for an MSAnything. But I've come to the conclusion a lot of coin collecting in the US is just completely different from over here. From recent threads on CCF I've gathered that some collectors would replace a coin because it's in the wrong sort of slab to match the others and that once slabbed with a decent grade, people start to get .. expectations.. about value. I'd really hope nobody here would turn down a nice coin at a good price because it was graded by the 'wrong' TPGS. Not even the CGS enthusiasts!

Welcome Hudson. Nice that you're starting to get a taste for the coins themselves! Of course, you'll know you're really hooked when you buy a coin with no consideration for the value of the metal at all!

Got me all excited for a moment there Peter! Then I realised it's just the regular 33 and I've dozens of those. It's the open 3 I need. Anyone? Oh, well. Guess I'll just keep looking then ...

My understanding is that automatic cameras adjust the white balance across the whole field of the photograph. In other words it averages everything out to a (pre-set) shade of grey. Consequently if you have a white background then a coin will appear darker than in real life.. and a black brackground will give a lighter coin. Using a 'mid-grey' (I seem to remember that in the old days of manual photograpy you could buy a sheet of graded paper the correct tone) should end up with a more life like tone to the coin. The problem is that cameras are too bloody smart! And the electronics don't work like our eyes. So normal North-facing daylight will result in a bluish colour cast etc. Yes, cameras are programmed to adjust for this. But manufacturers probably don't imagine you want to photograph a coin (which can be very reflective or dark and dull). They are all geared up to people photographing their friend's faces (or arses) to post to Facebok. Like Rob, I do spend quite a while tweaking my images, partly because I'm like that and partly because if I'm sticking it on ebay the time (which I have and because it's not a business, is effectively 'free') to end up with a good photo is a small cost to me compared with the money I hope to get from selling the thing.

Interesting. I don't have any lights (apart from the normal ones in each room of course!) and so use daylight for my photos. OK, I do edit the photos for colour balance so they look as close as I can get to 'real life' on my laptop screen. But I only use MS Paint (which is a pretty simple programme with few options other than making the image a bit warmer or cooler) and generally I'm happy enough with the results. Here's my last effort, mid edit. Taken in daylight with a compact camera using the close-up setting. The background is just an ordinary brown envelope and I've started to mask out around the coin with Paint.

Well, obviously there's the romantic (particularly for Americans) value of a coin dated 1776. As for worth, well, you'd still have been able to buy a loaf of bread with it (a pennyloaf in fact!), though by that date it would have been poorer quality. A proper meal would cost you about a shilling.

Looks like Peter's been on the poet juice again! But welcome Woodsman! It'll be fun to hear how you get on with the detector. And if you find any shillings of Charles I you want ID'd, I'll be happy to help!

Oh, I took the 'proof' thing with a pinch of salt. I'm not aware that such things existed in the mid-1600s. Yes, there were trial pieces or patterns. And with hammered coins the occasional 'fine work' piece. But proofs? I'd just call it a particularly nice example and leave it at that myself ... .. and if you could get it for rather under US$ 45,000 I think it'd be a good alternative to Roddy's. From the photos anyway.

https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=489&lot=3928

Oh, I think that's excusable Nick!

On occasions I've gone to the Post Office and got a few £5 coins and spent them in Tesco, in the hope that maybe someone would pick one up in their change and give it to a kid and the next Lockett would be born. But I now suspect that the RM's output has really very little effect on making coin collecting popular as a hobby. And in fact, when people see how little their 'treasures' - often bought at some expense by doting Uncles and Grandparents in the hope of being 'worth something' a few years down the line - are actually valued, it may put them off for life. I don't even bother to pick out new 50p designs from change any more. Sad really that the noble RM, with its 1000 years of history, is now the Franklin Mint of our day ... .... though that new multicoloured Kitten themed £2 coin with bejewelled eyes that miaos if you drop it is quite cute.

Yes, it makes sense that larger coins would be found first. Then as detector technology improves and people start to go over 'old ground' the smaller denominations and deeper coins come to light. Whether we've seen the peak of it, I don't know. I suspect there's still a fair amount of land yet to go. But eventually everything that can readily be found and dug up presumably will be. Leaving only the remotest areas, or the impractical, such as under roads or buildings still to be explored.

The whole forum's gone bananas! I think we should all drink 'bottled' water until we can work out what the hell's going on around here? LOL I think it's partly what Rob says, it's a big collecting world and other people's enthusiasm eventually rubs off on us. Plus I don't know about other areas, but there's little quality hammered Chas I around as far as I can see. After a period of buying very little I started to think beyond 'that looks nice' to actually considering expanding my horizons a bit.

Well, I think it's possible to challenge import duties. However AFAIK, that won't get you back the £9 or so the PO charge for collecting said erroneous charges, since that's admin and nothing to do with HMRC.

Any ideas what this is?: 230982443530 Because I'm pretty sure it's not an EDWARD III HALF GROAT. ??

Pics? Where's the drooling smiley when I want it? And welcome!

Odd. I couldn't get the pics to work at all .... and wasn't prepared to risk wasting my money ...

??? CHARLES 1ST SHILLING - Sun Mintmark (1632-1633) CHARLES 1ST SHILLING - Sun Mintmark (1632-1633) The descriptions in the listings don't match the titles, there are no photos and .. yet people are prepared to bid? Surely cheap rubbish is still .. well, rubbish. Though I guess people buy lottery tickets too ...

Ah, yeah. I came up blank too! But like I say, whle I don't know about the Pobjoy mint (who make these Angels), I'd expect the same year of issue denominations to all bear the same privy mark.

Traditionally privy marks indicate a year or sometimes a mint. So I can't see why the marks for issues of same year would be any different. Though .. without meaning to be rude .. I'm bemused why it would matter for a bit of bullion mounted in a ring ... But then it's not my sort of thing at all .

Not me. It doesn't say 'organic'. Brings back memories of a house we bought as a repo. The owner had (apparently) a short haired dog (possibly Staffy) that the neighbours told us had had pups. They also told us she left them in all day. Had to clean everywhere, including taking up the floorboards, to get rid of the smell. So I think I'll pass, thanks.

I've deleted it for you Nicholas. Feel free to repost it if you still want to meet Russian brides. Richard

Indeed! The history of a coin from the Netherlands ending up here in England is interesting in itself. Was it traded? Brought over as some of the financial support Queen Henrietta requested for her husband Charles I? Or just a souvenir of European travels?