Peckris

Ooosh. That's a difficult one. I would personally say that they're not much different really, but Roman fakes are less likely to occur due to the lower catalogue value? As always though, if you can find a good dealer that will go a long way towards putting your mind at rest.

My copy of the 4th edition of Sear ("Roman Coins & their Values") arrived today - £15 including P&P

Rearrange the following words: "the" "really" "they're" "barrel" "scraping"

Nice.

That makes it even more likely that they were patterns, SOME of which were struck to proof standards for inclusion in VIP sets.

DEspite what you say, fairs are absolutely the best place for a beginner to go, and you'd more than likely - if you went to the Midland for example - meet one or two of the dealer members here, and benefit from their advice and experience.

I had the same issue in Safari on my Mac. Then I found a extension which blocks all plug-ins but leaves its window there just grey with HTML5 or FLASH on top. If you click the window, the content then downloads. Which means you can ignore ALL ads!

How about this for BU http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1863-penny-BU-/331459258624?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item4d2c82e900 As in 'Bloody Uncollectable'? Presumably the field length isn't long enough to say "Might qualify as GVF if it hadn't been cleaned and there wasn't a bloody great dent in the rim"?

That's MUCH better! (Though small... see http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/7880-posting-pics/ ). Nice coin. By the way, you do realise you're in the NON British coins thread, don't you?

Yes, VIP sets are issued in very small numbers indeed and entirely separate from regular proof sets (though presumably indistinguishable under normal circumstances, e.g. 1937, 1950, 1951, except for case of issue). We should assume that F244 was not ONLY from a VIP set (though may have been in them?) but was a trial striking : maybe it was originally intended for issue, but then rejected, and therefore like F243A should be regarded as a pattern. As F244 is (now) a pattern mule, I would have thought it likely that BP 1953 L is also a pattern. It may be that F244 / BP 1953 L (is there any difference between them??) was intended for currency and therefore struck as proofs for the VIP set. Later it was decided that a further change was desirable and therefore the beaded reverse appeared, and was included in the regular proof and specimen sets. I would guess that BP 1953 N was experimental - i.e. a true pattern - and probably after the toothed reverse was rejected, i.e. probably between those and the beaded reverse.

If you can play videos, and you see the content on every website including adverts ( ) then I would say you have Flash.

?

Let us know when the Kindle version is ready, Chris?

Silverlight was Microsoft's attempt to rival Adobe's Flash. From what I understand it was a better player (it couldn't be any worse!) but it's kind of faded in recent times, not having taken off as MS hoped. I have no idea why eBay are insisting on it - they aren't to me. You do have Flash installed, right?

You have 500k allowance per post right here - there's absolutely no need to use Photobucket. Unless you want to, of course. Or you want your image inlined at its original size. Some of us loathe Photobucket. However, if people link pictures PROPERLY (i.e. without sending members to Satan's Site) then it's fine

1. EF 2. aFDC 3. GEF

Bunk, I would say Seriously though, two things : 1. It's NOT BU. It's got maybe 25% lustre, tops? BU means 90% lustre, some would say even higher. 2. The photo is not good; there are what appear to be 'fleck marks' on the coin but that might just be photo artefacts Probably AUNC + lustre in my opinion - is there an obverse picture?

You have 500k allowance per post right here - there's absolutely no need to use Photobucket. http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/7880-posting-pics/ tells you how to do it, and how to compress your images to postable size (and was written when we only had 150k to play with!)

"In the IS/LM model (Investment and Saving equilibrium/ Liquidity Preference and Money Supply equilibrium model), deflation is caused by a shift in the supply and demand curve for goods and services, particularly a fall in the aggregate level of demand. That is, there is a fall in how much the whole economy is willing to buy, and the going price for goods. Because the price of goods is falling, consumers have an incentive to delay purchases and consumption until prices fall further, which in turn reduces overall economic activity. Since this idles the productive capacity, investment also falls, leading to further reductions in aggregate demand. This is the deflationary spiral. An answer to falling aggregate demand is stimulus, either from the central bank, by expanding the money supply, or by the fiscal authority to increase demand, and to borrow at interest rates which are below those available to private entities." I don't see much about that that is positive, Rob. But go on, be Devil's Advocate again!

Did you have a bar-mitzvah, Declan?

True, but look at it another way, everything you owned was deflated, QE just reflated it. A bit like the emperors new clothes, as long as no one is looking it's ok. Rob your right in one sense, but if it caused new money to chase prices, it must be a genuine increase. Work that out. Mark They say that without Quantitative Easing, we're heading for deflation. Not a good thought...

You mean "bronze" pennies, not copper, but you're doing the right thing in acquiring the definitive literature - no better place to start. For shillings, there's not a great deal of research needed from Victoria onwards so a good catalogue/price guide will see you ok. Basically you've got: - Spink's "Coins of England" catalogue - the CCGB price guide+ (see banner advert above) - for varieties you've got Davies "British Silver Coins from 1816" - Dave Groom's "The Identification of British 20thC Silver Coin Varieties" Then there's Seaby/Rayner's "English Silver Coinage" though no longer in print. That's probably enough to be going on with.

DOF notwithstanding, I'd go along with the GVF consensus. There's a lot of them around in that kind of grade (+/-) as they weren't issued for circulation. Nevertheless it's a nice coin and well worth having.

My point was that the ONF 1860 penny is , like the 1882 'clogged H' penny , due to die deterioration, I am aware that the former is considered a variety, and the latter not. I am also aware that the genuine 'no H' 1882 penny was struck at the Royal Mint with no 'H' on the die. The issue is the extent that a coin struck from a damaged die, with perhaps interesting consequences, should be considered a true variety. There are various factors that seem to determine whether this becomes the case, the main one being attractiveness to collectors. But these coins , to my mind, are not equivalent to coins struck from a particular die variety. However, if anyone has a spare ONF penny at a sensible price........ Jerry I think I'd agree with you on that. The 'ONF' penny is not something I'd personally collect, and I think its attraction is purely due to the damage resulting in one letter looking like another letter, causing some collectors maybe to think it's an error. The 1882 'clogged die' could come under a similar category, but the existence of 'removed H' examples makes them a very questionable proposition - how is someone ever going to prove it's the former and not the latter?

Ha ha - you got it