Peckris

Precisely my point. Yes, I agree. I've hardly ever seen a worn (below GVF) specimen, and the 'pocket piece' theory of the few that did wear is as good an explanation as any. With the average weekly wage in 1930 being about £4 or 16 Crowns you could buy quite a lot for 5/-. I would suggest that up until the early twenteith century crowns were widely circulated. Even into the 30s they must have being in common use. The Royal Mint would vehemently disagree. They stopped producing them for currency after 1900 precisely because public demand for them had fallen away. Why that is, I don't really know, but having grown up in the 1960s with ten bob notes, halfcrowns, etc, I never felt that there was a lack of an intermediate denomination. I imagine that one possible cause of their unpopularity was their sheer size, which of course did for the Cartwheel twopence, though that was bigger still. There's no evidence that they circulated widely in the 1930s. The opposite in fact - Wikipedia says "The British crown was always a large coin, and from the 19th century it did not circulate well."

I love the way eBay says "Bidding has ended on this item." when it never even started!

Yes, I can see crowns being used as five bob in the 19th century, but in the 1940s? Really? I wonder if there's any research or numbers as to what constituted circulating coinage in a particular era. Now that would be interesting. The Veiled Head crowns were issued for circulation, so they must have been circulating freely at least till the 1920 debasement. They would have been top targets for reclamation by the Mint after that though, you'd have thought. The Crown is legal tender still so when else would they have circulated? I note that Michael says : "The person selling this coin thought that his grandfather might have had it as a "good luck" pocket piece and that could be the reason for its condition now !?" Absolutely. My own definition of 'circulated' doesn't include being carried by one single individual in their pocket which would account for any and all wear. But if someone wants to define 'circulation' to include that circumstance, then fair enough - you couldn't distinguish such wear caused by one person over many years, from the same wear caused by many different people over the same period.

Minted for quite a few years, I believe? Well into George III's reign anyway. Same with 1754 copper.

Some certainly were, as the degree of wear is well beyond normal handling or keeping in change. The 1934 I saw, from a local dealer, was a poor fine and well worn. No way was that just a bit of handling wear. Going by Derek's grading book, I'd say the obverse was almost exactly like the illustration at the top of page 88 and the reverse, if anything, was worse than that on page 225. Sorry, I have to disagree here. The number of transactions it would have had to be part of to be that worn would be huge. You're telling me that a whole load of shopkeepers or suchlike, would have handled one of the rarest 20th Century coins without a) questions being asked about what on earth it was and c) without falling into the hands of a collector somewhere along the way? Maybe it was given to a child who used it with its friends for years of 'playing shop', or swapping for something else. Who knows? I'm not saying it wasn't handled over a long period of time by grubby little hands, just that I doubt it saw 'normal' circulation.

With a total mintage of between 35-40,000, and with the vast majority kept for the very reason they were struck - i.e. for collectors - it's highly unlikely that any retailer or average Joe would even have known what they were, let alone taken them as payment for anything. I think we can assume that wear was caused by repeated handling, perhaps where a piece was bought by a collector and given to a favourite niece or nephew as a keepsake. Is there any record of Wreaths being spent as currency?

I don't think scott will allow a 1934 Wreath as a currency coin! Nor would I, tbh.

Dipping bronze and copper : S Failure to understand or adjust camera's White Balance : C7 Nuff said i'm guessing as these people take photos of coins on a hourly basis (my guess) their set up will be spot on Don't believe it. The pictures may be sharp, even, well exposed, etc, and the set up absolutely perfect, but none of that guarantees an understanding of how to set White Balance.

Dipping bronze and copper : S Failure to understand or adjust camera's White Balance : C7 Nuff said

I'd say a 1905 halfcrown and shilling were official currency, wouldn't you?

Their grade is the usual conservative one - most people wouldn't hesitate at classifying that as EF minimum. And as they say, it has good eye appeal, so I'd say it was about right myself. If you got it for the lower estimate you'd have a bargain IMO.

Are you talking about the pictures here (above), Rob? I'm not sure that any email is involved? It's just either an internal attachment on this site, or a direct link to somewhere like Photobucket. I'm not sure how Outlook can block pictures on a website - I rather think you've got a browser issue. No, pictures on this website and other are fine. It is outlook telling you that outlook blocked the pictures to protect your privacy but they can be downloaded by right-clicking. This is complete b****cks. If it wanted to protect my privacy, all it has to do is stop the emails. This happens too often anyway such as failing to recognise an email from the wife in another room of the house is probably legitimate. Having decided to allow the email through, outlook should include all the content. I haven't got time to download everything separately because I probably get 20-30 a day, so all these emails get binned. If outlook decides a BT or CNG logo is pornographic or whatever reason and not fit for the eyes of a broad minded 55 year old it blocks it, there's no hope. I should change from Outlook to Windows Live, or Outlook's 'big brother' Exchange , if I were you. Apple's Mail "hides" images in any email it's marked as Junk, but if you click Not Junk, the images are all there, and next time it won't mark that sender as Junk. Don't have the alternatives on my computer, but it isn't worth buying them unless I know it will solve the problem. What someone needs to come up with is an intelligent facility for the user to tell microsoft who is acceptable & who not. If the system was able to learn from your assigning junk/not junk status to a sender, there would be little need for outlook to block most of those things it currently does. Windows Live is the free default Microsoft email client now. For some reason they don't include it on new machines (or didn't, for Windows 7) but you can download it for free.

Try telling that to a prospective buyer of a BU 1874 "G's over sideways"

Are you talking about the pictures here (above), Rob? I'm not sure that any email is involved? It's just either an internal attachment on this site, or a direct link to somewhere like Photobucket. I'm not sure how Outlook can block pictures on a website - I rather think you've got a browser issue. No, pictures on this website and other are fine. It is outlook telling you that outlook blocked the pictures to protect your privacy but they can be downloaded by right-clicking. This is complete b****cks. If it wanted to protect my privacy, all it has to do is stop the emails. This happens too often anyway such as failing to recognise an email from the wife in another room of the house is probably legitimate. Having decided to allow the email through, outlook should include all the content. I haven't got time to download everything separately because I probably get 20-30 a day, so all these emails get binned. If outlook decides a BT or CNG logo is pornographic or whatever reason and not fit for the eyes of a broad minded 55 year old it blocks it, there's no hope. I should change from Outlook to Windows Live, or Outlook's 'big brother' Exchange , if I were you. Apple's Mail "hides" images in any email it's marked as Junk, but if you click Not Junk, the images are all there, and next time it won't mark that sender as Junk.

Are you talking about the pictures here (above), Rob? I'm not sure that any email is involved? It's just either an internal attachment on this site, or a direct link to somewhere like Photobucket. I'm not sure how Outlook can block pictures on a website - I rather think you've got a browser issue.

Quite! ROFL

Whatever you like the most - simples! I don't know what sort of money we're talking about here, but I'd like a high grade 1864, 1869, 1871, and 1875H ... if you're buying, that is

I only know Stephen - from the days when he used to attend the Midland Fair. I always got on well with him, but I don't know the others.

Is this a wind up?

If you posted pictures here we could give you some advice - it all depends on condition above all else, and then on rarity and popularity. Perhaps put up a few pictures of your best pieces.

Welcome Will

I remember...and just who was that girl/woman? Err what woman, are you thinking of The High Chaparrel (Linda Cristal) I presume we are talking television here?Leaving aside the name which is irrelevant. How irregular? Any worthwhile pictures? (says he in anticipation ) Linda Cristal played Victoria. I'm struggling to find any decent pictures of her.....or indecent How strange that you passed go and still thought of exactly the person I actually meant!What an elegant item she was! Rather attractive in full-lustre I would think? Certainly BU threepenny bits

Link I can't see either an 8 or a 7 - just a 3 or a 5 partly obscured by a blob. It's an 8. The 8 isn't conventional on Eliz.1 coins having a flat top to one loop and rounded on the other. A 1563 or 1565 dated coin with the coronet mark would be an anomaly as the mark was only current from 1/7/1567 until 28/2/1570. It wouldn't stay listed for long if genuine. Yes, but the bottom loop doesn't even pretend to be complete - there are Liz 1 8's where the bottom loop is a circle. Have a look at this: http://www.historyincoins.com/xxx-14-9-9-5.jpg

Lol and worth £355, i think not. The man Must have been drunk when he put in the price My thoughts exactly. I remember...and just who was that girl/woman? Err what woman, are you thinking of The High Chaparrel (Linda Cristal) Oh yes, the High Chaparral, i remember it well. Who was that annoyingly grinning Mexican, Man....... something-or-other ?

I would be more than 99% confident that it's a post-production effect, either a drop or two of very strong acid, or something else?