Peckris

Link I can't see either an 8 or a 7 - just a 3 or a 5 partly obscured by a blob.

Cool. That's easy enough. It's a shame that uploading an attachment from my own computer doesn't embed the image, but instead provides a somewhat pathetic thumbnail that has to be clicked on. I wish they'd change that.

None, just a modafinil tablet

It seems that for those affected, it's caused by the fairly recent change made by PhotoBucket to their links (to include a url=...). However, for those with PhotoBucket accounts you can turn off this behaviour. Log in to PhotoBucket, choose "User Settings" then "Albums" and untick "Link back to albums" and "Save". This change reverts the image links back to how the used to be. I set up a Photobucket account a long time ago, and used it once - I was so incensed by the general user-unfriendliness that I stopped then and there. I doubt if their cookie has even survived my occasional cookie purge. So I don't think that's the reason. Unfortunately, your links (in another thread) took me to the host site, whereas Nick's embedding of images seems to be the answer. We need a tutorial in how to do that!

Seems to behave just like PhotoBucket. I prefer the images to be embedded (regardless where they may be hosted) rather than have to follow a link. For example here are your images embedded: I'm not sure how you did that Nick - but if everyone who used an external host did the same, it would make life so much easier!

That's REALLY weird. The first time I clicked on one of those links I was taken to the Photobucket site itself and watched paint dry while it finally decided to load the image. Then I clicked Goback and returned here. When I clicked the link a second time, I instantly got just the jpeg image on its own, and nothing else - no Photobucket. How is that even possible?

I don't, but what a stupendously resonant - almost comic book - name! Mild, bespectacled Ken King, ignored by fellow-numismatist Joan Allen, gets changed in a phone box and becomes... SuperDealer!!

This is one of the reasons why I so hate Photobucket : go there, look, click once, look. Goback. Goback. Goback. Goback. Goback. Goback. Why do they make it so difficult to just return to where you came from? It's the only website in the world where getting out is so much harder than getting in.

So that's what Mrs Peter calls them?

This is the real art of buying. Book price is one thing, but one also has to weigh 1. Where book price is unrealistically low, as Spink can be where coins rarely come to market 2. How far above book one is prepared to go, to win something one really really wants 3. imponderables such as 'above average eye appeal' or strike, etc I've been far too guilty in my time of using 'book' as a kind of bible, above which I wouldn't go, and missed some beautiful coins as a result. The example that comes most often to mind is a W&W auction in 1997 or 1998 - one of my first, if not the first - where there was a BU 1873 penny. Book price was then, I think, around £75. I dropped out at that point, and the penny went for over £100 (£110? £120?). Oh why didn't I stay in? I just didn't know, as I do now, that truly BU examples of any bun penny between 1864 and 1881, very rarely appear and are snapped up as soon as they do.

Fewer a's, more question marks and an explanation please. What on earth are you on about? I suspect it's the word 'hexadecimal' that may have caused that outburst! FFs...

That's precisely why I don't use sniping software. I can trust myself to sit with my maximum bid in the box, ready to hit the 'Confirm bid' button with 7 seconds to go. But I couldn't trust myself with a ridiculous maximum just to win it - I'd be mortified if, as you nearly said, some other bugger had done the same!

I don't it would be possible to be offensive with binary - the biggest you could get is a 1. Hexadecimal would be a different matter though, lots of potential Fs F0 Rob I would take is as a compliment..but then again I am also a bit geeky!!

That's something I've never watched, so your joke is [mimes hand going over head] Yeah maybe, but it wasn't me who suggested it could be binary!!!

I doubt it, we are talking almost immediately post war here. He retired in the late 70s or 80s(?). Tsk tsk. The first computer was invented in the 1930s, and was originally intended to be an electronic calculator. Addition and subtraction machines had been long used - analogue decimal machines - but the only way they could get multiplication and division automated was by using binary (in binary, both processes are essentially achieved by adding and subtracting). So he COULD have used binary, especially as the rush to patent occurred immediately post-war. I know what you're thinking : "It's all Geek to me" I know what you are saying, but for the masses binary wasn't common knowledge. Most people of his generation left school at 14, and binary didn't come into their maths lessons.True enough, but we don't know that he wasn't also a bit of a techie buff on the side, keeping up with all the - well publicised - advances and to-ing and fro-ing in the fledgling computer industry. Remember, it was the height of the sci-fi era back then, and more people than you'd think were interested in all that, with popular magazines devoted to radio, electronics, science, etc.

I doubt it, we are talking almost immediately post war here. He retired in the late 70s or 80s(?).Tsk tsk. The first computer was invented in the 1930s, and was originally intended to be an electronic calculator. Addition and subtraction machines had been long used - analogue decimal machines - but the only way they could get multiplication and division automated was by using binary (in binary, both processes are essentially achieved by adding and subtracting). So he COULD have used binary, especially as the rush to patent occurred immediately post-war. I know what you're thinking : "It's all Geek to me"

Just a guess, but a buyer looking through a box of envelopes marked "EH/Z/Z" "BEE/Z/Z" "SEE/Z/Z" "DEE/Z/Z" ... etc, might soon crack the code

a***d clearly wants to win that one! That one is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!! WHY on earth would someone, with over a day to go, revise his maximum bid TEN TIMES IN TWO MINUTES with no other bidding going on?

The problem is that dealers who use a price coding (as I did), kept the code a tight secret for obvious reasons. If you had access to a statistically large enough sample, you could probably work out the coding, but from a single example it's virtually impossible.

It may be someone totally lacking a sense of humour.

I'm sure you're right. However, do be aware that pretty much all of these will be what we call 'micro varieties', of which there are only a relatively small number of collectors / interest.

The 1967 brass 3d can be bought in huge quantities pretty cheap. The same goes for 1967 sixpences, and 1966 shillings (no shillings in 1967). Larger silver - for example - florins and halfcrowns - are more expensive, but there again, 1967 is your year for both. For really big coins, the 1965 Churchill Crown should be available very cheaply. The best bet for 000's of coins is to buy a "Mint-sealed" bag of the denomination(s) of your choice. For glut years like 1967, these can be bought for only a few multiples of face value. Others will advise where these can be bought. Bun pennies are now very expensive and are, in any case, bronze. They don't meet your brass / silver-look requirement.

Yeah, but if it was going too cheap, why wouldn't the seller just withdraw it from sale? An over-enthusiastic shiller would cost more in the long run. It would depend on how much time is left Peck. I think if there's 12hrs or less you cannot pull an auction Yes but it's still Hobson's Choice - either you have to let it go cheap, or you end up buying your own coin. In both cases you lose.

Yours is the common variety. I'm not going on pointings or anything like that, simply on my own personal experience over many years. You see, the 1922 & 26 wear differently to the the earlier one, and they are also less 'rounded' (edge-to-middle). From the wear pattern on yours, and the roundedness of it, I'd have no hesitation saying it's the normal obverse. But as has been said, there are many varieties of other dates, and those are far from unique like the 1920! so keep looking and have fun.

It's absolutely essential you post a picture of the obverse. The 1920 penny you speak of, is so rare that to date, only one specimen is known (in the British Museum) and no others have come to light despite much searching. To satisfy your own curiosity, get yourself a high grade penny dated between 1914 and 1919, and another dated 1922. Then compare your penny with both. You will probably find that it corresponds to the pre-1920 example. The difference between the two very roughly correspond to the differences between large silver pre-1920, and that between 1921 and 1926 (not Modified Effigy). Of course not precisely, as the legend is not the same on the bronze as it is on the silver, but the reducing of the height of the bust profile is the same, and the consequent 'shallowing' of the hair detail. But if you'd like us to comment, please post a picture of the obverse.