Peckris

Testing upload since all the problems ... : Ah, it's not you. I've just got the same error. It's since the site had serious problems moving to a new server. Chris, who owns the site, ought to be told about this. Most people use an external host such as Photobucket and then post the link here, but I find a 10-step process like that (EXCLUDING the initial registration bollox) is really tiresome compared to a 3-click attachment within the post itself.

Great minds think alike! I was just going to reply to Tom's earlier post with "Just a cotton pickin' moment there Muskie - wouldn't Coincraft just LOVE to feature them in that there Phoenix newspappy? Along with the slogan We Just Found A Very Limited Supply Of This Flawless 'Bun Farthing' - RARE In This Condition!! At Just £49.99 each We Are Letting Them Go At Just Half Of The Spink Catalogue Price!!!".

Didn't see this originally due to the site going down, but I love that bacon token

I have absolutely no idea. But if you look at the bidding, it all went from £75 to what it finally went for in the last 10 seconds, so I'm guessing a few bidders got caught up in a frenzy. Or, it's not a penny, it's a "shilling", and will shortly reappear...

"Ewe got a light, mister?"

It's absolutely impossible to tell without seeing a picture. When replying, below where you're typing, there's a section headed "Attachments". 1. Choose File (that lets you browse to where the image is on your computer) 2. Attach This File 3. After upload Add To Post At which point do you get the error? And is the picture a jpeg?

Usually the coin is milled out inside the rim and the second obverse dropped into place. Without a picture though, we still don't know if the obverses are from currency coins though as you haven't said. You will ahve to either reduce the image size to under 150kB or alternatively use a hosting site such as Photobucket. If the size is under 150kB, it is likely that you have selected the file, but not attached it. It will tell you when it has been uploaded. Yes - there are essentially 3 stages : 1. Browse for the image on your computer 2. Upload it as an attachment 3. "Add to post" Step 3 seems totally unnecessary, as step 2 should do that, but as it's done as 2 separate steps, Step 3 is easy to miss doing. Also - do bear in mind that the image has to be a jpeg.

Well & truly and I'm very grateful for all your input. Shows how a novice can be fleeced I suppose. But that's why I asked.... John Argentum asks why would I want it? Because it's what I like/collect/am interested in - why else? As you say - each to his own. Anything wrong with that? I don't collect proof or pattern Soho types or Moore patterns or even Victorian pennies so why should I look for one just because you think I should? I can't be happier with something that doesn't float my boat. I just saw this (so called) 1963 proof and as it's relevant to what interests me and what I collect, I thought I'd enquire about it. And also why I asked my peers - because I wanted to know if I was doing the right thing or not and as it turns out, (obviously) not. So mission accomplished for me. Anyway, an FYI for all, this is the dealer concerned. http://stores.ebay.co.uk/THE-BAY-PEDDLER/3-British-Coins-/_i.html?_fsub=12784226&_sid=214798585&_trksid=p4634.c0.m322 Nothing wrong with that. It's just that a proof should stand out. Rarity alone is not relevant in this case, as the example you are looking at doesn't look any different from a currency specimen. As for that dealer - over £1000 for a GEF 1797 penny ... !!

Thanks for your comments to my post - as a novice It's better to ask than get burned. I got the guy to send better pictures so can you cast your eye over these and let me know if you still don't think it's a proof. I doubt these pics will make any of you change your mind about it. Even to me it looks like a good ordinary penny. But why is he so sure (probably in all good faith or am I being naive?) it is? So a question; If there are only 2-5 known, how many people have ever had one in hand to know what they should look like? Even the '37, '50, '51 & '53 proofs are never like the 1970 for example - which to my eye always looks like something out of a Lucky Bag - too blingy in modern parlence. I've seen a few of the older proofs and they often need tilting or turning and a good looking at to be sure. No names of course but I quoted him some of the forum comments......he replies: "We're known off of eBay (and aside from our international sales company Prestigious Sales) as GBC coins (Great Britain Coins). We may be the largest British Coin Dealer in the World - working with coins now for nearly 65 years. . . but what would we know?" I doubt very much I'll buy the coin anyway - he's asking $1500.00 !! To be honest, even if it was definitely a certified proof, I still wouldn't want it. A proof should be noticeably superior to a currency coin, and that penny just isn't. Why would I pay $1500 for a definite proof that was absolutely identical to a very common example? You're absolutely right about proofs between 1937 and 1953, but it should be pointed out that those proofs are relatively common, and comparatively cheap especially their differential to non-proof examples.

I'm off as well, a week in North Wales. I have my oversized wellies for harassing the sheep , then a week in North Devon. Not sure what precautions I will need for there. Bragging again! Oh "wellies". You said "wellies". Yes wellies, to stick there back legs down to stop them getting away

I'm off as well, a week in North Wales. I have my oversized wellies for harassing the sheep , then a week in North Devon. Not sure what precautions I will need for there. Bragging again! Oh "wellies". You said "wellies".

I've re-calibrated, re-counted, re-synched the whole forum and have removed the server stored cache files and theoretically it should be fine now! At least, there should certainly be no more disappearing threads, but as for the confusion in the browser bar between predecimal.com/forum and british-coins.com/forum I'm still personally experiencing problems with that. Anyone else having similar issues? This could cause people to become logged out. For the last two or three days (for me) it has been consistently predecimal.com, and there haven't been any problems.

Agreed. There's nothing about it that says "proof" to me. And even if it was certified by the Royal Mint, I'd still not want it. A proof coin is desirable for its superior qualities, not for its rarity, and there's nothing about that to set it apart from the bog standard currency penny.

It's a good spot. The difficulty might be getting significant interest in it, even if other examples came to light. Two other G6 penny varieties might illustrate the point better : 1. The 1940 'single/double exergue line' are deliberate die varieties, i.e. a slight change of design, with one type notably scarcer than the other, though still readily available, but quite rare in BU. Because it's a change of design, and because one of the two is 20x scarcer than the other, it raises quite a degree of interest. 2. The 1946 'die flaw' penny - the flaw is an obvious raised mark after the ONE on the reverse. It can be easily spotted as a separate feature, and again, it attracts a certain amount of interest, and is rare in high grades. Your flaw - while of interest to variety collectors - is not immediately noticeable in that it is a slight extension to the 'fussy' part of the reverse design, i.e. the waves immediately above the exergue line. Having said all that, it is a nice addition to the collection and is obviously high grade too.

So a 1961 slabbed 80 would be ... £100?

I remember the 3 Scottish shillings we schoolboys all looked out for in our change : 1959 - hardly ever turned up 1961 - turned up from time to time 1965 - turned up all the time, usually BU. With the same mintage as the 1961 we all thought "whoopee!" and saved them, which is probably why they're worth so little now!

...and most of yesterday's posts have vanished. Yes, mine have disappeared! Mine too - though I only realised when I saw that Dave's YEEHAAAAAAAA was only 3 posts up from the bottom. But I also note that the site name has reverted back to www.predecimal.com from www.british-coins.com - perhaps that is something to do with why yesterday's posts have disappeared?

I'm only logged in because I used Firefox. My regular button on Safari doesn't work - I'm told my login (which I don't normally have to do) was successful, but having returned me to the forums, the 'Sign in' button is still there, and I'm not actually logged in.

Chris I couldn't get on to the site at all yesterday. Today I found I could get to the forums but I wasn't signed in, and Safari hadn't seemed to 'remember' my username and password (I normally don't need either - I'm straight in). So a long trawl through my emails later, I found them and signed in. I got a screen telling me my login was successful, and 'please wait while we transfer you'. But, having put me back in the forums list, I wasn't signed in!!! No matter how many times I tried, the same thing happened : I apparently logged in ok, but I wasn't. Refreshing the screen didn't change this weird behaviour. So I've logged in via Firefox which I don't normally use, but at least it signed me in. You have a problem with Safari it seems - can you have look and sort it out please? I really don't want to have to run 2 browsers at once.

1. It is very shiny - it rather looks as though it may have been lacquered? 2. Yes - pre-1816 are totally different, and are referred to as 'early milled'. They were not (pre-1797 in the case of copper) coined by steam-powered automatic machinery, but using milling techniques that required a certain amount of manual input. As a result, the strikes are often off-centre, and not as perfectly round as they are in the machine age. The difference is all down to the automation of striking coin, and that changed in 1797 for copper, and 1816 for silver. One consequence of this is that varieties are more significant in the machine age, as they are all the result of deliberate activity (though not always intentional); with early milled you see many varieties that are simply the result of hand-punching dies, and many of these are not exciting. 3. Others will advise on storage.

It looks like it's 8 over something and a 6 is as good a candidate as any. I would rate it as being in the range of VF to GVF. The flaw is a strange one. It certainly looks like a striking flaw, but I would not say it disfigures the coin as badly as it would in a different location. As for impact on value, that's in the eye of the beholder - you could get every reaction from "I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole" to "I can live with that".

You can JUST make out the Apple logo if you squint hard then close your eyes

I tried your survey. These are the problems with "required fields": Q13 - not enough options to choose from. Q21 - not enough options to choose from. Q24 and Q25 - these should not be required fields. Q27 and Q28 - "IF you want to xxx please leave your email". If you don't want to xxx, and leave them blank, it says "This is a required field". So I put "No" in each field, and the message went away. Very poor design! I hope nevertheless that you get some useful responses

That 1820 is a clear VF I'd say - a nice coin. You could do a lot worse than major on halfcrowns - as long as you don't go in for date runs, they will be generally cheaper than crowns, but are still a good size for seeing detail. Re-marked for shillings : For types : going forward, there are Victorian Young Head where you should avoid anything before 1874 in a good grade as they will empty your wallet! One from 1874 - 1887 in GVF should be your target (unless you can afford to bump up to EF?) Vic Young Heads - minted right through from 1838 to 1887. Pick a date in the 1880s, but not 1887or 1882. Victoria Jubilee Head : 1887 in EF up to BU Victoria Old Head : 1893 or 97 in EF or better Edward VII (difficult reign) : 1902 is far and away the most affordable George V .925 silver : 1915, 16, or 18 minimum EF George V .500 silver : 1922, but minimum EF as the head flattens very quickly on that type George V M.E. : 1926 George V new reverse issue : 1928 or 36 in AUNC or better George VI .500 silver : 1944, 45, or 46 in BU (both English and Scottish) George VI CuNi : 1948 BU George VI last issue : 1949 is arguably the easiest Elizabeth II : 1953 BU Elizabeth II 2nd type : 1966 in "Gem BU"! George III : any date from 1816 AEF or better George IV : three types : 1821 1824 1826 in VF William IV : 1834 GVF Those are the main types to collect, and the easiest dates to find. Does the same apply to shillings?

It is potentially a concern but scams like this are not so easy to run. Firstly, there are 2 graders for each coin and you need at least a partner in crime. Also it might be difficult for the rouge grader to ensure that those coins get to him and not another grader not in the scam. You get people in all trades and professions worldwide committing fraud and abusing their positions and we can only hope they get caught sooner or later. Absolutely right that one should buy the coin and not the holder! They're all Reds, those Commie Chinese