Peckris

Wow, this begs SO many questions! 1. What do you define a micro-variety? 2. How do you distinguish between completists and rarity hunters? 3. Do publications create variety hunters on their own? My own definition would be this, taking the 1903 'open 3' penny as an example: I would almost define it as a micro-variety, except that it's fairly recognisable once you see it. But, I only wanted one because it's rare, in other words I wasn't in the slightest bit interested in being a completist (which is why the 1905 and 1937 penny varieties leave me cold, and I would define THOSE as 'micros'. Same with the 1959S shilling varieties, which to me are the ultimate in pointlessness, being neither rare, nor exactly easy to spot. But I admit, the boundaries are a bit fluid. I like to have both 1940 pennies, as one is much scarcer than the other, but on the other hand it's not the most obvious thing to see. So I suppose the answer for me is, it all depends on the variety in question, especially its rarity, before my interest is piqued.

The second part of the rule is MOST important! The first part isn't really

Would you mind explaining further Rob? Acid when, where, how? Mistake during manufacture or collector cleaning attempt? Neither. Dissolving coins in acid seems to have been quite a common prank in times gone by, when boys could walk into a shop and buy quite volatile ingredients for their "chemistry set" I've got a 1929 shilling that suffered this, and I have to say that acid was my first reaction on seeing your pictures. The first one is more interesting to me, as the grease has allowed the ghost of BRITT to appear, but whatever is where GRA should be, is something else entirely.

I know quite a few professional workers with remortgages that have them in a neutral (at best) situation, after 10-15yrs of paying their mortgages. I even know of one person who took the endowment route in the 80's, and were massively let down by the second component, to the degree that a couple of the apparently 'usual' remortgages has left them with negative equity after a 30yr spell of home ownership, and crippling repayments! The greatest irony is they still view themselves amongst the proud elite, as a homeowner? A very interesting family of sheep is this our great and proud society! The only change to the mortgage I ever contemplated and did was to almost pay it off as soon as, leaving 50p outstanding to ensure they looked after the deeds. Best thing I ever did and one of life's unforgettable pleasurable moments. Which is why when the politicians were in the dock for falsifying expenses with one claiming he had forgotten it was paid off, my obvious reaction was complete and utter I went down the "low cost endowment" route in the mid-80s too. The policy would not have paid the mortgage off, but considering I went freelance in the 90s and paid it off, then made the policy "paid up" halfway through, the resulting maturity was a nice little earner.

Not without a link, thank you. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/A-QUALITY-GEORGE-III-CARTWHEEL-1797-TWOPENCE-2d-HUGE-2-oz-COIN-/290892253787?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT&nma=true&si=Amvy0IS812cJT3KC5UUZcvu%252Bz68%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc Was it you who won it? It's a nice mid-grade example - some wear, not too much, good rim. Worth the price it went for, I'd say. Only blemish is that 9 but that's not really bad. Yes I won it! Cheers I've always wanted a nice example, one of my favorite coins! Mine too (It's not that blotchy in-hand, but you know how scans are. And it's been enlarged double size in Photoshop which doesn't do it any favours either.)

Have you got a consistent lighting set-up? Also, I don't know what the function's called, but their was an F setting on my camera that needed fine-tuning to stop the camera from focusing on the background instead of the coin (something to do with depth of field, I think? Maybe this is what's giving you some blurred shots? Nick would probably know more! The F-stop is a measure of aperture size. Large apertures give small F-numbers and vice-versa. The larger F-numbers give greater depth of field, which dictates how much of the detail nearer than and further away than the focus point appears in focus. In the case of Rob's obverse picture, adjusting the depth of field won't help because none of it is in perfect focus. It means that the "auto" focus hasn't. Autofocus works by adjusting the focus until maximum contrast is obtained within the focus region, which means that if the focus region contains a monotone colour and no features then AF can struggle. In cases such as these, I usually move the coin off-centre so that either the legend or the rim are in the focus region, so that the AF system can see some contrast. Having said that, I don't believe that the Nikon AF system is particularly good. Unsurprisingly, I concur. But I can also see an advantage in having a background with detail such as Stuart uses. If your Nikon has a LiveView mode, try using that as you can move the focus rectangle to any part of the view. This might be difficult to ascertain. I lost the manual ages ago. I think it did a runner courtesy of Lord Lucan riding Shergar along with my copy of Murdoch part 1. You might be surprised what you can find on the Internet... Remarkably there appears to be over 100 web pages devoted to manuals or problem solutions for an obsolete camera which I will need to peruse! A lot of people must have a lot of spare time to waste as you wouldn't think that people could get so passionate about what is essentially a tool. You should register for dpreview.com and watch the passionate arguments about whether Nikon or Canon is better

Not without a link, thank you. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/A-QUALITY-GEORGE-III-CARTWHEEL-1797-TWOPENCE-2d-HUGE-2-oz-COIN-/290892253787?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT&nma=true&si=Amvy0IS812cJT3KC5UUZcvu%252Bz68%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc Was it you who won it? It's a nice mid-grade example - some wear, not too much, good rim. Worth the price it went for, I'd say. Only blemish is that 9 but that's not really bad.

Thanks for the link guys The twopence is a nice VF with a good rim, and I see it went for £73. Fair price - not too high, not too low. About right.

What size is it? And what metal does it look to be made from? The design is Pistrucci's famous "George and the Dragon" first used in the early 19th Century. It was last used on crown-sized coins in 1951, but it is also the regular reverse on gold sovereigns. The only 1983 sovereigns were proofs, and that doesn't look (on the face of it) to be one of those. It may indeed be an oversize model, as those have been produced since 1971, but they aren't usually dated. So size and metal are important here.

Have you got a consistent lighting set-up? Also, I don't know what the function's called, but their was an F setting on my camera that needed fine-tuning to stop the camera from focusing on the background instead of the coin (something to do with depth of field, I think? Maybe this is what's giving you some blurred shots? Nick would probably know more! The F-stop is a measure of aperture size. Large apertures give small F-numbers and vice-versa. The larger F-numbers give greater depth of field, which dictates how much of the detail nearer than and further away than the focus point appears in focus. In the case of Rob's obverse picture, adjusting the depth of field won't help because none of it is in perfect focus. It means that the "auto" focus hasn't. Autofocus works by adjusting the focus until maximum contrast is obtained within the focus region, which means that if the focus region contains a monotone colour and no features then AF can struggle. In cases such as these, I usually move the coin off-centre so that either the legend or the rim are in the focus region, so that the AF system can see some contrast. Having said that, I don't believe that the Nikon AF system is particularly good. No, I think he's talking about an F button (for Focus) such as I have on my Lumix FZ camera. Nothing to do with F-stops, I would think. There never was one for my camera (unless you count the almost useless Quick Start Guide). The manual itself I had to download from Panasonic's site, all 200 pages of it in PDF form...

Not without a link, thank you.

Can you turn the item number into a link, please?

I'm assuming that the streakiness above wouldn't have been visible until the lustre wore off? It's hard to tell from the images, but looking between the crook of the first N in PENNY, and below the Trident Hand of Britannia, it looks as if the light-coloured material is all 'sitting' in deep pockets/flan flaws (for want of a better word). Also the unusual lines, radiating out from GRA across the bust, and the fact that the worn surfaces all appear to be uniform in metal colour, makes me wonder if there's more to it than meets the eye. Is it a possibility that the flan has been atrociously rolled, leaving pits in the fields, and more shallow depressions where the devices have forced the metal into new form, and what we can see is lustre sitting behind in recesses and pits? Only thinking out loud, as I can't get my head around how a poor metal mix, after being rolled into sheets, would manifest itself as 'flecks'??? Yet it's weird that it should manifest for only those two dates, while at the same time there are enough examples to make it known 'feature'?

I just checked my collection, thinking I had one : turns out it's a 1900. Checking in Spink, it seems that none of the 1901 silver is rated lower/commoner than earlier dates. I should have been clearer. What I meant was, comparing the 1901 to Victorian shillings in general, with exception of the 1887, 1893 and 1897, it's price in Spinks would suggest an UNC would be an easyish find. I was actually replying to Nick's point about them being not easy to find in high grade. Spink seems to concur - it isn't an 'easy' date unlike the bronze (but not MORE difficult than earlier)

Yes, I'm sure you can. The iPad holds photos and it also has the Safari browser, so as long as you get the picture down to the right size, no problem.

Finally - the image itself

Step 5 - as you can see, the final image size is only half the 150k limit.

Step 4 - I've clicked 'Export' and selected the final image size in pixels, JPEG, and quality setting which in this case in 'Minimum' (which turned out to be acceptable).

Step 3 - I've clicked 'Apply' which then does the Crop

Step 2 - I've clicked and dragged the area I want to crop to, which in your case will be the coin, the whole coin, and nothing but the coin!

Step 1 - I've loaded the picture into Picasa, selected the Crop tool, and chosen the "Square - CD Cover" option

One of the difficulties posting pictures here, is that the allowance per post is only 150k. Considering the multi megapixel capabilities of most modern cameras, that means people have to resort to using external picture hosting sites to display pictures here, using links. The problem there is, one has to then register for and maintain a separate site, which in the case of Photobucket, is user unfriendly, and it's a lot more work to get a picture from there to here, than simply posting directly here. However, all is not lost as the following will explain. The main thing is to create a much smaller copy of the picture you want to post here. 1. Import the picture into any image editor (Photoshop, Elements, or free apps like Apple Preview, or Picasa will do it.) 2. (CROP the picture if necessary, so the coin fills the frame) 3. Reduce the SIZE (600 x 600 pixels will do to see a coin's finer details) 4. Reduce the RESOLUTION to 72 ppi, which is the same as a computer monitor; anything more is wasted 5. SAVE the picture as a JPEG, and use a medium setting when prompted. Your picture should then fit nicely into 150k, though you may need two consecutive posts for both obverse and reverse. I will now add a series of shots showing how to do this using Picasa on a Mac (which I downloaded especially for this, so this was my first use of it - I may be showing my inexperience). I have used an art picture as I couldn't find a coin picture that needed cropping.

I've pinned it and copied it to the Beginners Area, which is the most my Admin powers allow! YAY. Thanks. Now it's pinned, I'll expand on it more fully (next post).

I'm assuming that the streakiness above wouldn't have been visible until the lustre wore off?

Would certainly up their SEO if they haven't copied and pasted it from an Encyclopedia, that is! I might list a 1966 penny with a description like that, just for the email responses from bemused collectors worldwide! "This 1967 penny is the finest we've ever seen - and we've seen many! Almost full iridescent lustre, this coin is virtually in the state it left the Mint in 1969. (Yes, note the historical drama - despite carrying the date 1967, this penny was actually minted in 1969 due to the quirky law passed by Great Britain's Chancellor, Jim Callaghan. This minting of a coin bearing the incorrect date was unprecedented since.. the year before). The generous size of these old pennies puts today's hastily struck minor coins into perspective. Remember - a 1967 penny is the last of its kind, redolent of that lost era between February and August 1971 when - already doomed - it and its peers could be seen gasping out the last weeks of their existence. This particular specimen is 100% guaranteed genuine, having been taken from a receipted Mint Sealed Bag which lay forgotten in the cellar of a 1960s coin dealer who went out of business in 1972. All the other specimens in the bag were damaged by environmental factors, but this miracle specimen emerged virtually unscathed and we offer it - slabbed and annotated - as an artefact of a lost age of coin collecting." I think I will list one Peck with your exact wording, just for the craic! (with your permission!) Feel free! (Don't mention me, though )