Peckris

Can't make it through the rain band

The picture is not very good, but from the obverse (which you have the wrong way around) it appears not to be a genuine gold coin, but some kind of repro or fantasy piece. I can't see enough detail on the reverse, but I doubt it is the genuine design? The colour is wrong too, being too green for gold (though that may be your camera). A better set of pictures - e.g. scans - would help more.

Yeah, I bet there are a fair few pedestrians now keeping an eye out for falling helicopters...

Yes, I'd noticed that too. The 1875 has long overtaken it, and even the (much easier) 1892 is catching up. The date that makes me laugh is the 1869 - it's not rare! A classic example of a coin that basks in the reflected sibling glory (of the penny), just like the 1905 sixpence does (easier than the 1904). Maybe the 1895YH farthing really isn't as scarce as once thought? In which case, the OH variety must be more scarce than it's been traditionally rated.

That one looks more like nEF. No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom. My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade. I can make out a complete eyebrow, but it certainly isn't better than EF I'd say. On the other hand I always distrust 'blown up' photos as they magnify any little tiny flaws and make them seem like horror stories which they wouldn't in hand. That's a well-known issue - the reverses of George V before 1921/2 are notoriously affected by the high relief of the obverse portrait 'sucking' metal away from the reverse (and causing 'ghosting' too). This is especially true where the reverse rims don't protect the design properly (pennies & halfpennies) or the reverse design is too shallow compared to the obverse (shillings, and to a less extent, sixpences). Where there are strong reverse rims and a strong reverse design - halfcrowns - you don't see the ghosting or weakly struck reverses. Interestingly, the 'recessed ear' 1915/16 pennies usually have Britannia fully struck up, so why the Mint didn't persist with the experiment further is a bit baffling. So did ANY, say 1920 pennies for example, get through unscathed, or would I be wasting my time looking for one? Oh yes, the strike is not invariable. There are always cases where the obverse hasn't 'sucked' out too much metal and Britannia looks more or less ok. Especially if a new reverse die is in use but the obverse die has seen some use. You might have quite a search though.

It will attract gunk if stored outside a cabinet or enclosed tray. You could keep in a flip but you'd need to monitor it closely. Also, the film of oil should be incredibly fine (i.e. you've wiped most of it off, but there is just a sheen left).

Nice coin. A bit rich for me, so I'll hang on to my "EF with lustre" (it only cost me 18 squid ), but yours would be a really good upgrade. The one thing I dislike about that particular date is that they used up their worn out reverse dies on it, knowing full well that a new design was months if not weeks away. It rather spoils the appeal of a scarce variety (just like the 'worn die' reverse of 1917 sixpences).

He's not been on at all recently - I imagine he's been fully occupied getting the book out. Anyway, we know now. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * That's weird - the Rotographic Forum shows the 'New Replies' icon, but there aren't any. Anyone else seeing this?

That one looks more like nEF. No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom. My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade. I can make out a complete eyebrow, but it certainly isn't better than EF I'd say. On the other hand I always distrust 'blown up' photos as they magnify any little tiny flaws and make them seem like horror stories which they wouldn't in hand. That's a well-known issue - the reverses of George V before 1921/2 are notoriously affected by the high relief of the obverse portrait 'sucking' metal away from the reverse (and causing 'ghosting' too). This is especially true where the reverse rims don't protect the design properly (pennies & halfpennies) or the reverse design is too shallow compared to the obverse (shillings, and to a less extent, sixpences). Where there are strong reverse rims and a strong reverse design - halfcrowns - you don't see the ghosting or weakly struck reverses. Interestingly, the 'recessed ear' 1915/16 pennies usually have Britannia fully struck up, so why the Mint didn't persist with the experiment further is a bit baffling.

I covered my Brutus with Olive oil and had a pipe smoking sailor "chase me" He was trying to put a knife in my back. Oh, what was that guy's name - Duncan Somebody? Duncan Norvelle. That's him! Completely straight, apparently.

I've only ever bought spink, but I hear there's a little extra with CCGB, am I missing out on much? For the weekend, Sir?

That one looks more like nEF. No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

That you did! and That I will! Thanks for the advice. Yes, I'd echo the advice you've got. Basically, modern commems are a drag on the market - the dear old lady probably carefully looked up the total value in Spink, not realising that no-one apart from people paying full Royal Mint issue price comes even close to those quoted prices. Shame, but there it is. Do have a look at the predecimals - she may have thought them grubby and worthless, so ignored them. But the sight of those bank bags is depressing enough ...

I covered my Brutus with Olive oil and had a pipe smoking sailor "chase me" He was trying to put a knife in my back. Oh, what was that guy's name - Duncan Somebody?

I agree. I think a faint sheen caused by a very thin film of olive oil positively enhances a coin (but don't tell Popeye )

Well, at the risk of drawing the ire of Peter AND Rob, I have to say I don't mark a coin down very much at all for edge knocks that are hardly noticeable.

Good, thanks Peter - that makes me feel better - I only paid a fiver for it. GVF money would have made me feel guilty! Ignore our resident pessimist - those aren't so much 'knocks' as 'faint taps, almost inaudible'

Really? Now this is important. I've got it booked in as a VF, but even if I only bump it up to VF+ it becomes my most valuable coin. At VF it's only No. 18! Votes on grade would be very welcome! It's a slightly weird one, that. At first glance it's a VF coin, but when you start examining closely for wear, there is less than you'd think. I'd give it GVF but the wear on the chest and part of the laurel wreath and hair makes it too far off EF in my book.

• “CURRENT” – Requests the coin to cross at grade listed on holder (no higher than 69) • “ANY” – Requests coins to cross at any numerical grade (01-69) • “DETAILS” – Request Genuine with Details

Unfortunately, there's a rather bulky 'plastic reaction' surrounding the entire coin which would have to be removed first

I was just about to get really excited when someone pointed out it was a farthing! (I hadn't realised you didn't know the difference between the size of a farthing and a halfcrown - just for the record, a halfcrown easily beats the size of today's tiddly 50p, but is probably about the same size as one of the older larger 50p's)

Thank you very much I will do that, thanks for the advice. I was just flicking through some and picked out one of the early ones, it is an 1850 half crown according to google but this one has brittania on the reverse instead of the coats of arms, do you know anything about that? The copper penny (pre-bronze) was approximately the size of a halfcrown, had Britannia on the reverse, and could have been artificially silvered. Unfortunately, there were none minted in 1850, nor even copper halfpennies. Can you upload a picture of it?

I have a Nikon D90 with a 105mm macro lens. Using the metadata from Coinery's posted pictures; it looks as if he has a Canon EOS 1100D. You don't need an expensive camera (e.g. a DSLR) - all you need is one with a 'macro' facility so you can get close, and use the maximum resolution. A decent compact or superzoom will be good enough. It's not the size of the sensor that matters with coins, it's being able to light it properly and get close enough.

Yes, Davies is the "bible" since 1816, though Dave's book is really good for 20thC. For pre-1816 milled you would need to add English Silver Coinage since 1672 (ESC - Raynor) though that does need updating in the light of more recent varieties discovered.

Your pictures aren't there for me, buddy, just a small blue square with a ? in. And now I've replied, suddenly they are there!!