Peckris

I'm pretty vacant but I don't care. Never mind the Boll*cks First use of the C word in pop music to get past the censors

What, BOTH of them? 8 of the buggers No Way!!!!

ok maybe not a wardrobe ...... True, but I didn't say anything about a or a either :D

What, BOTH of them?

There are no crocodiles in Dundee because the jam and jute industries are repellent to them. You forgot one of the 3 Js that Dundee was once famous for Jabba the Hurrt, Jimmy?

okay thanks, so i got to leave by the radiator for a long time to tone......right?......i recall you saying once to leave them on top of a wardrobe.....is that better for copper/bronze? No, that wasn't me I don't think? In any case, dipped coins only applies to silver not to copper / bronze (which would be very difficult to alter the tone of anyway). With the latter it is important to buy with the right tone from your point of view, from the start, as you can do so little about it.

:) :)

Why, that's George Vicious, contemporary of John Lydon, can't you tell from the Mohican? What size is it? It appears to be a crude imitation of a George IV crown, but with the addition of LANCELOTT and BIRM: - googling that name and Birmingham came up with a few references, one of which was a late 19th book published by an Ernest Lancelott of Birmingham, about how to prevent your purse from being lost or stolen! But like others, I'd say it was most likely to be a Birmingham gaming token, and Lancelott may be the name of the issuer.

yes there seems to be a bit of an overlap between the two, being ugly and calling it tarnish helps in understanding the diference and knowing why toning is good. ......thats where im at with a couplle of my coins.....im suspicious If completely untoned, but rather 'flat' looking and not lustrous, you would be right to be suspicious..

Ahh, now you say that, but out of around 20 coins I've bought recently, either because they were unusual or pretty, two of them are not in BCW. One is an un-noted die-pairing, and the other an un-noted legend feature! Small stuff, I know, but with an estimated (mine) 1000+ dies for the sixpences alone, there must be plenty up for grabs! I don't think many out there would care a toss about it, really, or pay any more for one, on account it would be a Very VERY long time before any collector got close to having only a few holes in their Elizabeth sixpence collection, and anywhere near thinking about paying a premium to fill it! I might just work backwards and collect the uncollected, now there's a challenge! Yes, I wasn't actually including hammered in my definition, as each coin is almost a micro-variety in itself!

That's a superb result Dave, nice one! And a great advert to show that dipping isn't ALWAYS bad. I think that's a good question. Tarnish is usually pretty dark in colour, and forms relatively quickly compared to toning, which often has a colour and is acquired over years. But it isn't a precise science - suffice to say that if it's dark and ugly, you could be justified calling it tarnish! difficult to say from the pic.....my gut response is yes.....because it looks a little flat,less lustrous....if you know what i mean....i have a couple of florins that i think may have been dipped......theyre clean for sure but somehow dont feel right. i think im going to have to try this for myself on a couple of lower grade coins......interesting. My response would be, no I wouldn't be able to tell. I might be suspicious that an old coin should be so untoned, but it is far from unknown to find undipped BU coins as far back as 1816!!! Depends entirely on how they're stored. That halfcrown looks lustrous to me, as it should after only 10 seconds in the dip.

No, for a subjective definition of old I think your definition holds up. The original question was sufficiently vague in its terms, that there would be a different definition for each member of this forum. For me, anything that wasn't legal tender when I began collecting - silver before 1816, copper before 1860 - would be "properly" old.

It's all about being a completist. As soon as a variety is found, everyone has a gap in their collection to be filled. As Peck says, they're not that rare (VR Court estimates 6:1 in favour of the more common variety) so can be picked up by the eagle-eyed at a very reasonable price. There's always a good feeling from paying standard money for a rarer variety. Just reading this thread and thought that, from the completist point of view, there are four 1944 penny varieties. The narrow date mint darkened, the wider date mint darkened, the narrow date not mint darkened/light hypo, and the wider date not mint darkened/light hypo. By 'narrow date' and 'wider date', I presume you're referring to the 'recut waves, clearly double exergue line' varieties?

Thanks, Peter! I guess though, that a 'clear' variety is a variety, whether it's been published or not! I think it's perfectly reasonable to collect unpublished varieties! Any serious collector would acknowledge them as such, whether it was published or not, wouldn't they? I suppose on a commercial basis it might be harder to get comparable money for it until it's catalogued, the rarity of it could be a tough one until it's published, giving the collector base an opportunity to discover they've got 50 of them already! A 'clear' unpublished variety would almost by definition be very rare, as most clear varieties have been seen and noted somewhere. However, I agree that the boundary lines are blurry - two Geo V farthings were only identified after decimalisation; the hard-to-identify 1915 Type 1 obverse, and the very-easy-to-see mint toned 1918. Yet the more obvious variety (1918) is also much more common, so you would have thought it would have been recognised sooner. And yet, the 1915 - though hard to spot - is a different die design, every bit as much as the 1913 penny, and is identified in Freeman; the 1918 - easy to see - is simply a different finish, and therefore possibly only a micro-variety. So the definition is still all up for grabs, I'd say.

Never used one so I wouldn't know the correct term for it. I suppose webmail is the more correct unless you can use them via POP. Since the email boxes you get from your IP are part of the package along with webspace etc., they're not exactly free. I guess you could argue that they are part of the "package", but as I said above, I'm still using the email addresses from my original ISP to whom I don't pay a penny anymore. But I agree that's not the norm. Yes, you can change webmail settings so they also download to your computer's email client as POP mail - as I use both types, I find that very convenient.

You need to visit Room 101 Actually I can't quite decide about date widths. I collect those listed by Freeman, and a few others, but take your point... I think the wide and narrow date widths on buns are two very distinct reverses, as noted by Freeman, but unlike the micro date widths on OH pennies.

That's always the risk with dipping. But at least a quick dip (or two) won't do any damage. A wash with pure soap should be tried first anyway.

Yes, probably best to try a gentler remedy first - if you dip a piece like that, it should be for only 10 seconds max. I'd add '03-'04 and '08-'09 shillings to that list, though the latter should be minimum EF. I know you've told me a million times, but what dip do you use? I seem to remember it being nothing special, just something from the local hardware store? I used Goddard's Silver Dip, which I got from Tesco.

And of course its a private listing, so you (well, us mere mortals) can't message the buyers... Azda - over to you son! I deapiar at what some of these people are looking at when checking the poctures Didn't your iPhone suggest "diaper" and "postures" for those???

Yes, probably best to try a gentler remedy first - if you dip a piece like that, it should be for only 10 seconds max. I'd add '03-'04 and '08-'09 shillings to that list, though the latter should be minimum EF.

PLEASE stop calling it "freemail". All email addresses these days are free, unless one has paid for one's own personal domain address, which few people do. The correct term for what we're discussing is "hotmail" or "webmail", to distinguish it from the free POP email addresses which you get from your ISP.

And of course its a private listing, so you (well, us mere mortals) can't message the buyers... Azda - over to you son! Oops. That's a fair bit of brass to pay for a fair bit of...

Yes, that's a good point. I wonder if it's because other varieties have to be 'discovered', i.e. one can pore over coins for sale to see if one is a rare variety and pat oneself on the back if so, whereas die numbers are simply 'there', and there isn't any mystery to them? Just a thought.

Depends how much you want to spend. Better are available and should be found in a reasonable timeframe. They are nowhere near as rare as the halfcrown or shilling in high grade, but are still scarce. Aim to pay 2-3 times that for a 1903 or 4 in similar grade. Thanks as ever Rob, priceless advice ... but why are 1905 florins priced at 3-4 times 1903 and 1904 (just going by latest Tony Clayton prices)? Is this an example where price guides are massively wrong? The price posted isn't excessive. I would have said that a 1903 or 1904 looking as the image does would cost about £100 with the 1905 reasonable value at £200+. Mint state you can name your price within reason for most years, but that requires a lot of patience to obtain one. 1905 florins quite often appear in lower grades. It is above EF that the price differentials really kick in. I'd say that the EF prices are too low for 1903 and 1904. Having said that, the market has softened of late for mid grade pieces whatever they are unless highly desirable. £120 for an EF 1903 seems very cheap. Thanks for the clarification, I thought at first you were suggesting that 1903 and 1904 florins would command higher prices in a similar grade as the 1905 pics ... now I think you are saying that £175 might be a fair price unless I want to wait for a better one. Thing is, I don't really want to pay top dollar to get all Eddie silver in GEF/AUNC, much more interested in early milled with my budget ... and have thought for a while that high grade Eddie 7 silver is a good investment, maybe aside from 1903 HC and 1905 SH and HC, but that is a different matter altogether! I think the price is probably fair - it's a good grade but not a good colour (one example where a BRIEF dip might do it some good!). Remember that most 1905 silver takes its cues from the halfcrown and shilling prices; other denominations are nowhere near as rare. If you're unwilling to pay a very high price for top grade, I'd say that's not a bad example to go for, especially if you're willing to experiment gently with its colour. High grade Edward VII is scarce indeed, but I'd not say it was a good investment as prices are sky high already, especially compared with 10 years ago. If you can get it for the right price, then bite the seller's hand off, but don't pay book price for the commoner items (1902, 1906, 1907, and possibly 1910).

A Mars a day turns your denticles into dentures