Peckris

It would require a pile of CDs or even a few DVDs - there's a whole heap of GBs involved. As it is, I've already schemed to put the PDFs onto one or two memory sticks, but keep just the articles I want in text files on my computer. That way it's easier to find what I want, rather than plough through endless BNJ journals. Thanks to the index Nick pointed me to, that will be easier to achieve.

Yes there is. The link is on the same page as the individual pdf downloads. Or you can use this link. Excellent! Thanks Nick - I can browse that for articles of interest and then download the relevant journal at my leisure. I've already spotted a couple, one on Matthew Boulton, and one on George III evasions. Very useful, thanks again.

Welcome to the forums weebo I hope you enjoy your time with us, and that your collecting brings you a lot of joy. Remind me - what coins are you most interested in; are you the 50p girl?

Having been pointed in the direction of the free BNJ pdf downloads (2004, the article on 1787 shillings), I've downloaded that one. However, the pdf is a quarter GB and to download them all will take a lot of time and space. I've spent quite some time converting the 2004 journal from pdf to text, then deleting all the articles that didn't interest me and the 'proceedings' at the end. I wondered, is there an index to the BNJ, does anyone know? Alternatively, has anyone produced their own list of contents since downloading the whole lot? I'm really only interested in the English milled era, including tokens, etc; and in Roman / Greek / ancient. I'd therefore only download issues that contained relevant articles, and then do the legwork to 'convert & delete' from the text file. Just as a note of interest - conversion of the pdf to text reduces the size from around 250MB to around 1MB, quite a saving! You lose the 'look', but you at least retain the format of heading styles, article fonts and paragraphs, footnote styles, etc.

Sorry AardHawk for the late response. Here are images of a different section of the coin, hope this is okay with you. Interesting - not only are the teeth clearly longer, the rim is observably wider too. Put those together and the two types should be fairly easy to tell apart?

Oh of course. I'm sure we can both agree though, that if it HAD been an inadvertent typo, it was a gloriously funny one!

:lol: :lol:

Natürlich sind Sie immer noch peely wally, Dave Natürlich sie sind, biite richtige grammatiks Herr Peckris Peely Wally am no either, lovely golden Brown colour cos we get the Sun here in Munich Oder warst du eine Frage stellen, weil es gibt keine Frage Zeichnen, wie so ?????? I am reliably informed by MacGoogle that peely wally doesn't just mean 'pale', it also means 'off colour' or 'unwell' or 'doing without self abuse'. But perhaps it's a while since you were in Glasgow??? <-- Frage Zeichnen, ja?

Natürlich sind Sie immer noch peely wally, Dave

Who was your favourite? Mine was always Eccles, but Neddy Seagoon and Bluebottle were high on the list also.

Content is fine - we probably thought it was just spam (looking at the original link), but if you have links to coin auctions online that you think we might be interested in, please go ahead. As a P.S., the general American ignorance that there is an alternative way of spelling English - as used by the rest of the planet, and present company excepted of course - is fairly mind boggling. After all, we Brits know pretty much all the American English variants, so why shouldn't they know ours? Rant over.

nearly as old as me!!!! .....me too would you agree that grade is fine?. I won't grade it...How do you grade hammered? It is a very nice coin.Each one a one off.I would love it. Agreed Peter, hammered is harder in My eyes to grade and i personally like it to/too/two and even twa (twa is scottish for 2 Peck) Thought i'd throw all the too' in so Peck can take his pick which is correct. Covered all the bases now You are obviously still feeling peely wally today, Dave.

It's not just about the pointing - it's the thickness of the rim and therefore how near the legend is to the rim (which would affect the pointings, I should think?). This could correspond to Sealy's varieties survey of 1970: That obviously refers to the reverse, but the same variety could have obverse differences which haven't been reported to date?

Yey, that works even better ... Grammatically correct too, Peck take note ... True, but there isn't any combination of "t" and "o" (or even "oo")

Hi Pureangel, Welcome to the forums. What's your collecting interest?

Welcome to the forum Nicky. I would venture to suggest that you've increased the female population by 100% (unless there's something strange going on), but then I'd be accused of being to maths what Peckris is to english Ahem. Isn't an increase from 2 to 3 an increase of 50%? Or is my maths in inverse proportion to my command of English? Seriously, welcome to the forums Nicky. You can check 50p pieces in your change, but you might then want to look at the older larger 50 pences which I think are nicer, being bigger. Some of them were only available in the specimen sets issued by the Mint, but the rarest currency piece of its day was the 1985 50p. Anyway, happy collecting and here's to a long and fruitful time in this forum. I didn't realise we already had 2 females! I was working on the basis that we had gone from 1 to 2. Your maths is correct then Debbie. I need to pay more attention! This isn't someone who posts regularly - I just remember us pointing out to this member that Debbie was also a member, so she wasn't the only female. Perhaps Debbie will remember who it is?

Welcome to the forum Nicky. I would venture to suggest that you've increased the female population by 100% (unless there's something strange going on), but then I'd be accused of being to maths what Peckris is to english Ahem. Isn't an increase from 2 to 3 an increase of 50%? Or is my maths in inverse proportion to my command of English? Seriously, welcome to the forums Nicky. You can check 50p pieces in your change, but you might then want to look at the older larger 50 pences which I think are nicer, being bigger. Some of them were only available in the specimen sets issued by the Mint, but the rarest currency piece of its day was the 1985 50p. Anyway, happy collecting and here's to a long and fruitful time in this forum.

I've been on a lookout for an upgrade for some time without success; so i guess this ultrawide 1896 is rare, as is the wide date 1895, again mine being the only example I've seen I've noted the date widths vary.When I got my Freeman's I went through my pot of spares and found a R13 1879.(close date) The date spacings on the veiled heads I had noted but not pursued.Thanks for everyone's input I'm one of those who thinks the bun penny "wide date" and "narrow date" varieties are distinct and separate designs (as Freeman also notes; there are usually other differences too) - I would certainly treasure an 1879 narrow date. The Old Head date spacings don't float my boat nearly so much, as they aren't distinctive in any other way, and Freeman ignores them. They are a curiosity though, especially the biggest spacings. Not the best: Perfectly acceptable! With a very thin film of olive oil, it would be quite lovely.

Does your Peck have any provenance, Steve? How long have you had it, and have you any idea who the seller was?

I've been on a lookout for an upgrade for some time without success; so i guess this ultrawide 1896 is rare, as is the wide date 1895, again mine being the only example I've seen I've noted the date widths vary.When I got my Freeman's I went through my pot of spares and found a R13 1879.(close date) The date spacings on the veiled heads I had noted but not pursued.Thanks for everyone's input I'm one of those who thinks the bun penny "wide date" and "narrow date" varieties are distinct and separate designs (as Freeman also notes; there are usually other differences too) - I would certainly treasure an 1879 narrow date. The Old Head date spacings don't float my boat nearly so much, as they aren't distinctive in any other way, and Freeman ignores them. They are a curiosity though, especially the biggest spacings.

Thank you for that info. I've never added any of my coins as none have been slabbed by me. I've just accumulated them over the years and some may even still show up in other people's collections, I have never checked but perhaps should! Logging in to the CGS site, I can't view your coins though I can see your username in the league tables. As you suggest, it must be necessary for me to list at least one of my own coins first. Yes, it's possible. First you have to click on 'Collectors Galleries', then on 'League Tables', then 'British Milled', then enter a denomination and Monarch, then you will find that the name in the Table becomes clickable (my first attempt this morning showed a table with unclickable names). Once you've clicked the name, you sit and twiddle your thumbs wondering why nothing has happened, until you scroll down and find that his collection of individual coins is now showing beneath the actual League Table. Very poor, clunky design really, but you eventually get to it.

I'm to tired. It's to much effort. I'll leave it too you. I couldn't be fucking bothered too be honest.

Yes, I agree. The only feature that looks odd on the angled shot is the big dent in the forehead, but that may be just a result of the angle (it's not only sloping top to bottom, but also left to right a little, which would make things look quite peculiar.)

Only if he uses the same username at CGS as he does here!! Which he does. I wouldn't have said so, if I didn't know it to be true. I've signed up and had a look at his wreath crowns. I can now understand why he came here and asked what distinguishing features the proofs might have over the normal strikes. I can see no difference at all between the items labelled "Proof" and those that aren't. The site below has some interesting information and pictures. In particular, there's a stunning picture of a true proof 1935 crown that is frosted. If that was true for the 1935 proof, wouldn't they have done the same for wreath proofs? I'm still unsure why they would produce proofs of coins that were only issued in limited quantities for collectors, and were struck to a very high standard. Unless, of course, these were VIP proofs, but those are always clearly distinguishable as proofs, e.g. frosting. It is true that Davies lists proofs for each year, but doesn't give any specific characteristics for them. Is there a more definitive source for their existence, e.g. Mint records or a BNJ article? http://reviews.ebay.com/The-1935-George-V-Crown-types-and-varieties?ugid=10000000009549585

I have access to the CGS site, and own a few slabbed coins myself, but wasn't aware that I could view other people's coins without the UIN number. Is this possible? Alternatively you could post a few UINs to look at. I have a some crowns myself but mainly focus on pennies. Well, quite. My thoughts exactly. Even if I went through the hell of registering for CGS (it's not just creating a username and password DM, it's doing it for one single purpose only, and then remembering it if at some unspecified far future date I wanted to go back there. Technology might be your bête noir, but remembering more than around 10 favourite website registrations is mine), I very much doubt they are going to let me look at someone's personal collection. But if you're talking about individual coins that are publicly on show there, how would I know what to look for? What I mean is, having found wreath crowns, how would I know they are your coins, divemaster? The fact that the 'member name' is divemaster is a bit of a giveaway Only if he uses the same username at CGS as he does here!!