Peckris

What you call a vertical line is actually the right hand edge of the 1. It's overlying another 1, over which it's been repunched (not exactly unknown in that reign!)

I agree with your assessment - gorgeous. Just to be mildly pedantic, I don't think that's classed as "hammered"? It just about falls into the "Ancients" class, though I'm willing to be corrected on that. I would definitely class it as hammered, otherwise I wouldn't collect it. Ancient would be Celtic or Roman if we're talking about British issues, in my opinion. I could have resolved this myself by consulting North, whose Vol.1 of hammered coins begins at 650, early Anglo-Saxon. However, on a purely personal subjective level, I can see a good case for redefining the term "hammered" to correspond more to a look than a strict historical period. For one thing, the first plates in North show coins that have a strong resemblance to Celtic coins (and let's face it, any coins from this period issued in the areas of Cornwall, Wales, the Northwest ARE Celtic). For another, there appears to be a dramatic change to the designs occurring during Aethelred's reign (Plate X) - a beauty to the earlier designs that deteriorate towards what I call "medieval ugliness" in his later years. However, the change seems less abrupt when you look at later reigns, which deteriorate even more as you reach the early Norman kings (see the last few plates of North vol.1), which are truly horrible and exemplify why I dislike hammered coins so much. It's almost as if there was a kind of "de-Renaissance" that takes place between Aethelred and the Norman Conquest. In the light of this, Viking and earlier Saxon coins seem really beautiful, which is how I also think of Roman, Greek, and some Celtic. I class those together in my mind, which I simply cannot for the medieval period before Henry VII. For me, "hammered" has always meant medieval, but I guess it now has to go back at least as far as the later coins of Aethelred. I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that the early thyrsmas and tremisses of the 7th centuries aren't hammered coinage. Admittedly many are based upon Roman examples but they are, essentially, English hammered coinage. I do agree that the majority don't bear the complex beauty that the later coins of the Late Anglo-Saxon era bear but they are still hammered coins and examples which I, and many other collectors of hammered coinage, continue to collect. I've done a lot of research on the re-emergence of trade centres in the early Anglo-Saxon era and coinage has had a great importance in this as the ephemeral evidence has long since deteriorated leaving coinage, bones and pottery as main sources of evidence. Even in this context amongst archaeologists many hammered coins are deemed ugly, so I can sympathise! I think the Greeks, and to a lesser extent the Romans, understood the classic design thesis (as did Steve Jobs) that "less is more". So there is a great use of space on their coins, as also with Viking and some Anglo-Saxon, that allows the design to "breathe" and come alive. It's the crammed nature of later coins I find so hateful - a crude representation of a ruler in the centre surrounded by a large legend, and on the reverse, a long(ish) cross, often with pellets, surrounded by another large legend. There's no space and no grace. Greek and Roman art and architecture were astonishing and beautiful, and so was early Anglo-Saxon. It's reflected in their coins. Strangely, there is a simple beauty to Norman churches too (despite the use of very clunky pillars), but otherwise I find their art and coinage is fairly horrible.

You're forgetting Einstein's immortal equation - H=MS2 (Hassle equals Microsoft squared )

I always thought that the Kingdom of Unknow had never issued the pink and black denominations?

That wouldn't have cost you more than a groat where I come from. What did you do with the other tuppence? Oh, I'd install an actress in a house 2 miles distance, and keep her in oysters, oranges, and mead Peck You are Charles 11 reincarnate & I claim my £5 Sorry, you weren't dressed as Nell Gwynne. No £5 for you

Wow. All you need is some newer research, knock the book out for £100, and there's your fortune!

That wouldn't have cost you more than a groat where I come from. What did you do with the other tuppence? Oh, I'd install an actress in a house 2 miles distance, and keep her in oysters, oranges, and mead

There are two reverses for 1912, where the M and P of IMP are close together or not. The first reverse (same as 1911) is a bit scarcer than the second, but not massively so. A lot of dealers don't distinguish between varieties, unless there is a marked difference in rarity or value. I'd go along with that. I'd only amend it to say that where two varieties are of the same rarity (or not!) but have obvious differences, such as the two different 1920 obverses, I find them interesting enough to collect.

I agree with your assessment - gorgeous. Just to be mildly pedantic, I don't think that's classed as "hammered"? It just about falls into the "Ancients" class, though I'm willing to be corrected on that. I would definitely class it as hammered, otherwise I wouldn't collect it. Ancient would be Celtic or Roman if we're talking about British issues, in my opinion. I could have resolved this myself by consulting North, whose Vol.1 of hammered coins begins at 650, early Anglo-Saxon. However, on a purely personal subjective level, I can see a good case for redefining the term "hammered" to correspond more to a look than a strict historical period. For one thing, the first plates in North show coins that have a strong resemblance to Celtic coins (and let's face it, any coins from this period issued in the areas of Cornwall, Wales, the Northwest ARE Celtic). For another, there appears to be a dramatic change to the designs occurring during Aethelred's reign (Plate X) - a beauty to the earlier designs that deteriorate towards what I call "medieval ugliness" in his later years. However, the change seems less abrupt when you look at later reigns, which deteriorate even more as you reach the early Norman kings (see the last few plates of North vol.1), which are truly horrible and exemplify why I dislike hammered coins so much. It's almost as if there was a kind of "de-Renaissance" that takes place between Aethelred and the Norman Conquest. In the light of this, Viking and earlier Saxon coins seem really beautiful, which is how I also think of Roman, Greek, and some Celtic. I class those together in my mind, which I simply cannot for the medieval period before Henry VII. For me, "hammered" has always meant medieval, but I guess it now has to go back at least as far as the later coins of Aethelred.

No, I wouldn't say so.

This site sells coins if you click the name in the banner which takes you to the home page, where there is also a link to "Online Coins" which mainly feaatures Rendel Ingram these days. Then there are several dealers among our own numbers, Derek, Rob, and John spring instantly to mind. Then there's Michael Gouby's site, and also Colin Cooke Coins, among others. I believe there may also be an auction site, e- something or other?

Nice shilling, Debbie. I think that "mint state" is just one of several terms used by different dealers and graders - along with "as struck", "unc", all mean the same thing. "BU" merely refers to the presence of full lustre on unc coins, though it's traditionally used more often of copper and bronze where lustre is easier to see.

I agree with your assessment - gorgeous. Just to be mildly pedantic, I don't think that's classed as "hammered"? It just about falls into the "Ancients" class, though I'm willing to be corrected on that.

Very interesting pieces. I really like those first two. You should write the definitive reference work on engraved coins, Debbie! (Assuming there isn't one already).

Our posts overlapped! As for editing, you only have around 15 minutes to edit a post, but I have a feeling that if someone else posts immediately after yours, you might even lose that?

No, I just chose to ignore it! Best thing.

Hmmmm i don't want to sound suspicious, but is it genuine, something about it looks odd, the legend for instance. What is the weight, and have you a REV picture?Maybe its just me Looks fine to me! Pictures are poor, but the clincher for me is that milled edge (where you can view it)! I've got a couple of coins with a similar type of degeneration/corrosion, that I feel extremely happy are genuine. However, as Azda said, it's always worth checking the weight, I always do this as a matter of course! My own W3 sixpences run at 2.88g/3.00g, with one as heavy as 3.12g, so still relatively variable. Does anyone have any known W3 sixpence counterfeits they could post? Spookey, but just found this for sale on fleabay, quite a nice collectable, really...not a sixpence, but crown! Unlike the sixpence, that crown does look a bit dodgy. It just "feels" wrong. As for the value of a 6d in 1696, you young whippersnappers really have no idea. I remember well. You could buy a three storey house, a 30 foot luxury barque, a night out at Drury Lane Theatre with the moll of your choice on your arm, a sedan chair home, and still have change out of a sixpence. Yoong people today, dornt knor they're born, du theay?

I agree than one can take steps to make it more difficult for 'the state' or other agency to track our every movement BUT why should we have to? The mass of information collected is so great and so diverse that none of us is likely to remain hidden for long unless we individually make it our life's mission, and who has the time and energy for that? Am I really alone in seeing a worrying trend in which all but the most determined of us will eventually lead a life in which our every movement and communication is tracked? Remember how this thread started. Did most of us even know that smart phone pics contained date, time and location information? How many of us read Google, Apple or Facebook's privacy policy ('privacy' is a joke). This recent article about Google's StreetView is just but one example of what is happening around us. Yeah, but you're not acknowledging my main point : there is SO MUCH data out there, no-one gives a sh*t or has time & resources to go through it all, UNLESS you're a suspected terrorist. And if you are, then I'm reassured that the security services and Special Branch find it much easier to track you down and stop you. For the rest of us, they don't have time; they don't have resources; they really don't care. I accept the specific point about terrorism but think you're failing to recognise the more general direction in which society is moving. There are many examples, outside of terrorism, where the state has shown it does give a s**t and one government department has accessed data held by another unrelated department and used it for its own purposes. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but I honestly think its naive to believe we are not on a slippery slope in which personal freedom and privacy will be the casualties. If you're talking about the kind of official data that hangs off an NI Number, I accept your point, but I don't define that as 'important data'. Ok, it might include my lifelong benefit claims record, and one day that might be tied into my health records (which it isn't right now), but I don't care. It doesn't contain information about the 'real me'. The real me - as far as it can be drawn upon from my online life - is scattered between several unrelated identities, and no-one can trace any one of them back except to one of several email addresses. Perhaps I saw the writing on the wall a long time ago, and I'm now an instinctive 'cyber saboteur' in relation to my own personal data.

Just one I think. Remember this is the Irish navy... That coin? Fair. The legend is readable and the main points of the design still present. You missed my irony - it was a comment on the spelling! He meant navvy.

Oh, that's awful. What a waste. True but the bidding would indicate that it is far from valueless. Provided it's only ever bought and sold via eBay

Yes, I'd say that was a fair grading. GVF I mean. Not Fair

Not necessarily. The 1992 tiny 5p coins do have very variable thicknesses, mostly due to the width of the rims only. The same thing doesn't apply to the earlier large 5p, not in my recollection anyway. Pictures would be useful.

Aaaargh. The dreaded coin video. Please please don't post these - they are always horrible. Please post photographs, which unlike videos aren't fuzzy, out of focus, soft, poorly rendered, etc.

I agree than one can take steps to make it more difficult for 'the state' or other agency to track our every movement BUT why should we have to? The mass of information collected is so great and so diverse that none of us is likely to remain hidden for long unless we individually make it our life's mission, and who has the time and energy for that? Am I really alone in seeing a worrying trend in which all but the most determined of us will eventually lead a life in which our every movement and communication is tracked? Remember how this thread started. Did most of us even know that smart phone pics contained date, time and location information? How many of us read Google, Apple or Facebook's privacy policy ('privacy' is a joke). This recent article about Google's StreetView is just but one example of what is happening around us. Yeah, but you're not acknowledging my main point : there is SO MUCH data out there, no-one gives a sh*t or has time & resources to go through it all, UNLESS you're a suspected terrorist. And if you are, then I'm reassured that the security services and Special Branch find it much easier to track you down and stop you. For the rest of us, they don't have time; they don't have resources; they really don't care.

Whoa!! 1983 packaging containing 1984 coins? That will be rarer than the 1983 "NEW PENCE" 2p. You must put it on eBay - "excessively rare, possibly unique"