Peckris

Normally I would agree with you choolie but crowns in VF and above kind of overstep my budget! I have most of the crowns post 1818 except the Proofs, 1847 Young Head, a few of the old heads and the only Wreath I have is the 1928. Just thought it would be nice to try and get a few earlier examples staying in budget of cause which this one did. Wow, you have a Gothic crown? Now any of those DEFINITELY oversteps my budget!

Um, surely I can't be the only one who sees that the first 7 in the die number is inverted?? (Thank you Nick - now I see the title of the thread! That'll learn me to read it fust..)

You HAVE to be kidding!! While I agree with the "privacy" thing, "opinion" is something that now runs wild and unfettered, thanks to the internet. God save us from all the trolls who are proliferating behind their computer monitors and broadband. There's far too much opinion out there now. IMO

An invisible "in hand" fingerprint ... I will sit down and think through the surreal logic of that

On that note, there are some listed on ebay that state they are made from 'furniture board'. Not sure if this is mdf or something else, but proper mahogany trays are tried and tested and safe. MDF is not recommended for coins of any value as we don't know the long term effects of the glues etc that are used in manufacture. I had my cabinet made by Peter Nichols, but they can also be picked up at auction, though that way you have less choice about the size of the various holes. But a bit cheaper. I guessed that from a picture you posted on another thread! There's something instantly recognisable about the wood he uses, then there's those red felt inserts... I have two of 'em. St Leonards on Sea, isn't he? Or something like that.

I have seen many silver coins that look like this, all in low grade, it is nothing unusual. OK, I have an awful feeling I am about to learn something I should already know! Here are my questions however... Surely the silver alloy would be a consistent colour throughout the entire depth of the planchet, not just on the surface? There seem to be numerous other low-grade coins of the same type that do not manifest this copper colour beneath the surface! Isn't this quite simply a plated copper halfcrown? Oh, and apologies to the seller if I've brought a genuine article into disrepute! Not to mention the number of G5 coins I've binned on account of copper showing just below the surface. Anyone? Right, this is a complex subject! First, the Mint had a lot of difficulty with the new 50% silver alloy, the other 50% of which consisted largely of copper, though they experimented with the precise tiny proportions of tin and zinc. The discolouration you see is present on most coins between 1920 and 1926. In the earlier years, i.e. before 1923, some of the coins have a distinctly yellowish appearance, then you get the pink coppery colours a bit later. You don't see any discolouration on the BU coins as I believe the blanks were washed in pure silver before striking (can anyone confirm?). After 1926 the mix was more stable, but even so you can see ugly discolouration on worn coins all the way through to 1946. Precisely why the copper shows through more on worn specimens is something that perhaps a chemist would need to answer. Certainly the alloy was supposed to be of even mix and quality, but it may not have been particularly stable when it came to wearing characteristics, i.e. with environmental factors and the properties of sweat, etc? Some coins instead of showing the coppery hue you see there, show an even uglier grey colour. That would tend not to draw so much attention from people like yourself, wondering if it was indeed a copper coin. But I can assure you that I have seen many many examples just like that coin on eBay, and the more worn they are the more discoloured they are. The exception being coins of 1920-1922 which can often look yellowish even in high grade and led to the Mint tinkering with the alloy to try and get it right. I'd say that coins of 1925 are possibly the worst for showing the pinky colour, so it is possible they tried a one-off alloy mix in that year? Well, just as I said, I thought I was about to learn something quite significant! Thanks, Peckris, for your usual full and diligent response! I have to say, I have genuinely learnt something quite monumental there, I'm staggered, guess I've played about pre-1920's for far too long! Time to give G5 a try then I find George V to be just about THE most fascinating reign, numismatically speaking.

With sets that contain "sets only" or "proof only" coins, it is an observable fact that selling those coins individually will generally bring in more than the whole unbroken set would. I've split cheap 70s proof sets before now in order to supply demand for individual coins, and never regretted it (financially). The same is true of 1953 'plastic' sets which can be bought absurdly cheap sometimes - yet you could sell the BU penny for near on a fiver, the halfcrown for £3-£4, the halfpenny £3, etc etc. If keeping for your own collection, then if you really don't want them in the packaging, then go ahead and break it. Just remember that the coins MAY degrade quicker once out of their protective shells, unless stored carefully. However, do bear in mind that (e.g. 1983) coins that aren't "sets only" issues, will have little more than face value for years to come, so you must make that calculation yourself.

If selling it on eBay Oops, no, then it would be near EF :lol:

I have seen many silver coins that look like this, all in low grade, it is nothing unusual. OK, I have an awful feeling I am about to learn something I should already know! Here are my questions however... Surely the silver alloy would be a consistent colour throughout the entire depth of the planchet, not just on the surface? There seem to be numerous other low-grade coins of the same type that do not manifest this copper colour beneath the surface! Isn't this quite simply a plated copper halfcrown? Oh, and apologies to the seller if I've brought a genuine article into disrepute! Not to mention the number of G5 coins I've binned on account of copper showing just below the surface. Anyone? Right, this is a complex subject! First, the Mint had a lot of difficulty with the new 50% silver alloy, the other 50% of which consisted largely of copper, though they experimented with the precise tiny proportions of tin and zinc. The discolouration you see is present on most coins between 1920 and 1926. In the earlier years, i.e. before 1923, some of the coins have a distinctly yellowish appearance, then you get the pink coppery colours a bit later. You don't see any discolouration on the BU coins as I believe the blanks were washed in pure silver before striking (can anyone confirm?). After 1926 the mix was more stable, but even so you can see ugly discolouration on worn coins all the way through to 1946. Precisely why the copper shows through more on worn specimens is something that perhaps a chemist would need to answer. Certainly the alloy was supposed to be of even mix and quality, but it may not have been particularly stable when it came to wearing characteristics, i.e. with environmental factors and the properties of sweat, etc? Some coins instead of showing the coppery hue you see there, show an even uglier grey colour. That would tend not to draw so much attention from people like yourself, wondering if it was indeed a copper coin. But I can assure you that I have seen many many examples just like that coin on eBay, and the more worn they are the more discoloured they are. The exception being coins of 1920-1922 which can often look yellowish even in high grade and led to the Mint tinkering with the alloy to try and get it right. I'd say that coins of 1925 are possibly the worst for showing the pinky colour, so it is possible they tried a one-off alloy mix in that year?

Maybe no control over DIRECTION, but unlike with a photo, the light in a scanner is always evenly consistent and not dependent on quality of daylight or indoor bulbs for which white balance has to be set carefully.

Obverse : legend intact but very little detail left on the portrait. So I'd say About Fair. Reverse : legend beginning to wear away in parts, so it is not really even Fair. I'd say it is between Poor and Fair, perhaps nudging nearer to Fair.

I would be happy to suggest it! How do we explain (for example) that, if they are all naturally toned, none of us have one like that in our collections? Or do we? I have a few beautifully toned coins but not like that!! Me neither. Red tones, gold, yellow, grey. But none are blue. Apart from a GF 1745/6 halfcrown but that's a bluish hue on a pewter grey background and I'm sure is genuine toning.

Watched the concert on and off too, and feeling the urge to say something I have felt for a long time ... great lyrics and music, but Sir Elton and Sir Paul can't actually sing very well at all!!!! There, off to the tower with me! Actually, they WERE in tune! But you're probably right, not as rich vocals as they had when younger. Is it just me or did both Grace Jones and the wonderfully rear-ended Kylie Minogue not look a day older than when they were having hits all those years ago?

Same law as in the States - you can't melt coins that are or have been currency (though for pre-1816 it doesn't apply). It's not policed very thoughly though as far as I can tell. Witness the number of dealers advertising to buy pre-47 and pre-20 silver coins. Exactly ~ and in fairness, it would be exceedingly difficult to police. Was I dreaming, or was something posted on here a few months ago about the 1864 penny being rumoured to have gold in it ? Is that "rumoured" as in "there's rumoured to be both a B52 bomber and a red London bus on the moon"? Now watch me look really silly when someone posts that yes, there really was such a rumour

You're lucky, I've not seen one as yet. I'm lucky, I've not seen one as yet. And to quote Catherine Tate...

Me no like. The colours aren't AWFUL, just a tad unnatural. What I really dislike is the artificial reflectiveness off Vicky's hair.

I sat through the whole thing - I must say that for me, the best thing was the amazing projections on the front of Buck House, especially when Madness were playing on the roof.

To be fair, he's got some wonderfully rare coinage. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/A-CHARLES-AND-DIANA-COMMEMORATIVE-WEDDING-COIN-1981-VERY-RARE-/160815806135?pt=UK_Coins_BritishComm_RL&hash=item25715e76b7#ht_500wt_1413 Well, in one sense it's unique

I remember a certain regular dealer at the Midland Coin Fair once having a tray of "BU" bronze which was obviously cleaned EF. I never challenged him about it, but you do have to be on your guard.

It very much depends how much they are asking for it. 1902 is the commonest date for all Edward denominations, by an order of several times over, so there will be plenty of high grade examples out there. It has possibly been dipped lightly once, but there seems to be genuine lustre and it looks a nice EF example. If you like it, go for it - but don't pay over the odds for it (i.e. don't even pay Spink current price). If it's a bargain or at least reasonable then I'm sure it will turn out to be a good buy.

background colour definitely affects scan quality, the inside of my scanner lid is white, scanning toned copper/bronze results in very dark low contrast images - the scanner averages the dark coin/light backgound. Much better results if i put a dark blue behind the coin. For bronze with lustre, i use a yellowish brown background. Also important to crop the actual scan window as close as possible (in the preview mode) , to eliminate as much background as possible before the final scan worth experimenting, but always scan at a high res, you can always reduce the picture size later Yes, I had the same experience. However, like with photographs, detail is preserved in deep shadow, and can be brought out with a decent image editor; contrast and levels can be improved too.

I agree. In fact, I don't see her stepping down at all, unless for health reasons. George III actually died in 1799 but the fact was successfully concealed from the public. It was felt that having George IV that early would have precipitated a revolution so it didn't come to pass until he was too fat and dissolute for anyone to care very much. If you look at the portraits of George III from 1816, it's actually his son, quite clearly.

Direction is good, but it's not absolutely essential, especially in the early days of collecting. Some never find a direction as such, just buying what they like. It's all good - condition is much more important than having a theme. In the old days, I would have said VF was your minimum to get good detail. Unfortunately VF is the grade to have 'slid' the most in recent decades and now doesn't conform to the still quoted description of "slight wear only on the highest parts of the design". So really, it's a sharp GVF or even AEF you're looking at. 1895 and 1898 are the key dates in that series (excluding rare varieties). 1896 shouldn't be difficult at all, nor the commonest 1897.

background colour definitely affects scan quality, the inside of my scanner lid is white, scanning toned copper/bronze results in very dark low contrast images - the scanner averages the dark coin/light backgound. Much better results if i put a dark blue behind the coin. For bronze with lustre, i use a yellowish brown background. Also important to crop the actual scan window as close as possible (in the preview mode) , to eliminate as much background as possible before the final scan worth experimenting, but always scan at a high res, you can always reduce the picture size later Those are very good tips - I will bear them in mind. And I always scan at a high res (though maybe not maximum).

I agree, Peter. It's been a fantastic weekend of celebrations for a diamond queen. Talking about facebook here is a status from a friend of mine in the U.S "Watching the Diamond Jubilee makes me wish we had never made that huge mistake in 1776" ... Not as serious as that huge mistake they made in 2000