Peckris

Happy birthday Dave

Maybe the engraver had just got married :lol: :lol: :lol: But it's erect? Its on the point of drooping, perhaps he was at the alter then..... It's definitely been altered

Yes, the series is definitely underrated IMO. They are lovely little coins, and ought to appeal to our many farthing specialists. The 20C scarcities are 1904 and 1905, 1917 (EF or better), 1923 (less so than it once was), 1932 & 1934 BU, 1938 BU, 1952 EF or better, and the even-numbered dates of Eliz II in BU, i.e. 1954/56/58/60. It's hard to say why some dates in the 1950s are so elusive in high grades compared to others - it's the same for all denominations. I suspect it may be something to do with some stocks being held back of some dates? Which makes those dates common in BU when collecting fever struck in the mid-60s. The 1959 has a similar mintage to 1958 I believe? yet is very common.

I'm viewing on an iPhone, so not the best view, but that surely isn't normal circulation wear is it? Also, isn't that a few casting bubbles about on the obverse? Maybe mould on its back? Bubbles to top, not all of mould filled???? Apologies if this is just the 2"x2" image I'm seeing that lets this coin down. The wear just doesn't look right. It's hard to say if this is a dodgy coin however - some wreath crowns that have been over-zealously polished in their lifetime can also have suspect wear patterns.

As I don't use Windows you can do a nice little zip file of little jpegs for me

Are we talking coins or teenage girls?

In my defence I would say that the 'window event' happened a good many years ago when I was not actually collecting, so that may itself say that since I've become a coin collector again I am no longer interested in teenage girls sunbathing topless. And this in turn may all be used as evidence that the coin collector is in fact nerdy and whoever posted the original heading to this thread had actually hit the nail on the head by saying we are all in fact anti-social creeps! Remembering my own teenage years, when my coin collecting interests and teenage girl interests were both at their most obsessive, I'd say that thesis isn't necessarily reliable! On the other hand, you could say that coins were a kind of compensation for lack of success in the other arena...

Hopefully you will find the 1914 and 1945 not too difficult. 1944 is ok too unless you want strict UNC. The others are genuinely quite tricky in BU or UNC, but you should be able to find EF examples without too much trouble.

And I'm afraid my equally nice 1911 proof halfcrown ain't for sale! (Just to dash hopes you didn't even have )

It's hard to tell from the photo, but the whole of the right side of the eight appears to have sustained damage. The resulting impact has squashed and spread the metal to give the impression of something more interesting than just a whack. That's all I think it is though. I agree - it looks like circulation damage.

Speak for yourmyself!

Hm , think you're barking up the wrong tree Steve. I'm a member of a Lumix camera forum where there hasn't been a post for several days. I'm also a member of one of the best writing forums, and I've seen in one of their main sections that there have been only three active threads in two days. This forum is usually one where you can rely on a daily contribution level.

Maybe I'm being over-sensitive here, but that seems a tad offensive.

...and the rest!

When you say "My link", do you mean that's your coin you're selling? No 'My Link' was the default name given when I posted the post. To me that crown looks cast....maybe I absolutely agree. I didn't like to say so before, as I thought it might be your listing. It definitely looks dodgy and very much like a casting.

When you say "My link", do you mean that's your coin you're selling?

Thanks Peck, hows this? Yes that's better (for me anyway). There is a suspicious bulge on the right hand side of the 0, but I'm struggling to place it with an underlying 6. I can't see anything of a 4 under the 5, but you never know with some of these overdates - they're flaky to say the least.

Looks like a 50 to me - not 40 or 46. And a straight 50 rather than an overdate. The enlargement seems too big to be particularly useful - it shows an awful lot of rough metal surface which contains too much bobbly inconclusive artefacts, that's my opinion anyway. Any chance of a smaller enlargement?

To coin collectors, "Good" condition is actually bad. I'm sure you mean better than that? A picture would help greatly

Apart from the usual suspects, you might find some good articles at the end of the Coincraft Catalogue if my memory serves me well - though if these cover the topic in question to any extent, that I can't remember.

So you're not a Buddhist then? I love rice, the solitude of mountains, sitting under trees, and have an expanding waistline...I'm in! ;-) Me too! And don't forget the getting up at 4 AM ... oh, wait... Happy Easter or whatever you celebrate, one and all

I have really no idea how you'd go about researching this. It's a great topic though. Just a few jottings : 1. The Romans seem to have gone in for realism, judging by the variety and anthromorphic nature of portraits on their coins. Equally, Celtics and Saxons didn't pretend to aim at the same end, preferring what seems to be a very stylised interpretation of form. In the street, you could far more likely recognise Vespasian for example, from his numismatic portrait, than you could Offa. 2. By the time of medieval coinage (hammered) - whether through incompetence or simply a preference for stylised artificiality, you get a ludicrously similar representation on coins through a 400 year period. This comes to an end with the rather lovely profile portraits of Henry VII, and the portraits of Henry VIII are uncannily like his paintings we are familiar with. On the other hand Elizabeth was supposed to be paranoid about having only 'officially approved' portraits being done, which renders any numismatic image instantly untrustworthy. 3. In the milled era, there must be a certain amount of flattery in all reigns, right through to our present Queen. Anne was notoriously ugly and while her coins reveal no oil painting, I rather suspect you would not have wanted to meet her Maj down a dark alley. 4. George IV was vain to the point of ridicule. Again, I suspect that the three chins you see on his coins would have been closer to 5 or 6. As for the long-reigning Victoria, we wouldn't know anything about her middle-aged appearance from her coins as she morphs from young to elderly almost overnight (in 1887 for silver, and 1895 for bronze). It seems your topic could easily divide into two : - who created the most realistic portraits? - who created the most pleasing (to the monarch) portraits?

I think the two rim widths make an interesting variety. Minute differences in width of the ship would just send me right off to sleep.

5 for me too. I didn't know which of the four denominations didn't come from abroad, and - another "abroad" question - I didn't know which other country has a shilling. I was fine on the UK questions!

If you look closely - especially the reverse - you will see that the surface layer is a silvery colour that's peeling off in places to show a darker metal underneath. On a genuine silver coin I would expect the surface to tarnish quite badly, but with perhaps a few brighter spots showing through where the tarnish has been affected by the unearthing process. This seems to be the opposite. Something about its surface just doesn't look right, though the design appears to be absolutely right.