Peckris

Just wait until I explain to you what that tiny room with the porcelain bowl is for!

Yes thinking about it is in that ilk.... I remember as a child I thought the the Spanish Inquistion and the comfy chair was hilarious. I don't really get it now?! Bagtrap...ner ner, ner ner ( twilight zone sound effect) oh never mind.... They were just being subversive!

That's strange. I'm sure I only have the one name, which is the same as my visible username. It's not saved on my computer so I do have to log in again from time to time using it, and my password. You must have had the foresight to use the same name for both then, when you registered. But I know for a fact that my main "username" isn't Peckris, and that's the one I'd need if I lost my password. I have news regarding Gollum the whirlwind (Garry), happy to share it with anyone through PM or email but I would rather not post it to here ... Can you PM me please?

Not only that, but the bronze coins have come out well enough to show they have appalling toning. As you say - quite the wrong way.

Can we seee some photos and descriptions of what to look for please? I'll 3rd that - we need to see pictures.

Oh I remember seeing that on telly - yes, great fun! (That whole series owes a BIG debt though, to Terry Jones and Michael Palin whose "Complete and Utter History of Britain" was one of the precursors of Monty Python).

Well, that's appropriate with St Paddy's Day fast approaching. ("Goodnight, and may your coins go with you")

I am an older member who stopped (I joined briefly in about 2005 or 2006?). At that time I remember a very active member was a young American lad who went by the name of Master JMD. I then rejoined in 2009 with a different username. The lad was by then nowhere to be seen. I have no idea what happened to the young Master, but I'm here twice over (in fact three times, as I temporarily became Peckris2 some months ago when my computer had problems and I forgot my login details which I never need from one month to the next). So there is clearly a complexity to people's lives and stories which means that your 988 don't encompass 988 separate individuals. And some people disappear for reasons best known to them. One complication unique to this site is that your Username - which you require in order to retrieve forgotten passwords - is not the same as the visible Username by which everyone knows you. So if I ever need to retrieve my password I'd need to know "who I am", other than Peckris. Which of course I don't, as I'm never logged out. I wonder how many regular members experience a computer disaster and have to re-register as a new user? It must happen from time to time.

In high grade that reign has always been difficult. In the 1925 Spink "The Milled Silver Coinage of England" it says "Many of the coins of this reign are quite scarce". Of George V the same book says "None are rare." It's partly due to the shallowness of the portrait causing rapid wear, and it may also be that mintages were generally low in relation to demand.

If you have Davies, then the next step is to ask our fellow-member 1887Jubilee, who knows more about that date than anyone else.

Is it penny size, halfpenny? Can you weigh it? If you give the diameter and accurate weight, we might be able to give better advice. A picture would help too.

It's not confined to gold. If you look at the older 10p and 50p especially, you will see a change from a rather lovely satin finish (1968 - early 1970s) to a rather ugly mirror finish sometime around the mid-1970s. I'm not sure why they did this, or why they thought it was better, but I suspect it is something to do with practicalities and nothing to do with aesthetics.

Do be aware that the 1905 florin is only worth getting if you're making up a 1905 silver set. Otherwise it's best left alone. Its high value is partly caused by the 'magic' of the date. But really, the halfcrown and shilling are the real rarities. Sometimes you even see the sixpence coming out top, when actually the 1904 is much harder. As I say - good for a set, but otherwise don't be fooled by its value.

I've met both Theresa Green & Annette Curtin David I've seen the van of antiques dealer Robin Bastard (true!)

You're welcome. Let's hope that Derek (RedRiley) drops by as he wrote the book on the subject (1797 on).

You'll just have to stick to Chateau La Poo for now mate You may get the real stuff if you send the pics away to Michael Gouby though. Is that where a blue nun is resident?

Oh, it was something to do with her female house mate and I asked if she may be a lesbian and never heard from her again. I was just making conversation, it wouldn't have bothered me. Nice pussy by the way. A career in the diplomatic service awaits you Chris - let me see, where did I put those application forms...

There's not a vast difference between them. The LIMA coin has a bit more wear on the obverse, but it's only a small difference (the face is just slightly less detailed, as is the wreath and wig). I would rate both obverses as between F and VF. The 1757 is nearer to VF I'd say. The reverses tell a different story. Here the LIMA coin is much better, and is - again - between F and VF. However, the 1757 has quite a lot of wear and would only just rate F in my opinion. Despite its dull appearance and more common status, the LIMA coin is the one I'd rather have, as the reverse of the 1757 lets it down.

I think I'm tending towards Chris' and John's views - mainly for one reason : the damage (or repunch, it's not entirely clear) to the '1' and the '4' looks identical. It looks possible that whatever was done to one digit was also done to the other. As for the '1', it could well be that the resulting damage/punch makes it LOOK like an Arabic 1 when in fact it isn't really. But it's not certain, that's for sure!

Bear in mind that modern proof sets average around 100,000 issued, and you can't give them away! What does "you can't give them away" mean? The modern proof coins are legal tender therefore valid money, isn´t? What I meant was - modern proof sets are very common, in the sense that there are many more sets available than people who want to collect them. It's a buyers' market. "You can't give them away" is an idiom, meaning "If you have any for sale, it is very unlikely you will get a good price, and nowhere near the issue price or catalogue price." Yes, proof sets are legal tender, but the coins in them cost many times their face value, so spending them would be VERY unwise!

Wow, that's a high risk strategy Dave! To sell one's collection and then expect to be able to buy it back at a cheaper price in the future. Even with the money available, it takes years to assemble a decent collection. Some coins virtually never appear in the market and to lever them out of the hands of other collectors is likely to require a significant premium. It isn't one I was planning to adopt myself, as I'm a collector not a gambler. However, it's what the guys in the city do all day long and I bet there are some people who are able to judge the turning point and go for the big sell. I guess if you are a collector and, as you say, you have some rarities that are almost never seen then you probably wouldn't part with these, but would let some of the more easily obtained examples go. Maybe, but one share certificate is exactly the same as another. Your own favourite coins are unique, and once sold you are extremely unlikely to ever have the opportunity to buy them back again.

That's true, and really the only clue. Of course I know it must be altered but even under a scope it's impossible to see how. If I was a machinist, I'd take a 1935 penny as the base, then cut the upper part of the '3' from another penny including some surrounding metal. Then I'd carefully cut out the top of the '5' and drop in the portion of the '3' from the second penny. It would require a microscope and much adjustment to get it right, then it would be a matter of rubbing and treating to conceal the join. Lovejoy would be proud of it!

It looks like a low grade penny which has been silver plated. Agreed, or possibly chromed.

Between 1965 and 1975 there were unique circumstances prevailing. Worldwide, there was definitely an upsurge in interest in coins, but in the UK this was exaggerated by decimalisation. That created an absurd demand for modern circulating coins which rose far quicker than pre-1887 coins. It all collapsed spectacularly after 1971 but due to genuine interest in older coins partly underwritten by stock market falls (the oil crisis), pre-20th Century coins began their rise in the mid-70s. This again reached absurd heights between 1979-80, after which things stagnated for 15 years or so. Coins were very underpriced in the mid-1990s, and have been undergoing corrections ever since. It's fair to say that eBay is the complicating factor this time around. So the answer is "yes and no". Yes, whenever coins are underpriced and interest is there, then market forces will come into play. No, in the sense that the driving external factors were completely different in the 1970s.

The coin is not mine, but apparently is gold. So either a lower quality gold or the core is not gold, just the outside layer. do not know. IF it is gold, i just do not get it... As stated, lower grade gold for use e.g. in the Middle East. The "wrong date" would prevent (or so it may have been assumed) accusations of counterfeiting.