Peckris

Absolutely they do. I take issue with your 1887 claims - I've seen many (and other 19th Century coins too) where the fields are brightly mirrored, but the raised parts of the design aren't. A clear indication of an undipped coin - dipping would make the whole coin uniformly bright (or flat), i.e. design, legend and fields. Polishing would have the reverse effect - the design and raised portions would be bright, while between the legend and general small areas of field, would be less bright. Impossible to be sold as BU in the 60s when the BU grade only came out in the 80s :ph34r:1684 and undipped ??? Where on earth do you get this idea from ??? I can prove to you that the BU grade was around in the 60s, from any one of my back issues of Coin Monthly. That 1684 looks cleaned, by the way, at least it does from the photos you've supplied.

Very nice! But you must do something about your scans Chris - they are supreme for showing any wear but complete pants for showing the tone / real appearance of a piece.

You're quite right. But I still think she would have gained far more reward from Stars Trek / Wars sites. Rather than the world's oldest hobby.

Believe me - if you found FMPro intimidating, MS Access is no easier, in fact it's more complex to learn. The upside of the learning curve is that once you get some confidence with it, you'll start using it for loads of things. As for the cost, yes if you buy the latest version it is expensive, but I got the previous version from Amazon (new, sealed) for significantly under £100, which for a full-featured relational database is not at all poor value. As a Mac user already there is no downside to being "locked in" to FMP (I've used it since 1994) especially when you consider there are multiple export formats including Excel. Okay, I might give FMPro another go, I downloaded a 30-day demo and still have time remaining on this. BTW does FMPro have visual tools (like MS Access, Open Office, Navicat etc.) for defining the relations between tables etc.? Is the form-buider relatively easy to use? Any other tips? Thanks The form builder has always been easy to use - you just specify which type you want (list, report, full data entry, etc), then just define fields or drag existing fields into place where you want them. You can go into Layout Mode any time and change things around, move fields, add more, delete, etc. And create new layouts (forms) whenever you want. The relationship designer I don't know about - I built mine in the days when it didn't exist. However, whenever I've looked at relationships in FMP 10 I've noticed a nice visual chart showing how everything connects together. Therefore I'd make the assumption that such a thing exists at the design level also. The good thing about FMP is that it's pretty destruct-resistant - you can make changes to most aspects of a database as and when you need or want to. But as with all database managers it helps to plan in advance as far as you can, it makes things a lot easier in the long run. Okay, had another play with FMP this evening, looks better than I originally thought, but will still take a little bit of time to get my head around, but could be worth persevering. Am starting to think about table structures, needs tweaking, but here's where I've got to in terms of tables: Specimen (i.e. individual actual coin and/or perhaps coin set) - information about condition, how acquired/sold, estimated current value, look-up for location etc. Type - one record for each coin type, each coin type could have many specimens. Am not sure whether this means having a type record per date or just per series, though probably the former as mintage and Spink prices (and varieties...) will be specific to a year Series - not sure about this, but could perhaps have many type records with shared data (e.g. same obverse/reverse info., weight, size, composition) per series - most non-year/variety specific coin type data could go here Variety - - not quite sure about this one or whether can account for varieties within the Type table Set (can contain a number of specimens e.g. proof sets). Or could possibly have a proof set as a Type in itself and a Specimen in itself, not sure of best approach here Reign (for kings and queens, names, dates etc.) Mints - location and details of mints Location (for storage locations) Dealer/Customer - dealers I've bought from/customers I've sold to Reference - i.e. reference book details - Spink, Davies, ESC, coincraft etc. Bullion - table with current bullion values per oz/gramme so can automatically calculate coin Series bullion values Obviously some of these would be combined in the layout views. What do you think? Overkill? Or have I missed something out? Will start in the fields next... Missed one... Also was going to have a table for: Denomination (including fields like common name, short name, value, value unit e.g. "Half Crown", "2/6", 30, "d" Interesting - most of those fields iI've included in my main data entry layout. Then I have other layouts for Spink values in several grades. And separate list-style layouts for location, buying details, selling details, etc. Not to mention a print layout for taking to the library to look up Spink values. And so on. I have related files for auction lots, and for the history of Seaby/Spink values since the 1960s, and for coins in sets. But really, how you set it all up is entirely on what you want to see. My main external file is for pictures, as I want to keep the main database fairly small aa manageable. I have a relationship (Coin ID number) that ties each coin to its picture, and the picture appears in any layout I've defined that relationship in (only one, in practice).

The picture could be better but it doesn't look fake to me. There's a lot of fake 1818 and (more rarely) 1819 on ebay from time to time. Strangely I've yet to see 1817 and 1820. That is; of the type known to me - There may be other kinds of fakes around! Nor to me. It may have been cleaned or dipped but it looks ok. Went for a good price!

I'd say that it is far from unknown post-1816, but much rarer before that. I do have an UNC 1708 shilling with only very light toning but I'd say most early milled tones for some reason. after then, It may be the way planchets were prepared for steam minting, or another reason, I don't know - but there are many full lustre silver coins of the 19th Century that shouldn't be suspected of dipping. Of course some WILL have been dipped, but if there's bags of lustre present I'd say it was unlikely. I have a George III shilling and sixpence, a George IV halfcrown, William IV shilling, and all Victoria denominations, that appear to be both untoned and undipped.

In my day that was a LOT of hair!!

Believe me - if you found FMPro intimidating, MS Access is no easier, in fact it's more complex to learn. The upside of the learning curve is that once you get some confidence with it, you'll start using it for loads of things. As for the cost, yes if you buy the latest version it is expensive, but I got the previous version from Amazon (new, sealed) for significantly under £100, which for a full-featured relational database is not at all poor value. As a Mac user already there is no downside to being "locked in" to FMP (I've used it since 1994) especially when you consider there are multiple export formats including Excel. Okay, I might give FMPro another go, I downloaded a 30-day demo and still have time remaining on this. BTW does FMPro have visual tools (like MS Access, Open Office, Navicat etc.) for defining the relations between tables etc.? Is the form-buider relatively easy to use? Any other tips? Thanks The form builder has always been easy to use - you just specify which type you want (list, report, full data entry, etc), then just define fields or drag existing fields into place where you want them. You can go into Layout Mode any time and change things around, move fields, add more, delete, etc. And create new layouts (forms) whenever you want. The relationship designer I don't know about - I built mine in the days when it didn't exist. However, whenever I've looked at relationships in FMP 10 I've noticed a nice visual chart showing how everything connects together. Therefore I'd make the assumption that such a thing exists at the design level also. The good thing about FMP is that it's pretty destruct-resistant - you can make changes to most aspects of a database as and when you need or want to. But as with all database managers it helps to plan in advance as far as you can, it makes things a lot easier in the long run.

She must think we all have Aspersgers! (Grumbles off to rearrange his complete Star Trek videos into colour-coded sequence...)

Believe me - if you found FMPro intimidating, MS Access is no easier, in fact it's more complex to learn. The upside of the learning curve is that once you get some confidence with it, you'll start using it for loads of things. As for the cost, yes if you buy the latest version it is expensive, but I got the previous version from Amazon (new, sealed) for significantly under £100, which for a full-featured relational database is not at all poor value. As a Mac user already there is no downside to being "locked in" to FMP (I've used it since 1994) especially when you consider there are multiple export formats including Excel.

I take it you mean things like this lustred dipped coin? Yes, just like that. His pictures also briefly show an Edward VII obverse (florin?) that has clearly had the same treatment.

I know they do! But as I only use Word regularly (2001), eXcel once in a blue moon, and Powerpoint never, I guess it's wasted on me! I do use databases a lot, but it's FileMaker Pro.

Susan B Anthony's twin!

Sorry, my mind reading abilities have gone a bit rusty. Perhaps Derren Brown might help?

Worry not. Although olive oil contains oleic acid, any acidic properties are neutralised by the other ingredients. You can see this when mixing olive oil with vinegar (very much an acid) - the two will not combine at all, and separate out into layers as does oil on water. On the other hand you can mix vinegar and lemon juice with no difficulty : acetic acid and citric acid.

Totally agree! Facebook makes Twitter seem like an academics symposium by comparison.

Welcome to the forums Mr T - I'm still getting over the irony of your name coupled with your enquiry. Thought about changing it to Mr_no_T? Seriously, there are many coins being produced by the Mint now that are really sub-standard. Whether it's poor mass minting, or a cutback in inspection staff, who's to say? I suspect that with the ever-dwindling value to the economy of circulating coins, it's the latter. When all's said and done, singleton misstrikes like this have not much more than curiosity value; ironically, if other examples showed up of the same flaw, collectors would start getting interested.

Yes - just what *was* the US Mint thinking when they tried to foist the Susan B. Anthony dollar on the American public?!? They were facing a hard job anyway trying to convince people to use a dollar coin instead of a note in the first place, so what do they do, put a coin out with a portrait so ugly no one wants it in their purse/wallet (though of course there were other reasons that people didn't like the coin, such as its similarity in size to a quarter). Okay, I know she did much for civil rights for woman in the US, but she doesn't look great on a coin. BTW have you seen what the other proposed design for that coin actually was? It was actually a rather nice Flowing Hair rendition of Liberty, proposed by United States Mint Engraver, Frank Gasparro, see: http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/1977LibertyHeadDollar.htm I can't help thinking the coin would've had more success if they'd gone with that design! The reverse is better too... Yes, the pattern coin was so much better. The entire coin was a disaster, an ugly reverse and the same reverse used on the Eisenhower dollar! I must say though, I do like the reverse of the Sacajawea dollar (at least before the US mint decided to make yet another meaningless politically correct "commemorative" series), though the obverse is bland and the edge lettering is poorly executed. I find it rather sad that the US mint has gone from producing amazing coinage in the form of the Morgan Dollar, Peace Dollar, Indian Head Cent, Standing Liberty Quarter, Buffalo Nickel, Mercury Dime and Walking Liberty half dollar to the Eisenhower Dollar, Susan B. Anthony Dollar, Washington Quarter, the far too numerous state/territory/national park quarters, the ugly and terrible presidential dollars, the Franklin half dollar (which, I suppose I don't mind so much since they are all 90% silver...) and the Lincoln cent. There has been such a backsliding when it comes to coins since about the 1940s. Despite the fact that technology has advanced, the US mint instead decides to make low relief coins out of worthless, nearly unusable metal on the dollar coins with poorly designed edge lettering. On a thicker coin it wouldn't be a problem (like on the 1 and 2 pound coins) or if they made it raised (like the old Victorian crowns) but carved edge lettering in such a thin coin is worse than useless. Of course, I don't think things will get any better if the modern commemoratives are anything to go by and with the possibility of changing to even worse metal (steel)... I don't have much hope. Its really sad, as the much of the early to mid 20th Century US coinage had great designs (although my favourite US silver coin, the Walking Liberty Half Dollar, wore badly in use), though I actually think the Washington quarter isn't too bad, and unlike in the UK, US coins were 90% silver right up to 1964 (which makes the Franklin half more acceptable, as you say)! Mind you much the same could be said about the worsening designs of the UK coinage since decimalisation, I guess! I think the UK designs were on a slippery slope long before that. The George VI and Lizzy pre-decimal stuff is pretty un-inspiring in my opinion. I'm not entirely convinced (though it's highly subjective of course). Certainly George VI CuNi is uninspiring, though it got better under Liz. I actually like Chris Ironside's designs for the decimal coins. I also think the £1 coins have by and large been very good, and many of the commem £2 coins too. But I think the 25p £5 and 50p designs stink to high heaven with the honourable exception of the 1977 crown.

I think that the most useful description is exactly as you describe: "small edge knock, otherwise UNC". Okay, so it would still be considered to be a UNC coin then, albeit with an edge knock I have no problem with that.Although the above would most likely be less than VF money. I vow never to buy another coin with a noticeable edge knock.I don't mind good honest wear. A coin may also have a marked scratch and be Unc.The same will apply. However with hammered I will suffer a bit of clipping.Of course everyone wants a nice full round flan. I have a few hammered shillings (esp CH 1) which are ragged flans but unclipped. That is VERY harsh. I'd suggest a coin with a small EK, UNC, should fetch at least EF money especially given the vast gulf between EF and UNC values these days.

Copies are usually made from tin or tin alloy. It has a ring which is not out of sorts. Some casts give a dull clunk when you tap them, but others sound more realistic. Even within genuine coins you get a variation in the ring. Just out of interest, have you ever come across genuine coins that have a very flat uninspiring no-ring, for want of a better word, before? Obviously it starts other bells ringing, but I've come across some which weigh right, test positive for silver, pass every other test I can apply to rule out joined halves, casts, etc. but just sound terrible. I guess my question is does a genuine coin always have a 'right' ring, or can one sound 'flat'? Sorry, Rob! Just to clarify...I know you've mentioned variation, but I mean 'NO ring', most definitely a flat nothing! A flan crack can sometime cause that effect I have the world's rarest coin - a 1967 penny that doesn't 'ring' Having said that, there is no evidence whatever of any cracking to the flan. That is actually a great comfort Monsieur le Peckris, because I have certainly had some good coins in every respect, as discussed, except they sound bloody awful! I really am wondering how often a genuine coins goes 'thuck' when you 'drop' it onto a hard surface, instead of 'brring'. The descriptive sounds are purely for entertainment value only, no brain cells were harmed in the creation of this post...I hope you know what I mean? :-) If it's an internal air bubble that might account for it I guess. But, if the air bubble is large enough to affect the 'ring', that would surely affect the weight too?

Copies are usually made from tin or tin alloy. It has a ring which is not out of sorts. Some casts give a dull clunk when you tap them, but others sound more realistic. Even within genuine coins you get a variation in the ring. Just out of interest, have you ever come across genuine coins that have a very flat uninspiring no-ring, for want of a better word, before? Obviously it starts other bells ringing, but I've come across some which weigh right, test positive for silver, pass every other test I can apply to rule out joined halves, casts, etc. but just sound terrible. I guess my question is does a genuine coin always have a 'right' ring, or can one sound 'flat'? Sorry, Rob! Just to clarify...I know you've mentioned variation, but I mean 'NO ring', most definitely a flat nothing! A flan crack can sometime cause that effect I have the world's rarest coin - a 1967 penny that doesn't 'ring' Having said that, there is no evidence whatever of any cracking to the flan.

And here's mine.

I seem to have stumbled on some kind of a solution, albeit accidentally. I have two cabinets - one with felt lined punched inserts, the other with felt lined trays unpunched. For coins that need some written ticket (e.g. varieties) a home in the unpunched tray would in order, with the ticket by the coin.

In a world of "we hate giving receipts", those details are good enough ffor most insurance companies. Most of us don't collect coins where provenance is even remotely an issue. However Rob's your man for that subject.

It's probably a 1799 farthing or halfpenny of George III. If it's smaller than a 10 pence then it's the farthing, but it it's about the size of a 50p it's the halfpenny. It could even be a token dated 1793 but no official UK coins were minted with that date.