Peckris

I didn't even know Praktica were still around in the digital era! It seems I was wrong to assume yours was one of their venerable SLRs. In which case, stick with Macro Mode, or perhaps invest in a screw-in add-on closeup lens. Raynox won't cost you an arm and a leg, but do get the one that's the right size for your filter thread size.

The London Mint (I'm sure) closed down long before 1987.

Ah, you're talking about 'Macro mode' on an ordinary lens (most cameras will have this, which let you get closer to your subject than the normal minimum focus distance). I was actually talking about a specialised macro lens which takes pictures at 1:1 (in other words the size of the object on the negative / sensor) is the same size as in real life, allowing super-enlargements. Your Praktica, being an SLR, will allow interchangeable lenses, but macro lenses aren't cheap! The other alternative is to raise your camera on a stand (a tripod wouldn't work) that allows it to point down, then use lighting from two different angles to bring out the relief on the design. The greater distance allows for a) being outside minimum focus distance and b) not casting shadows from the equipment onto the coin.

I'd like to know which coin that was? My understanding (which may be wrong ... I was once ) is that the London Mint finished off the pre-decimal issues, then turned their attention to proofs and commemoratives, whereas the Llantrisant Mint did all the decimal issues, of which there was a vast number. I'm not sure when the London Mint finished business, but it may have been the mid-70s? Not sure.

It might be worth pointing out that the 'finish' on decimal coins between 1968 and the 80s, is almost worth a discussion paper on its own. For example, the majority of 1968 coins have a 'satin' finish, whereas in 1969 there are quite a few with 'mirror' type finish. As you go through the 70s, the proportion of mirror to satin increases sharply, almost in line with the mirror proofs that suddenly flood the market from the mid-70s. It's actually hard to find any pre-decimal coins with a mirror finish, apart from certain noted exceptions such as the New York 1960 crowns, some 1961 halfcrowns (and there are other dates and other denominations through the 50s and 60s, which are unreported) which are described as 'polished blanks'. I do not believe this is metal impurity, but a deliberate trial of different finishes by the Royal Mint, perhaps to see how circulation affects each type?

That's really not too bad at all. It would perhaps benefit from a bit of time spent in Photoshop or similar, to make adjustments to Levels, Definition, Sharpness, but apart from the slight lack of contrast it's really not bad. As for a macro lens, what you've mentioned is a zoom lens. A purpose-made macro lens would be a fixed focal length, e.g. 85mm, or 100mm perhaps, and would go onto your camera after you detach the existing lens. You would need good lighting, as you want to avoid flash, or alternatively use daylight.

:'(

Perhaps worth pointing out that the majority of pre-1920 halfcrowns turn up in that condition? (Average is GF - GVF). This is because so many were put aside when the silver content was reduced to 50% in 1920.

My guess is that this is a child, possibly age around 12? (The clothing and fashions of the era, and the ageing effect of Victorian urban conditions, made kids look quite a lot older than a child of equivalent age today). "god knows what she is wearing it looks like parts of tree limbs" I think she's leaning over the back of a cane chair?

Me too, but sadly my collection doesn't survive until the next day...

If the detail is there, and the green is even, and there's no corrosion (big "ifs") - then I would say Yes, but only at a very large discount over the regular sort.

You do realise that even if only 1% of the total mintage is one of those varieties, that's still 5m pennies?

Such "buried" pennies can have good detail, but often quite a lot of corrosion too. Your examples are VF for detail, but sadly have suffered quite a degree of damage. However, it is certainly worth checking them for rare varieties, of which there are more than a few in 1862 and 1863. If you can find a copy of Freeman's "The Bronze Coinage of Britain" you will find all the information you need, or even more from Michael Gouby's book.

It would be instructive to know the difference between how blanks and dies are prepared for both proofs and specimen coins. The lines of demarcation may not be clear cut anyway - is the 1951 Crown a proof, or "prooflike"? I suspect the latter, as many were struck at the Festival of Britain. Then there are the "New York" strikes of the 1960 Crown - these may well be classed as 'specimens', as they certainly don't conform to the definition of proofs,

"Proof like" is a rather lazy and unscientific term (compare with "BU Gem"!). It is of course entirely possible that proof dies are used for currency strikes as well, but obviously the blanks have not been specially prepared as for a proof, so at best they are only going to seem "semi proofs". Also, the learning curve involves distinguishing between "prooflike" where proof dies were used, and "prooflike" as a lazy description applied to an early strike from a currency die.

That wouldn't be Ding Dong Un of North Korea by any chance?

I wouldn't mind the eyes following me round the room. It's the teeth that spook me...

Eh?

Most early milled silver coins 6d or over bear no denomination and nor do the coppers. The denomination only starts appearing from the mid 19th Century and even then it's not invariable.

Everything looks 'not right' about that, e.g. the obverse lettering. It could be a Chinese-made item clearly intended not to be taken as genuine.

...Wayne Ankers. No, really - look him up! What kind of parent would do that?

They are a government owned company with a "commitment to making a financial return to the government", which means you and I are paying for the minting and selling of all this dross.

"Half" decent is a tad optimistic!

The early days of The Detours maybe, but that's not the same as The Who. Let's face it, how many of The Quarrymen can you name apart from John Lennon and Paul McCartney?

"Dark?" "Yes -the office light is off, and the only light I have is coming in from the window." "Well, turn on the office light then." "I can't." "No? Why not?" "Because there's a power failure." "A power... A power failure? Aha, Okay, we've got it licked now. Do you still have the boxes and manuals and packing stuff your computer came in?" "Well, yes, I keep them in the closet." "Good. Go get them, and unplug your system and pack it up just like it was when you got it. Then take it back to the store you bought it from." "Really? Is it that bad?" "Yes, I'm afraid it is." "Well, all right then, I suppose. What do I tell them?" "Tell them you're too fucking stupid to own a computer."