Peckris

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage. I'm afraid you will have to stand corrected, sort of. The terms of the recoinage concerning pierced pieces reads as follows. Ruding R., Annals of the Coinage (1840), vol.2 p.44. "And in regard that such coins of the realm, formerly made with the hammer, and not by the mill and press, and which at that time remained whole and unclipped, would still be most liable and subject to the pernicious crime of clipping and rounding by wickedpersons, who regarded their own unjust lucre more than the preservation of their native country: for the better prevention thereof it was further enacted, thet every person having such unclipped hammered monies in his possession, should, before the 10th day of February 1695, or before he disposed of the same, cause them to be struck through, about the middle of every piece, with a solid punch that should make a hole without diminishing the silver; and that after the said 10th day of February no unclipped hammered monies, that is, as it is explained in the act, such pieces as had both rings or the greatest part of the letters appearing thereon, should be current, unless they were so struck through; and if any piece struck through should appear afterwards to be clipped, no person should tender or receive the same in payment, under the penalty of forfeiting as much of the clipped monies so punched through should amount to in tale, to be recovered to the use of the poor of the parish where such money should be so tendered or received. Hope this helps. I think so - that's some quote (why use one word when 70 would do! )

You too? I have some calculations based on "in-between" grades that took me forever to code! That's using scripting in FileMaker - what are you using? I tend to agree. Apart from a few rarities I had to have (the aforementioned 1905 halfcrown!), a worn coin is a worn coin and its rarity doesn't make it look any better or more special to my eyes (usually...)

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage.

And the reverse. That's a sixpence right? (The shilling has the same design). That one is a real beaut, especially the obverse. Wonderful tone and fields. Yes, it's fairly common, but you don't often see them in that condition. (Not sure what you mean by 'Radio Rental' Geo III ? It pushes all the right buttons? It cost as much as a month's TV hire? It gets a great reception if held the right way? It came in an envelope marked BAIRD? You're paying by monthly instalments? Spill...)

You may be right about that, but it is actually perfectly placed for a charm bracelet or similar.

A tad overrated, pricewise. But like the 1934 crown, it has accrued its own mythic status over the years. I'm sure you're right, Peck, but a gap's a gap, and it MUST be filled! I understand (applies soothing compress to Declan's fevered brow). The problem is, which grade to go for? The top grades are truly rare and probably realistically priced granted a 10% - 15% "mythic" addition. The lower grades up to Fine are affordable but horrendously overpriced in relation to their rarity. If you could afford a GF or AVF that might be the best way forward? (My own example is only AF, or GVG if you're being über strict. However it cost me less than a ton so I'm content enough.)

Decide first what area(s) you want to collect in, as a complete library of those books would be expensive for you. If general UK bronze, then go for the Freeman book. If pennies, go for Gouby (or Freeman, though Gouby is more recent and has a few extra varieties in). If 20th Century, go for either or both of Dave Groom's books. If silver after 1816, go for Davies. And our own Chris Perkins' Collectors Coins GB (CCGB) is a price guide from 1797 which covers most of the smaller varieties (and it's cheap!) Forget Peck - it's a standard work, and very very comprehensive, but unless you are collecting early milled or 18th / early 19th Century patterns and proofs (Peck is peerless on the output of the Soho Mint for example), then other books give coverage just as good and a lot cheaper too. There is also the English Silver Coinage (ESC) but that is best for coverage of early milled; later coin issues are now superseded by both Davies and Groom.

Worked ok for me - it's an ABC News report of American detectorists waving their squeaking sticks over English fields. (You didn't miss much, unlike them).

A tad overrated, pricewise. But like the 1934 crown, it has accrued its own mythic status over the years.

It is straightforward. All you see is the outline with no internal detail, as the junction between field and design where the angle of incidence changes is responsible for the damage together with the field. The field, which is the higher feature on a die will therefore depress the metal on the softer die where there was physical contact, while not touching the die where the incuse design is. This results in a new raised (incuse on the damaged die) design feature equal to the parts of the impressing die's field. The damage will of course be effected on the softer of the two dies, which could be either one depending on the degree of hardening achieved for each die during manufacture. Dies produced under nominally the same conditions will still have subtle differences in their physical properties arising from localised inhomogeneity in the metal mix, temperature differences within the oven during hardening and by extension an effective difference in conditioning time at a specific temperature. One variation will be hardness. Ah, that makes more sense now - thanks for the explanation Rob.

As it's the first real (pending) collapse in over 50 years of a Common Market, that's not a bad achievement. It's rather funny watching The Pied Piper of Rothermere calling the tune for the Little Englander Europhobes scurrying out from their various landfill sites, all ready to canonise David Cameron for being a dodgy second-hand imitation of Maggie Thatcher. That's like saying, "as it's the first real collapse of the Eiffel Tower in over 50 years, that's not a bad achievement"! :D Yes, but the Eiffel Tower is a single unified design consisting of components from a single source ... It would be nearer the mark to say that after 39 days on the waters, Noah's Ark experienced its first killing of one animal by another...

As it's the first real (pending) collapse in over 50 years of a Common Market, that's not a bad achievement. It's rather funny watching The Pied Piper of Rothermere calling the tune for the Little Englander Europhobes scurrying out from their various landfill sites, all ready to canonise David Cameron for being a dodgy second-hand imitation of Maggie Thatcher.

scott - the 1929 is possibly not actual ghosting? Would I be right in thinking it only shows up in the lustre pattern and the field is still flat? I can barely detect anything on the George VI penny, but the wear pattern may show up something? It probably isn't raised in any way though.. Clashed dies is where a planchet has gone walkabouts (i.e. for some reason isn't where it should be!) - the dies clash together with no blank between them and as a result, the design from one die can leave a faint impression on the other die. This in turn will leave an impression on subsequent coins until noticed and taken out of commission. I'm not sure of the actual physics, as it involves a design that is IMPRESSED somehow transferring (if the design was RAISED it would be easy to explain).

I go along with the others' verdict of clashed dies - it's definitely not ghosting as the impression is indented not raised. Also the outline of the original design is perfect, whereas ghosting causes a vague outline, slightly raised. The question of value is an interesting one. I guess it will vary from dealer to dealer, from collector to collector. As with die cracks too. I have BU 1860 beaded border halfpenny with 100% gleaming lustre as if it came from the Mint yesterday. But also a longish thin die crack on the obverse. As a result it cost me £20 from a Midland Fair dealer (in the 90s). I thought that was a bargain then, and I still do now. In the same way, a badly ghosted but BU Geo V penny wouldn't put me off one bit if it was a date I wanted.

Hear hear. Very well said. No nation should be damned in perpetuity for the 'sins of its forefathers'. (Not forgetting of course that it was "our" - The Allies -actions in the punitive Treaty of Versailles after WW1 - against a German government that didn't even exist at the outbreak of war - that led in a very large part to WW2). Oh I would go along with that - our independent judiciary is worth a very great deal. I suppose what I meant was, that where a Government passes unjust laws (e.g. the worst excesses of the current Welfare Reform Bill where the rights of disabled people to a dignified life on the same footing with everyone else in society but with extra financial support for the fact they are disabled, are being thrown out), there will be some protection from the ECHR. When I said "pissed on by our justice system" I think that's what I really meant. The Courts are indeed notorious for a few well-publicised cases of miscarriages of justice, but in every case it was the jury verdict rather than the legal system itself.

Oh sure! Like leaving NATO uniterally? Like having a bunch of farmers who basically put two fingers up to the rest of Europe? Like insisting on the French language being respected and used whenever and wherever possible? I think not. As for the Human Rights Act, thank heavens for it. Many a British citizen, pissed on by our own "justice" system, has had cause to live in gratitutde for its existence. The UK disabled may be among them soon, after the Arbeit Macht Frei coalition has done its worst.

Very suspicious. A private listing, but look at the bidding - it jumped from £68 to £425 in one step, overnight.

Exactly. The small disparity in prices makes it seem like the rare variety (older deeper portrait) is not that much scarcer than the later portrait. But it is! Maybe Spink have priced on the basis of it being not a hugely well-known variety? But it's getting known and I think the value in Fine should be around 10 times the normal type. In Unc, less of a difference (2x ?), as all 1921s are quite rare in top grade. It depends on how you define a "weak strike" - I'm sure many people would class 'weak strike' and 'worn die' together as the effect would be comparable. If it's a genuine weak strike, what you say is quite true. But I think - especially in the age of machinery - they are actually quite rare, and what we often refer to as weak strike is actually a wearing die. And on those, the points of wear are indeed uneven; as witness the 1918/19 H and KN pennies which more often than not occur with very blurry hair details but other details still crisp. Then there are the 'weak areas of design' caused by imbalances between obverse and reverse. The classic example is Britannia's face and chest on pennies and halfpennies between 1911 and 1921; I'm sure if you looked at the die involved, it would show good detail, but because of metal being 'sucked out' for the obverse, that area of the reverse often shows detail that looks very worn, even in BU state.

I have ignored the silver threepence and farthing - these coins are too small, and the reverse design therefore proportionately larger and heavier on the flans than on the larger coins. Conversely, the portrait is comparatively less heavy, given that the legend needs to be larger in proportion. The penny on the other hand (and the halfpenny which conforms to the same effects) is a classic example of ghosting at its worst. The rim is too small to give any protection, and there is a lot of empty field. In fact, the only interruption to the portrait edge is Britannia's helmet, and the negligible width of her forearm and the trident. These two denominations suffer the worst ghosting, and only the shilling can rival it of the silver denominations. I hope this review of reverse designs in relation to the obverse portrait has been helpful.

The sixpence is less prone to ghosting than the shilling - the rim and indeed the whole design is larger in proportion to the flan than on the shilling (due to the small size of the coin); and it is also noticeable that the top of the portrait falls OUTSIDE the inner circle and within the legend, reducing the scope for ghosting.

The shilling shows clearly why ghosting is such a problem. There is a small rim, and a huge area of empty field to the left of lion-on-crown. Above, the portrait edge is below the inner circle and is a large uninterrupted length. Finally, even on the right hand side there is scope for ghosting with lots of empty space.

The florin has plenty of empty field, and therefore there is sometimes a bit of ghosting. But it's light, and this is due to 1) a decent reverse rim and 2) quite good protection from the parts of the design that breaks up the empty field - particularly the sceptres.

We have all discussed the reverse 'ghosting' on the first period of George V coinage (1911 - 1926, especially up to 1920). As is known this was the result of an imbalance between the deeply cut, heavily cut obverse portrait, and an often shallow reverse unprotected by a decent rim. The 'ghost' on the reverse is an outline of the portrait edge, particularly the upper head and forehead, rather than the facial features and neck. But it only occurs on some denominations, and only slightly on others compared to the worst denominations - penny, halfpenny, and shilling. I've done some Photoshop comparisons showing the exact location of the upper portrait edge in relation to the reverse design. Hopefully it will be seen that where there is an expanse of empty field, that is where the ghosting occurs. The first example is the halfcrown : this reverse has a good strong design, and there is virtually no part of it which invites ghosting - even the one bit of field (left, central) is protected by the strong curved edge of the shield. (I will attach the other reverses in separate posts, due to image sizes).

Can't buy a decent British car i'm afraid, ever tried a decent German one though? BMW; VW; PORSCHE; MERCEDES; AUDI, ROLLS ROYCE; MINI? Anyone? And our water companies are owned by the French, our richest football clubs are owned by Americans and Russians, banks are answerable only to *ankers (we never see a penny), as Azda points out, our car manufacturers are all American, German, Japanese and Korean, call centres are divided between Liverpool and India roughly 1:4, our car, computer, mining, steel, shipbuilding industries have all gone West (or East, or South)... we are now a 4th-rate nation whose main enterprises are small-scale cottage and craft industries, and tourism. 7th in the world? Perhaps, but who gets the profits? Not us.

I'm not sure I agree that the impact of Brussels is just an urban myth, whipped up by the media. The amount of legislation that pours out is phenomenal and does have a very direct impact on the UK and its businesses. As for the budget audit fiasco every year, again that's not a myth, so I'm not very kindly disposed towards the EU. Perhaps the thing I object to most is the simple straightforward loss of sovereignty and the obvious fact that the EU is heading inexorably towards statehood. The latter is not something I would want the UK to subscribe to. The main reason is that the culture and political instincts of the UK and many of the European countries are totally different, which tends to mean that they can collectively impose their will upon us, whether we like it or not. As for what we get from the EU, I would like to see the 'real' figures that describe our relationship. Too many numbers that are questionable or are 'doctored' get bandied about, so I would like to a real dispassionate balance sheet before I make a judgment. However, the figures for the balance of trade deficit are official ones for 2005, and that does show quite a gap. When it comes to the French and Germans then I agree that they are probably exasperated with the wrecking of the Euro that Greece etc. have landed on them. However, the UK isn't in the Euro, so I really don't see any big deal in not being involved in whatever treaty the 26 decide to put in place. There will be a lot of time and trouble put in to writing this new treaty, which still doesn't address or solve the debt problem, and it may well be that we have better things to do whilst the eurozone try to put its house in order. I'm not putting money on a happy outcome to this for the Eurozone. In the case of David Cameron, I don't actually see that he had much option, faced with a demand to sign up or else with precious little negotiation from the Frence/Germans, and the problems with the eurosceptic side of his party on the other hand. Looked like catch22 to me. Heads he loses, tails they win! I also don't agree that the UK couldn't stand on its own two feet. I see this as the defeatist argument that can't countenance the idea that we have done it before and can do it again, and don't need the umbrella of the EU as some sort of protection. First, what 'collective will' do you speak of? You're telling me that the Irish, the French, the Germans, the Poles, the Dutch, and soon the Turks, would suddenly find a common interest, a collective identity, that would result in such an imposition? We actually have more in common with some European countries than they do with each other. Second - yes I agree with that. His 'two-faced rattiness' I was referring to, is in relation to other matters. Third, it's easy to answer that : because we haven't since WW2, since we lost a - to my generation - unlamented Empire. We are intricately involved in Europe now, as was the dream of all those post-WW2 visionaries who resolved that there should never again be another European war. Trade is the biggest factor of course, but there is also our ability and resolve to send combined forces into places like Kossovo (though Iraq wasn't anyone's finest hour it has to be admitted). We simply cannot stand alone now. We would be in America's pocket (would have to be, in fact); we have no manufacturing base any more; we only have service industries and those rely on trading partners to flourish. We need the European Community, even if we don't need the Euro.