Peckris

No no, I definitely haven't! I was just puzzled by your conflicting message.

I have also noticed this quote in Spink, but surely if a coin is UNC whether full lustre or not it merits UNC price. If a coin is toned, does that mean Spink says its EF? Not getting that part at all. Also how many bunheads have we seen in what spink would then regard as ture UNC which would mean with full lustre. Sorry but i must laugh at that quote It's quite simple I believe. Spink don't list BU as a grade, but for BRONZE COINS ONLY they make the distinction that when they list a price, it's for UNC + FULL LUSTRE, hence the footnote. For all other coins, gold, silver, copper - UNC simply means UNC, and lustre is somewhat irrespective. Though Spink might regard any coin with only part lustre, as AUNC. However, beautifully toned silver coins, that have no wear, are something else again. They have always been rated higher than untoned specimens, so for those, you would expect a premium over Spink's price. Sorry, did I say it was simple?

Welcome to godhood scott

I'm trying to understand your message - you say you've seen one, then you say you haven't!

Not only that, the program will slow down exponentially once the file size goes over a certain size. This is the great advantage of databases. You can have a related table of pictures and just set up a relationship between the coins table and the pictures table, and when you open the coins file, you can see the pictures without even having to open that file. I know you're right and I appreciate there are technically better solutions. One day I might move over to a database with tables as you suggest. However, yesterday I spent time putting my early Victorian copper pennies into the new spreadsheet, with obv & rev pics for each, and I have to say I'm really pleased with the result. I set the size of each 'comment' image at 12cm x 12cm and, with 1200dpi resolution, each image file is around 300k. This is larger than needed but means I have a hi-res version of the image available too. I haven't experienced any slowing down but, if in future I do, I'll simply split the spreadsheet into sections. It might sound complicated Rob, but once you've done a few it takes literally seconds to add each image. The much longer task is the scanning! The good news is that database managers such as Access or FileMaker will both import Excel spreadsheets into a table once you've defined the fields. So none of your XL work will be wasted.

Oh come on! Haven't you heard of the '1914 missing toenail' or '1917 cauliflower ear'? Clearly you've not been paying attention. Damn! How could I have forgotten those? I say, you don't have a duplicate 1914TN you could sell me?

Two options, soak it in olive oil for a year or two or try soaking in contact oil such as this oil other than that sell it as it is! Or if you don't mind making the penny quite a lot paler, you could soak overnight in balsamic vinegar to deal with the worst of the green, then soak it in olive oil for a good period (probably weeks, even months)

Ludicrous. If this is a genuine phenomenon then it's worth having any coin slabbed we're intending to sell, just to boost its price. Pffft. I just hope the bubble (forgive the pun) bursts, and soon.

Either that's a typo or you just made a brilliant pun! (I'd claim the pun if I were you ) Indeed, a complete about-face

Not only that, the program will slow down exponentially once the file size goes over a certain size. This is the great advantage of databases. You can have a related table of pictures and just set up a relationship between the coins table and the pictures table, and when you open the coins file, you can see the pictures without even having to open that file.

"Angel Dust" ... or is that PCP?

George V pennies seem to be going that way of late!!!! David Yes, I'd like to nominate 1914 and 1917 as the only two years there aren't varieties for (yet..), before 1927

Well that idea was for early milled silver varieties, but no reason why it shouldn't be extended to other series also

I can't remember if it's 1955 or 1957 I've got on a polished blank - probably 1957 as it's a much commoner date in UNC. Well that's jolly interesting - wonder why they would do that? Ties in with reading the 1922 penny thread; there has to be some documentation somewhere detailing what they did and when, if not necessarily why. When I was a suit wearing wage slave I had to submit costed justifications for buying a printer cartridge, so changing the nations coinage must have gone through some written scrutiny, you'd think? I've still never heard any convincing reasoning for the more well known 1961 halfcrown polished flan business... One theory had it that 1961 polished blank halfcrowns were using up stock prepared for 1953. There's problems with this : 1. the number of 1953 proofs are a nice round figure, they'd have known precisely how many blanks they needed. 2. Why wait 8 years to use them up? And anyway, there are several dates from the 1950s which show up using what seem to be polished cupro-nickel blanks - I have a ?1955 halfcrown on one, and a 1960 halfcrown. More likely it seems to me, is that the Mint were experimenting with the kind of mirrored finish that became common in the early 1970s. Yes, you'd hope for documentation for sure!

Yes - if the 1926-reverse-1927 is EXACTLY the reverse used for 1927, rather than the 1922 ALMOST reverse, that would make sense. You can't get away with mentioning four varieties for 1926 and not telling more! Apart from Spink, I can find no reference to the third variety. And what is the fourth? The low mintage figures for 1926 mean I don't have that many pennies to look through What am I looking for? perhaps Bernie meant 4 dies? Unless, there's a non-ME obverse with a 1927-style reverse but dated 1926? Another experimental die?

Yes, that would be interesting - would prove if it was a fake. But I hope we can agree on one thing, even if it turned out to be genuine - it wasn't struck in 1922 or anywhere near. Here is a picture of the 1922 with the 1927 type obverse and reverse. I have seen and handled this coin. examined it closely with a microscope and cannot fault it. The reverse of which is Freeman reverse C is identical and almost certainly the same die that produced the 1922 proof pennies. That is fascinating - now I'm beginning to buy into its authenticity, but not to 1922 as its date of striking. Revised theory : the 1922/27 reverse was clearly experimental and therefore an ideal candidate to use to test out the ME penny effigy, e.g. in 1925. But, it's not absolutely identical to the one used in 1927 - the sea seems barely engraved and the rim is wider. So, assuming they decided they still hadn't got it 'quite right', they went ahead with striking 1926 pennies using the old dies (which might have been part of the plan anyway), then switched to the ME to finish off the issue, and getting the reverse die finalised for 1927. Pure speculation of course, in the absence of documntation, but there has to be a reason for that 1922, and a strike in 1922 makes absolutely no sense whatever.

I can't remember if it's 1955 or 1957 I've got on a polished blank - probably 1957 as it's a much commoner date in UNC.

Either that's a typo or you just made a brilliant pun! (I'd claim the pun if I were you )

Only needs a relative variety scarcity/rarity rating to be perfectamundo I must be in a minority then. I want to find other collectors with the same variety, though not too many! In my mind, 'unique' is useless for an undiscovered variety - no-one is interested - but a handful (or more), that's a different story. That would make my 1887 wreath reverse sixpence variety and my 1964 DEI GRAT A sixpence much more valuable. On the subject of this meisterwork don't forget ESC who have been there already and done a superb job. No point in re-inventing the wheel, but it would be useful to straighten a few spokes and put a few new ones in. But how to get all that (presumably copyrighted) stuff into a Wiki?

Bought into what? The only pictures I've seen here are of the (undisputed) 1922 with 1927 reverse. Of the supposed 1922ME, there has been no trace. I'd still like some answers to my questions about the whole reason behind it. UNLESS it was a test strike of the 1926 ME obverse using the only reverse die they had around, which would be the 1922 as the last date struck? Now THAT would begin to make SOME sense, and would date the penny to around 1925. So if it's genuine, that's my theory - a test strike made in 1925 before the 1926 reverse dies had been prepared, and somehow escaping captivity in the way that a 1952 halfcrown and 1954 penny did. Yes, that would be interesting - would prove if it was a fake. But I hope we can agree on one thing, even if it turned out to be genuine - it wasn't struck in 1922 or anywhere near.

I suppose you're all in favour of the disabled being frogmarched back to work, without making pathetic excuses like "Hey, I can't walk" ? They're all workshy cheats and scroungers anyway (I read that in The Daily Mail) Unfortunately Peck they pick up on the ones who are actually workshy cheats and scroungers and forget the genuine cases (quite conveniently or they couldn't sell papers). I know ex miners in my old home town who haven't worked in over 25 years (since the pit closed and they took redundancy) due to "disability" because the regulations were so slack in awarding benefits. I know what I would do with them, I'd build more prisons and then..... Actually, you can blame Maggie for that one. The Tory Government 1980s-style wanted more than anything to bring down the unemployment figures, so redundant miners, steelworkers, etc were all encouraged to "sign on the sick" as it wouldn't show up on the figures. And we all know how energetic subsequent governments have been at turning Corby into Canary Wharf...

Either he doesn't know what an ME looks like, or he's mistaken in his beliefs. Listing's been changed now ... "...I've now been told it may not be..."

The earliest I have seen is the reverse of a Philip II tetradrachm, but I'm not sure exactly what his dates are. I'm sure they must go back to Classical Greece at least?

I don't think so, at least that's not how I read it. It appears they list the following for 1922: Type 4051 - 1922 Penny (the common one, F192) Type 4051 - 1922 Penny with Rev. of 1927 (my F192A) Type 4054A - 1922 Penny Obv: ME, Rev: Shorter index finger (not listed in Freeman) I think I've found what I was looking for Here See the archive of Coin News May 2006 p.27. Someone here may have a copy of the original article? So the 1922 penny with ME obverse and 1927 reverse is considered unique. The only one being sold by London Coins in 2006. Hence it's not in Freeman but in the newer Spink guides. To clarify, mine is the 'more common' version with the standard 1922 obverse. I followed the link and read up. I have to say I am very very very very very suspicious indeed. The earliest known 'test run' of the modified effigy was the second issue 1925 halfpenny. If the Modified Effigy existed in 1922, why was it not used for halfpennies* from either 1922 or 1923 onwards? Why was the 1926 penny - 4 years after a putative 1922ME not completely ME for its issue? And why would a modified effigy be worked on in 1922, only a bare 2 years after the 'shallow portrait' was meant to address the ghosting problem, and then shelved for three to four years? (* not to mention farthings and all the silver denominations). So these are my follow-up thoughts. We all know that 1933 pennies are expertly faked from genuine 1932s or 1935s or 1930s. I've seen two on eBay that had me totally fooled even though I KNEW they weren't genuine. My idea is that this 1922ME was expertly faked from a 1927 (7 could become 2 without too much hassle). As for all the 'experts', just answer me this : how many decades did it take for Piltdown Man to be exposed completely for the fraud it was? People get so excited about unknown varieties, they end up seeing what they want to see - Emperor's New Clothes. I'm not saying it's definitely 100% a fake, but without full 100% R.M. authentication, I'm not really buying into it.

I suppose you're all in favour of the disabled being frogmarched back to work, without making pathetic excuses like "Hey, I can't walk" ? They're all workshy cheats and scroungers anyway (I read that in The Daily Mail)