Peckris

I know where you are coming from, but it is always difficult to tell from a photo when they state that the lustre is toning. It can very often give the appearance of not being there when it is, but has started to tone. True. True. But having bought from them in the past I've learned to downgrade slightly (though rarely disappointed in the coins themselves, I hasten to add)

The 1895 seems to be unusual in that the mintage wasn't that great but a much higher proportion than normal are in high grade. Which they would share with 1911, to a lesser extent with 1937 (especially silver), and even lesser extent with 1953 - all comparatively low mintages set against the average for the reign, but often found in higher grades.

Ski, if you go onto Colin Cookes website and look at part 2 of the Workman sale there was a 26 ME in that sale, in fact, here it is. Now you can see the difference between an ebay sellers AU and a real AU In fairness the one on Colin Cooke's is described as Choice Uncirculated with full lustre, there will always be a whole raft of difference between almost UNC and Choice UNC Yeah, but some of us take Colin Cooke's "Choice Uncirculated with full lustre" with a healthy pinch of salt

Plenty of collectors and dealers (all the Cs for example) would describe that as BU az

If someone' daft enough to pay £5 for the commonest crown after Churchill, then good luck to 'em, I say. Those cupro-nickel 1977s are real clunkers, a drag on the market. Even the silver proofs regularly sell for less than £20 - which considering I paid £11 for one in 1979, shows how little they've moved.

I'm no expert on those first two years either (in fact I need Freeman to decipher most bun varieties, truth be told). However, the variation in spacings of the date numerals - particularly the last one - is a common feature of those early years. You probably need to be looking at other parts of the design to see the respective die combinations.

Brilliant exercise Declan! It's late in the evening for me so I will study this at greater leisure. But as you say, the number of 1904 halfcrowns, compared to 1906/08/10, is positively alarming.

Here's my 1860 halfpenny (sorry about the image quality but I have to enlarge my life-size scans to be the minimum size you b*ggers need to see, so a lot of image degradation ) It is actually BU in hand, probably the only bun bronze I have that is genuinely that grade.

I thought there might be a discussion on my grading, so I captured the image ... ok, here we go. (Judged purely on the reverse - as you say, the obverse is harder to rate on a 1926ME) 1. Britannia's trident fingers are blurring together 2. The helmet where it edges the face is completely worn 3. The hand on the shield is quite worn too - too much for EF 4. The completeness of the shield design is misleading - it can be intact right down to F 5. The folds of Britannia's gown across her lap and by the shield is blurred - much too heavy wear for EF 6. Her right breast is flat (I'm not talking about her bra size ) The obverse isn't going to be any better - in fact that series usually wore quicker on the obverse than it did the reverse. I'd go GVF no problem. But that's still only a £300 - £350 coin IMO.

Sadly, as you correctly point out, the A=1, B=2, C=3, etc, Cipher is the flaw in this system. As it is possibly the most common, and perhaps well known, of all systems I would think. I have experimented using the same basic concept but changing the Cipher. To be honest the results were better as it would be much harder for anyone to figure out, but the complexity of actually creating the Password in the first place was at least doubled. I like the simplicity of it, as it is so easy to encode and decode, but that sadly is also its 'Achilles Heel.' lol I do like that idea of adding a non Alpha-Numeric Character in the way that you suggested, I will sit and have a play with that idea. In fact I do something similar in that I exchange the Vowels themselves for them. This does of course add an element of randomisation to the overall system but has the downside of a simple transpositon which would show a pattern if looked at closely enough. I sat with a pen and paper last night and devised a couple of new ideas for a basic yet secure way to create strong Passwords, but I will have to play with them a little longer to see how they develop. If I am honest, I do only use that system for Forums and various other Websites. I have a modified system for E-Mail, etc. So if it were to be 'Cracked' then all I would lose is a few Forum accounts, which is no great loss to me. They way that I think about it is that no 'Serious Hacker' would waste their time or effort in trying to 'Crack' a Forum Password as there would simply be no challenge in it for them. So as long as my Passwords are strong enough to keep the 'Average Joe' on their toes, then I do not worry at all. True enough. All my sensitive (i.e. financial) data is encrypted, and behind a password that is 44 characters in length ... that should take a good few millennia to crack

Strangely this basic principle is probably also true for any KG5 penny, it's just that we don't notice it. Most coins were collected from circulation either around the date of issue or much later on when they were likely to be withdrawn at any time. When was the last time you saw a GVF 1914? Yes, I agree. Though only for the series 1913 to 1921. There seem to be quite a few mid grade 1911 - 1912 protected behind high rims, and for some reason the 1922 - 1926 OE also turn up quite a lot in the VF range. (And from 1928 onwards, VF is very common for most dates) I simply can't see how this could be done objectively now that they are no longer circulating. What you will probably end up doing is monitoring the periodic release of hoards of so-called rare dates when the hoarder has got fed up holding on to them such as the roughly 4000 1925 halfcrowns sold at Noble earlier this year. The additional need to police ebay for recycled pieces (as this would presumably be a major source of data) would be a pretty thankless and probably impossible task given the quality of images provided. We are also talking about comparing pieces that in the main are common or less common with only a handful of real rarities found in the last 150 years. The amount of data would be mind boggling. Double counting is a big problem. A few years ago when I still listed things on ebay, I had to prove to someone that my contention of a particular Charles I shilling type being rarer than another was true. To prove to the person asking and to ensure I wasn't making a complete tit of myself, I redid the exercise. That required finding examples in general sales only, i.e. random sale data points. Named collections are out because if you use a person's collection as the basis for data, then that person is likely to have one example of each variety they can lay their hands on. Consequently you can easily end up with the erroneous conclusion that a coin which has 2 common varieties and one maybe unique error exists in the ratio of 1:1:1. Serious rarities aside, there isn't an easy way. Yes, I never thought it would be easy. But it does seem time that the 'deadweight inertia' of 1960s price ratios, which depended heavily on rarity vs common circulating dates, was adjusted. BU 1946 and 1949 threepences will always be rare, but I'm prepared to bet that 1946s in F are little scarcer than - say - 1939 or 1948, many of which would have been hoovered up in the meltdown. More so proportionately than the key dates. I wonder if a quick search for certain dates and denominations on eBay could be the first step in such a survey? Repeated monthly for a year, that might provide a snapshot.

You'll have to do swapsies

That is a very interesting way to create a secure password. Thanks for sharing it Peckris. Some years ago I used to work as Second Level Technical Support for a large ISP. It never ceased to amaze me when dealing with the Public, and some Co-Workers for that matter, how simple and basic their Passwords were. For example 'Cat' 'Pizza' or '12345' I did always encourage people to create a stronger password using letters and numbers as it was much safer than a simple word or number sequence. I did develop my own method to create secure Passwords. It is actually quite similar to the one that Peckris devised and explained above in the way that it works. Simply write down the letters of the Alphabet from A-Z. Then write the numbers from 1-26 beside each letter. A=1, B=2, C=3 etc. Then choose a word to encode, this can be a name, a place, a TV show or whatever you want it to be as long as you can remember it. For this example I will use PREDECIMAL Then count the letters of the word to see if they add up to an Odd or Even number. In this example the word has 10 letters so it is an Even number. Then to create your Password, because the word we have chosen is an even number, write each Odd letter as its letter and each Even letter as its relating number. (If your word is Odd then simply write each Odd letter as its related number and each Even letter as its letter. So PREDECIMAL would be P=Odd R=Even E=Odd D=Even E=Odd C=Even I=Odd M=Even A=Odd L=Even The Pasword for PREDECIMAL would be : p18e4e3i13a12 You can even make the first and last letters capital letters to make it harder to 'Crack.' The Password would then be : P18e4e3i13A12 It does sound quite a long winded way to create a Password, but if you try it a few times you will see how it works and be able to pick it up and understand it easily. I have found this to be a simple method to create a secure Password because as long as you can remember the word that you have chosen it is very easy to encode it or re-encode it if you forget the Password as you can simply run through the letters of the Alphabet and their related numbers in your head. I do use this method myself to create Passwords and I have never personally had any problems with it. I do only use this type of Password for Forums and other such Websites. For Websites which are more sensitive I developed a similar method which also incoporates Prime Numbers and an adapted Fibonacci Sequence. That's quite similar to my method, as you say Rob, and it does seem strong. It does have one slight flaw : the enciphering is less random as you use a code that is very common (A=1 etc), plus you convert every alternate letter, though which one you start with is not so predictable. One small addition might make it even stronger? Pick a non-alphameric character (!?"@£$%^&* etc) and add it before and after the first vowel that's not converted into a number. (Obviously it would be the same character each time, so you'd have to remember that!) This would help prevent 'reverse engineering' if someone found one of your passwords. But we're obviously both giving some thought to this!

It's not that much better than VF! Perhaps between VF and EF at most. I'd rate it a £250 - £300 coin.

agree the obverse is horrid, and at £450 too rich for my budget; so will have to stick to the one I have, GF Here's mine - no lustre, no hair, but otherwise as EF as they come Now for the good bit - it cost me fifteen quid as part of a large bronze penny lot from Warwick & Warwick in the late 90s :) Sigh, those days are well and truly over.

That's going a bit far Peter! A genuine VF 18KN should fetch £25 or so - there must be MANY collectors who want "above average" but can't afford EF or higher, and would cheerfully pay that. And I'd say the VF 1893 should at least be a few quid too. I think you're being too pessimistic. If you're not, then I will happily pay 99p to buy a GVF 1918KN off you Trouble is most KN's are from circulation and worth less than £1....I have also sold 1946 & 1949 3ds at 99p....back in the 70's they were worth more. Two points on that: 1. I agree there is a massive gap in the KN (and H) supply chain. There's a small but enthusiastically collected supply of high graders that fetch in the hundreds. But the vast majority - a glut even - are, as you say, from circulation and not very saleable, there's so many. But the gap is in the AVF to GVF grades, which are really really scarce. I wanted to upgrade to them a while back and NO-ONE had any. 2. As for the whole range of key dates, including those 3d bits - so many were pulled from circulation and subsequently sold by dealers in the late 60s, they are just not 'key' any more in my opinion. I've said it before, but I wish someone would attempt a modern census of coins from Victoria onwards : I think we would all be mildly surprised how non-rare some traditional rarities are compared to the so-called 'common' dates.

True! Though don't be frightened off by sets just because it "shortens the hunt". The 1887 set of silver appears at auction from time to time, and even so you might STILL need to track down one of the sixpences, plus all the bronze.

And if you use any obscure WORD that' in a dictionary, a dictionary run against your password will crack it fairly quickly. Ok, I'm now going to GIVE AWAY my (non) patented system that is foolproof (I believe). 1. Think up a pass phrase or long name that contains roughly half the letters of the alphabet (e.g. THE QUICK BROWN FOX ... but don't use that!!!) Commit this to memory and don't ever tell a soul or write it down. 2. Come up with something easy to remember, such as your name (e.g. "John Thompson") 3. Use the pass phrase, whose letters turn into numbers starting with 0 (T=0 H=1 E=2 Q=3 U=4 I=5 C=6 K=7 B=8 R=9 O=10 W=11 N=12 F=13 X=14 in the example I gave), to encipher your chosen password. Under that system, "John Thompson" converts to "J10112@0110mps1012" (I've used @ to represent the space, but you can pick any character) It sounds unwieldy, and is, the first few times you use it. The more you use it, the more you come to learn what the numbers are in your pass phrase and the process becomes instinctive. The great thing about it is, you can write down a password hint, e.g. "full name" and even someone who knows your name won't be able to crack what it converts to. And even knowing the length of your name won't help them, as some letters convert to two-digit numbers, so the length of the password won't be the same as the name. So, for the cost of slightly time-consuming conversion, especially when you first start using it, you will be able to write down strong password hints, secure in the knowledge that someone who understands the hint still won't be able to crack your password. And yes, I use this system. And no, you can't know what my pass phrase is!

Don't worry about that - you can see enough to make out fine detail in places, showing it is in near mint or mint condition. Don't risk breaking the pendant - if it's simply the standard shilling, you will have lost its major individual point of interest.

That's going a bit far Peter! A genuine VF 18KN should fetch £25 or so - there must be MANY collectors who want "above average" but can't afford EF or higher, and would cheerfully pay that. And I'd say the VF 1893 should at least be a few quid too. I think you're being too pessimistic. If you're not, then I will happily pay 99p to buy a GVF 1918KN off you

I won't give you an argentuman pver that!

MOJO Magazine - let's say the December issue - plops on the doormat at the very end of October or beginning of November, reports on things which happened mid-October at the very latest. Absurd.

OUCH! You've just told us that your passwords are all alphabetic. Hope you don't mind me saying so, but those are crackable pretty swiftly unless it is genuinely random garbage. Golden rule (from my experience in software) : • password should be long (11 characters or more is good) • they should be mix of letters and numbers, and maybe even non-alphanumeric characters too • they should not be used on all sites and everywhere you go • they should be changed unless you're absolutely 100% confident they aren't crackable OR they are for blogs and other unimportant sites I hope I haven't invited you to rearrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying : "eggs" "don't" "grandmother" "teach" "suck" "your" "to".

That sounds an interesting and well thought-out strategy Rob. That will keep you going for quite a while. You'd need a penny to go with your Eliz II type 2 set, as 1954 doesn't have one (in our price bracket!) - you might factor in a very cheap 1967 set which would have the twin plusses of 1) giving you the penny and 2) being the last predecimal currency set too. UNC 1954 stuff will set you back a few bob but it will be a good investment. With 1902, you should be able to afford EF over time, as it's by far the most affordable date in a very difficult series. With 1920, make sure you go for the 'recut shallow portrait' from halfcrown down to shilling - that way you kill two birds with one stone : the alloy change, and the new obverse dies. With Victoria, a good start would be 1887, as the silver is by far the cheapest for that reign, and supplies are plentiful. Then after that, 1893 would be not too difficult (though with the added complication that you would have to add in the 1895 bronze not 1893, as that series begins in two separate years for different metals). Good luck, and good hunting

The coin is a jubilee head shilling, made of sterling silver, but if it is gold in colour, then its almost certainly been gold plated at some time. This date doesn't command very much value as many specimens were put away for the queen's golden jubilee. Also gold plating will detract for a true collector. The only caveat I would place on this is other forum members, who know more than I do, may be aware of specimens of this date struck in gold. None of my sources suggest this, but I am always aware that all sorts of strikings and specimens suddenly turn up on here and somebody may know something I don't. If so, I'm sure they will post any information for you. The weight might help indicate If it's just the standard shilling, and assuming it isn't gold plated (might just be the pendant glass) then it's in top condition. Don't get too excited - it's also the commonest Victorian silver coin. But still worth £25 to £50 in that condition. And worth having, for interest.