Peckris

yours is better than theirs though, Mike! Hey, I got the bishopy part right! Nowt wrong with an educated flail in the dark

Minting commenced way in advance of 1971 but they were not officially released until 15/2/71. Not so - the blue decimal packs were available in 1968 and included the 2p 1p and 1/2p dated 1971! (Mind you, you couldn't spend them yet..)

The way the England team is going, it should be 'Three Lepers On My Shirt'

How strange. Not genuine though and I guess pretty unlikely that it's gold. Looking at the patina, it looks like the same alloy as pound coins. Fascinating why somebody would go to that much bother. Given the date, unlikely that anybody would take it as a genuine sovereign. Curious. I've found a link that explains counterfeiting in the Middle East, including Beirut 1970 were to continue circulation of the sovereign because it were sought after and used in commerce, whether British mints produced or not, never mind if Great Britain used it or not and any date would do. Apparently locals knew which was which, including the gold content 40 to 92 percent, so very variable and therefore used for smaller or larger transactions. So, where someone is looking for an object with a nominal appreciation of which other commodities can be exchanged it seems they conclude it truly doesn't matter as long as the matter is agreed. Well, that seems to me to be a question of attitude rather than legality - presuming the locals were all apt at recognition or happier with that rather than standard currencies. Sort of, up to them. Soooooooh, I reckon for the moment that the french lady has received a souvenir of someone who travelled and thought it amusing. One can call it counterfeiting or nostalgia for the bad old days of Empire when the brits paid up, just like that. Well, that's my interpretation. Here's a more thorough description. http://www.coinauthentication.co.uk/newsletter2.html That rings true. I do know the Maria Teresa Taler (still dated as per the original issue!) was still being produced and circulating in Arab countries well into the 20th Century, as it was a known, tried and tested piece - everyone knew what they were getting. So the gold 1887-style sounds similar.

Broken or damaged lettering is very very common, especially in the copper series and the first years of the bronze series.

Spink only covers British coins - you need a specialist Polish publication (unable to help you there). Educated guesses / clues : It's a standard medieaval long cross reverse type probably common across the Continent. One part of reverse legend reads MONETA which is standard at that time. On the obverse, the chappie looks as though he is wearing a bishop's thingy rather than a crown.

Yes please peeps I have many thousands of coin I wood luv to sale.Email me at benttwat.com

If you use a photo editor, open your picture, reduce its size to (e.g.) twice lifesize for a largish coin, or four times for a smallish one, and then Save As... a jpeg - low to mid quality setting. Pictures straight off your camera, onto a computer, then here, will be far too big in all dimensions.

You've got it wrong (as does most of the country) I'm so glad someone else defends the 'leopard' truth Methinks no-one in England will ever get it right now, after that "Three Lions On My Shirt" nonsense, grrrr. They are three leopards en passant heradically speaking, as opposed to the Scottish Lion rampant (or is it guardant? Does anyone care?) Mind you, if I met a hungry big cat, I wouldn't stop too long to check out if it was a leopard or a lion

It may have been produced from a genuine example, and then the only way to tell is to see two of them side by side and compare for similarities.

A coin album is a good idea for any collector - but do make sure the coins are stored within non-PVC vinyl envelopes inside the album, to be on the safe side. And they are perhaps not the best idea for very valuable coins that are to be stored over a long period of time.

Never lick coins - you don't know where they've been!!

Do be vigilant Rob - most dealers are pretty honest (excluding eBay) but you might find the occasional rogue passing off a coin that's a grade lower than his advertised grade, as a 'weak strike'. Always buy from someone who gives you a no-quibble money-back guarantee if not satisfied, if you can't view the coin 'in hand', that is. Farthings suffer less from the problem IMO. They are small enough that the imbalance between obverse and reverse designs is much less pronounced than with the pennies and halfpennies, and have a proportionately much larger rim protecting the reverse. Having said that, there are some poor portraits, but mostly between 1918 and 1925 in my experience. Generally though, farthings are found much better than their larger bronze siblings.

Probably neither - the entire mintage should fit into just one of those bags!

Yes, proofs are nice - I thought as a schoolboy I would NEVER be able to afford a proof, and I remember some years later buying a 1950S proof shilling and feeling ridiculously pleased with myself! It's really frustrating, but whenever people here post links to a Spink Auctions coin, the link just takes me to their home page, not the coin itself. If it takes you to the Spink home page when you click on the link -- upon returning to the forum post -- try clicking on the link a second time. Oh, that works!! What strange voodoo is this ... ?

My family variation on that was 'enough blue to make a sailor a pair of trousers'. Yes, we were told the sailor variant also - except it was 'mend' in both cases, not 'make' (perhaps it was a smaller patch of blue sky? )

Yes, proofs are nice - I thought as a schoolboy I would NEVER be able to afford a proof, and I remember some years later buying a 1950S proof shilling and feeling ridiculously pleased with myself! It's really frustrating, but whenever people here post links to a Spink Auctions coin, the link just takes me to their home page, not the coin itself.

That's not a subject that's been explored in any great depth, to date - good one, for raising it! There are many causes. • 1953 portraits, for example, are the victim of poor design, which was partly corrected the same year, but fully corrected in 1954. It applied to all denominations. • 1918/1919 H & KN pennies suffered from worn dies continuing in service for far too long : this is noticeable due to the varied 'strike' that you see, ranging from quite well struck up, to very weak. Other denominations the same years weren't affected. • The reverse of Geo V first series pennies and halfpennies suffer, especially Britannia's upper, due to the strength and depth of the obverse portrait taking metal away from the reverse design, which itself was unprotected by almost non-existent rims. This is a peculiarity of that series. • On any coins prior to the machine age (1797), individual coins can be weakly struck due to poor milling/hammering techniques. • The composition of the metal can affect the strike : silver is softer than cupro-nickel for example, copper is softer than bronze, and the silver alloy introduced in 1920 was especially notorious to begin with. This means that defects in the strike can show up more on softer metals, but conversely, harder metals cause faster die wear which would then affect those coins if not spotted. • Sometimes the effect is imbalance between obverse and reverse designs : from 1920 - 1925, circulated halfcrowns are found with the obverse at least a whole grade lower than the reverse. So as you see, there are no factors which would affect ALL denominations, except where there is a weakly struck design as in 1953. And some coins are often found weakly struck with no particular explanation as to why - the reverse of 1907 pennies, for example. I'm sure if you researched it, you could come up with still more causes. One thing's certain - well struck coins will always command a premium over weak ones.

As my grandmother used to say "I'm as old as my tongue, and a little bit older than my teeth" Don't think I can beat 13 David (OAP) The only other time I've seen that phrase was in an Enid Blyton Famous Five book, which I read as a kid. Never heard it said. I'm 32, by the way. Funnily enough, both my granny and my mum used to say that. It made a pair with the rainy day "Look - enough blue [in the sky] to mend a Dutchman's trousers" Which, in itself, dates you.

Well that's a good strategy for a collection. But when you (one day) have enough money for a 1927 proof set, and see one, you might just fall in love with it - I think it's up there with the best 20th Century proof sets, and was the last truly great set.

It was an iMac, but yes. One sad side-effect is they had to load a newer version of the Mac OS and now Photoshop won't work. I decided to buy Photoshop Elements, but the latest version won't run on older Macs, and the last version that does, they won't make available as a paid-for download. Adobe must have the business sense of a hibernating hedgehog. If you know of ANYWHERE where I can get PS Elements 6 for Mac, do let me know! There's none on eBay, just lots of books, videos and training DVDs.

I realised that when I saw the timestamps! It's also where my abbreviations software comes in really handy. I wouldn't be without it now.

I think bronze/copper coins with an even dark patina are criminally neglected and under-appreciated, and I much prefer those to coins with part lustre (e.g. 50%) which is neither fish nor flesh nor fowl in my opinion. BU on the other hand ... As for silver, I do like gorgeous old toning, but I'd prefer a bright untoned example to one with ugly toning.

Very attractive - good choice. And then you might want to move on to the other denominations in that series too? Halfcrowns, florins, shillings. Rounding it all off with a 1927 proof set! (In time....)