Peckris

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Great-Britain-Shilling-Charles-I-1629-1649-/201210022823?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2ed90d4ba7 He says "Check photos" - unwise move! (There again, he doesn't say "The coin in the picture is what you'll receive".)

No contest - the coins!

Oh God, I remember my bun pennies well. They were mostly flat washers, or else they were in VG condition and dated either 1890, 1891, or 1892.

That's the one! Andrex me impune lacessit...

I really don't care for hammered (by which I mean MEDIEVAL hammered, not Saxon and earlier), particularly as there are simply gorgeous specimens of very early milled from your period (certainly from Liz onwards) that show up hammered for the very unsatisfactory coins they appear to me to be. The problem is that those very early milled coins are way beyond my purse.

I'd go along with Michael - bun penny washers from the early 1860s. I did find one with the last remaining traces a beaded border but I defy even scott to tell if it was a common or rare variety. I did once find a very worn 1865 and spent several schoolboy hours with a magnifying glass, absolutely convinced I could see the faint traces of a 3. Had I known then that the trace of the 3 in all grades is indeed quite faint, I'd have whooped for joy.

The one with the crapping lion?

Wow. Over 10 years old!! Long before I joined this forum...

Very nice! (What's your address? )

At a fair some years ago, I saw BU 1962/63/64 pennies priced at around £2 apiece - the dealer selling them said "They're not so easy to get as some people think". Hmm. (I remember the Mint Bag offers in Coin Monthly in the late 60s...)

This doesn't apply to Soho Mint issues, and even less to Taylor restrikes (Taylor having "inherited" a whole load of rusting dies from the Soho Mint). Rob is talking mainly about those not Royal Mint output.

Wow, the French had a working Saturn V moon rocket in 1792? Awesome.

^.^

The first one is a lovely coin, no mistake about it. But it's still the JH portrait, and therefore looks "all wrong". The second is a fantasy piece, with the crown enlarged and the bust sitting lower in the flan; however if you look at it objectively (as if a photograph, say) the crown still looks incredibly silly, perched on her head like a hat that's 4 sizes too small.

It's actually chronicled that Victoria refused to sit for the portrait wearing the heavy State Crown, preferring the lightweight 'perched-on-top' thing that made her an object of ridicule, much to the annoyance of Boehme whose original design - which may have looked something like my Photoshopped version - was indeed a dignified portrait. There are two flaws with this story though - one, she DID pose with the larger crown, hence the bronze penny pattern shown in Peck; once executed, that design could have been used for all denominations. Why wasn't it? And second, she did wear the big heavy crown for the Old Head portrait.

As a general overview of a set, that looks fine to me.

It's the crown on the JH portrait that makes it look silly (IMO) and is why that portrait was so unpopular at the time. You might be interested in this adaption I did in Photoshop, showing it without the crown (apologies for the JPEG artefacts): To my mind, it looks more dignified. Also, in Peck there is a plate showing a pattern for a bronze JH portrait where she's wearing the same crown as on the Old Head bust, i.e. much lower on the head - it looks so much better.

Ahem. Get in line. At least I'm unequivocally a Chris. Oh wait...

It rather looks as though earlier halfpennies often came in 'single exergue line' flavour? (Judging by the number of examples posted at random in this topic.) The double line, especially on the later issues, is pretty clear as witness my 1750:

I'm not sure what this language means especially coming from a woman (I assume VickySilver is a woman), but just the way you say it...I'm interested in the results too. The clue's in the name...

Spink prices for decimals change about as often as those for Roman, i.e. about once every 10 years, perhaps a bit less. You could probably get away with publishing once every 5 years Chris, which would save you time for the important other books.

Oh yes, I could see the halfcrown picture fine, but it was a small picture (by Dave's standards) so I clicked it. If I'd known I would be taken to PF I would have simply zoomed my screen a bit. I'm using an iMac and I generally have no problems seeing posted pictures. For me, the ideal size of picture would be somewhere between 600x600 and 800x800 pixels. My own are smaller, simply because they are lifesize scans from my database, and the maximum size they can be enlarged to is twice that (they look bad enough at that). The other forum I'm a member of (photography) that uses the same forum software as this one, doesn't allow external links, but does allow direct url links that posts the picture straight into the topic, as Paulus described.

1) Because it looked like a forum thumbnail, which should be clicked to enlarge it 2) Because compared to your usual dinner plates, it's small, so even more reason to click to enlarge 3) Because there's nothing with the picture to say "If you click me you will be hijacked to Photofuckit". What Paulus said is how I always assumed you did it - and your pictures were large enough not to need clicking on.

Vert pomme, but Goom can anglicise (fix) that. But French pommes aren't vert! They're a horrible sort of spotty pasty yellow, and described, laughably, as "Delicious"...