DaveG38

Taking accumulator's idea on his site, why not have the front page showing a range of coin cabinets, one for each denomination? When you click on a cabinet, you then get the drawers one for each reign and these can then open as accumulator's does. If the front page doesn't have the ability to handle hammered as well, then maybe the front page should allow the user to choose hammered or milled to start with, then on to the the pages of coin chests.

That's a 1927 not 1937.

I'd be very interested in a scanned upload (PDF?) of that Dave. I'd also be interested in something similar for the first issue of the regular magazine (but I realise that would be a major task so I'll keep looking for a copy of it). Peckris, I'll see what I can do. However, I'm feeling crap at the moment with some virus that I can't seem to shake off. But, once I'm fit, I'll see about scanning them both - although the May one I bought the other day is distinctly underwhelming at just 18 pages long! And the content is very superficial - its almost as though it was a test run for the real thing to come some 5 or 6 months later.

You should have said, as I have duplicates of a great many of the dates. Still at £1.99 you weren't done.

Can anybody help enlighten me about the Coin Monthly magazine series? My set of these starts with volume 1 part 1 in November 1966 and runs until Feb 1992. I've now obtained a very thin booklet called 'Coin Monthly' dated May 1966. It's clear from reading the booklet, that this isn't the first issue and, since there is a list of future articles, it was obviously intended that there would be future issues. The publisher appears to be the Numismatic Publishing Company i.e. the same company as issued the Coin Monthly series for the best part of 25 years until 1992. Does anybody know what the history is of these pre-Coin Monthly publicatiosn is? How many were there and when did they start and finish? Here's a picture of the front cover.

It's been gilded, and is VF or thereabouts As Azda says, it's been gilded. It may also have been mounted at some point, as there are one or two odd effects around the rim, which might be mount marks.

As the saying goes Dave, "Big hairy arsed Scotsman' Yes, but shouldn't the grading be H (hairy), VH (very hairy) and EH (extremely hairy)? Where does the F come into it or does it stand for Furry?

And from a seller with a feedback of only 5. Few serious sellers of coins start off with items of this value, so that's issue number 1. Personally, I think there's something not quite right about the crown - the bust looks a bit oversized to me, so that's number 2. As for the halfcrown, it's difficult to say, because of the poor photos. The other issue is the price of the crown. If genuine it should have gone for considerably more. The fact that it didn't suggests that many buyers were put of by the photos. You then have to ask why anybody would put such poor shots up and potentially lose several hundred pounds, all for the sake of a little more care with the photography. The obvious reason is to deceive, but as has been said, you need to examine it in hand to be sure - or put pics up on here for an opinion.

I don't think I want to see the EF details of Azda's arse, but others.........

Especially as the authorities can't agree whether it's a pattern or a medallion. And the Nicholson example was sold by Colin Cooke for £550, and wasn't much different with respect to grade, although it did suffer less corrosion, but had less detail remaining. At best, I'd say it might be worth a punt at £900, but not £9,000. Even then it's not a pretty sight, but then many specimens of this era in well known collections are not in top condition either.

I know its a major rarity, but £9k in that condition looks optimistic to me - still there may be a halfpenny collector who must have it!! http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Very-very-rare-William-III-1-2-Half-Penny-please-see-description-/281050802344?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item416feee8a8

Sorry to hear that But if it's been in your family that long, it should be ok. Your best bet is to put it in an auction rather than accept (at most) 2/3 of its value from a dealer. Unless you need the money quick, of course. You'll lose up to 20% in an auction, don't forget! And don't forget tthe buyer's premium, which any buyer will factor into the price they have to pay. Overall, you could be effectively back to a dealer's price of 2/3rds. Except that you never know what will happen in an auction where two bidders will go at it in a war of attrition, or maybe not. It all depends.

I am one of those who just misses out, having been born in 1950, although I do accept that I won't be caught by the new age at which pensions start to be paid. In practice, I retired at 56 on a company pension and so I'm not too worried about the changes, since the difference of between say £106 or £144 per week isn't that much for me to bother about. However, I do accept that for some people it may well be a considerable disadvantage if they don't get the new rate. Having said this, rather like the benfits increase 'cut' recently announced, all of those pensioners who receive the £106 per week are not going to be worse off, they just won't be as well off as those who get £144, so in a sense nobody loses. It's just that some win a bit more than others. What I don't understand is why there is a cut off at all. One of the reasons for the simplification has to be the costs of administering the system and I'd have thought that the maximum savings would be made by simplifying it for everyone. By keeping two systems going, and with one of them slowly withering as pensioners die, I'd have thought it would make sense to simplfy the whole thing, cut the admin costs and keep everyone equal. But there you are, what do I know? It's a bit like child benefit. There was all the hoo-ha about who got it, who earned what and with some households earning far more than the threshold to get it, but because two workers were involved they kept it, but in others where there was only one breadwinner they lost out. All of this could have been avoided and simplified by completely removing the benefit for new children. In other words all existing families continue to get it, but from the date of the new rules all children born afterwards don't. All that was needed was to bring in the rules at say April 2013, having given notice in the autumn statement 2011 that this would happen. That's a 18 month notice period and is plenty long enough to ensure that choices are made about the affordability or otherwise of another child. In short nobody who was pregnant in the notice period would lose out. In this way, child benefit becomes a payment that reduces over time to zero. Sorry, but this is one of my hobby horses.

Ah well, we all make msitakes. It did amuse me a little though.

I love the description of this one. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110999976953&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:GB:1123 It's described as 'COINS VICTORIA JUBILEE HEAD PROOF THREEPENCE 1887 GOOD EF'. It's not Victoria. It's not the jubilee head. It's not proof. It's not 1887. It's not Good. It's not EF. That just leaves coins and even then it's just a single coin. Otherwise a great buy at £20.00+!!! To be fair, I'm assuming the seller has put up the wrong photos.

You are lucky to win a coin. I put in my bid for one I have been looking for for years, at a value well above the estimate, only to find that I haven't won it, even though the winning bid was £60 under my top one. To put it bluntly, I'm Mr Pissedoff.

This ones decribed as in F-V/F and as a 'hole filler'. Can't think of a better use for it than helping with filling a hole - indeed its a pity it was brought out of the hole in the first place. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1719-GEORGE-1-HALFPENNY-F-V-F-/261147232467?ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:GB:1123

this one £23.40 + PP - though there are lots of similar on Ebay (avoid Chinese sellers!!!) needed a bit of fiddling to work out how to work it, but quite happy for the price NB only useful for looking at detail, won't do a whole coin David, Thank you for this info. Looks really useful.

Thanks Bob, I was totally unaware of that obverse variation - will try and get a better image of the A in my specimen played with my new toy - a cheap USB microscope, on my 1860JA details of the N over Z, the recut O of ONE (hard to spot on my coin), recut R of REG, and yes I agree an odd A in VICTORIA David David, What's the product and how much? The quality of the images looks really good and I think I must have one.

All I do when sending a coin is place it in a plastic wallet and cellotape the wallet to the invoice in such a way as the coin can't slip out. Simples and easy to remove.

I've not seen ANY 1927 or 1937 proofs in slabs. http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_trksid=p3984.m570.l1311&_nkw=1927+proof+set&_sacat=0&_from=R40 Not a slab in sight! I'd like to see them slab a 1927 proof set case!

For $48 I'd want a whole coin, not half a one.

How did this project work out DaveG38? Both published! To avoid bias, and I couldn't find them for sale on Chris's site, just type 'David Groom Coin' into google and you'll find them! Amazon is the expensive way to get them. I offer them to forum members at £6.99 for the bronze and £9.99 for the silver. And if you want them signed then that comes as free bonus!! The only additional cost is Royal Mail, where the cost to send one book is pretty much the same for both. If you want one or both let me know.

The prices being charged by dealers on vcoins.com look a bit on the optimistic side to me.

Very true, '49! I am constantly struggling to find decent stuff on there these days. I like to stock up on commonish (not dirt common) 20th century stuf in high grade and I'm now finding myself forced back into the 40s, 50s and even 60s. Either that or drop my standards on grade, which I can't do. I'd much rather have nice common coins than older duffers. I'm an older duffer and I resent being rejected!!