Coinery

I couldn't open the pages at all yesterday, or first thing this morning! Oh, and hilarious, Rob!

great read, I hope you're right! Should I buy everything up now?

261094905301 Ah, no. It says VF detail. And there is one small bit of it that could be considered to be VF! (Had you thought of getting a computer Stuart? They allow you to put in links and everything!) Oh, and I might mention that this seller has previously listed three (different) replica Charles I shillings as genuine, so he either doesn't know that much about what he sells, or he does. Either way, I'd be quite cautious about buying from him. 3 replicas, you've impressively got your finger on the pulse, I must say! I do have an abacus to play with

Nice VF Charles I Shilling! 261094905301

yes intellectual copyright applies to images taken by the author of material in his possesion.....however as much as intellectual copyright exists it can be controlled by corporate copyright. an example of this is when i photograph at premier league football matches, i own the intellectual copyright of the images i capture but am governed by the rules of the premier league, an example being the number of images i can post on my personal website without having to pay for a licence. the same applies to buildings, whilst i can capture images for example on national trust land and own the intellectual copyright of those images, what i can do with those images is controlled by the national trust and what licence i may have to pay them, for earning monies from their property. it is also possible to have your intellectual copyright removed in certain circumstances, such as under the terrorism laws if you were photographing a sensative subject such as a military installation, a government office block on the north bank of the thames!!!...... youre question though is clear cut......you owned the coin, you own the intellectual copyright to the image you captured. you can publish. Many thanks, Ski, much appreciated!

Depends on the coin and whether there are two or more people desperately seeking the variety. 6 or 7 years ago I had a nice Elizabeth 1 shilling pencilled in for a bid of 5 or 600 which was about right for the prices at the time, but it went to over 2K because two variety collectors were competing. The greater the number collecting a series, the greater the likelihood that prices will exceed expectations. In your experience, have you found the Elizabeth market consistent (mostly) regarding rarities (dates/Privy, etc.), I have recently seen a couple of examples of the rarer dates/PM's (both around 1:2 according to BCW) sell for around a third higher than their lesser-dated counterparts, would you say this ties in with your own observations?

Yes. It is your picture and you own the rights. The new owner only possesses the coin, just as you would own the rights to any image of a picture you took in a public place. A building may have belonged to many people over the years, but any images of it are only copyrighted by the person who took them. If not, you wouldn't find many images in newspapers, magazines, on the tv, or anywhere else. As always, Rob, common sense prevails! Thank-you!

With regards to the hammered series, is there a calculation that is a ball-part (hope this is the term) figure to aid pricings on rarities? As an example I note that the multiples on grade typically run at X3 between VF to EF (as a very rough figure) so, is there a similar 'rough' figure for rarities where (in this example) a date is found at 1:2 of the common issue? What I'm trying to say is BCW suggest in their virtual collection of 3000 coins that, for example, a 1561 coin is twice as common as a 62 so, bearing in mind there are not many of either in top grade, can anybody speculate a percentile calculation that has been noted through personal experience? If a regular VF date of a denomination was £400, is there a figure that has some statistical integrity for a different VF date (of the same type) that is twice as rare?

Does anyone know the legal stance regarding the use of images in published works, where the photograph was taken by the author, of a coin he no longer owns? Namely, if I have an image of a coin I photographed and formerly owned, can I use it in any medium without violating the rights of the new owner?

Staggering, that slab link is a whole new lifetime of learning in itself, the NGC changes have been huge!

If your friend put 'gold coins' on the custom's form, it might draw attention. But I can't see why she would have them sent back, unless she had either failed to complete the customs form correctly, or you had refused to pay any duty due on them! Actually, in those circumstances they would probably be seized, rather than returned! I always put 'die-cast numismatic collectable' on there, it's no lie, and attracts FAR less attention!

Do you have viber for the iphone Stuart? Freecalls to anyone and anywhere in the world if they also have it installed (like moi) also another good wee app is Touch (sounds all pornographic now) viber and touch lol Anyhoo Touch is like a free messenger and you can send small files/pics/sms/video etc to another touch user worldwide free of charge. 1926 GVF for me, wear to the Lions tail and nose as was poointed out. OBV being better then the REV Noooo, none of the techi stuff on mine, bit of a ludite really, though I'm amazed at what you can get nowadays (I barely speak to anyone, so not sure what I would do with all that free technology )! I spotted the flattened end on the tail (even on the phone), but still couldn't bring myself to pull it back to less than NEF because of the globe, paws, etc...it really is borderline for me though. On balance I wouldn't be that unhappy if it came to me blind as a NEF!

An iPhone overall NEF from me!

I've always admired the cut-outs for their technical merit, I think this one's superb! They must sit very nicely amongst the inscribed vagabonds, sorry, variants! Another great dimension!

You'd have to have a major expansion of bandwidth on your website if they did! I did hear the mint did something similar for copper! If i remember rightly, didn't they reduce the curvature of a single denticle by a degree for each die?

Thanks for the elucidation, Dave! I do agree there is a wide 'grey' area between variety and micro-variety which is nicely served by the middling term minor-variety! Can I just ask your own thoughts on the individual hammered dies, which all display clear legend differences (letter rotations, significant gaps, alignments etc), how would you describe them? I'm not sure if you're familiar with the work of BCW, but they have broken up the types into varieties using privy marks, busts, and the punches used for the major components (roses, LIS, lions, etc.), as well as major legend differences (HI/HIB, FR/FRA etc)! Do you think the next stage, moving into die identification, where there are still very clear differences seen easily with the naked eye, crosses into the 'minor' area, or are they a further extension of the major varieties? This could potentially extend the sixpence series into a thousand+ from what I'm seeing? Each would be clearly distinctive in hand, any thoughts?

Just cracked my Tesco's-own sunglasses!

That explains the reverse but i see no signs of that on the obverse.the bust and legends are bigger than another sixpence i have If your proposal is that this could be a shilling obverse, sixpence reverse, then the flan would either have to be extremely thin, if it's spread to the dimensions of a shilling, or it's actually a shilling flan, given that the obverse sits on it about right! So, what's the weight?

heres a pic of the obverse What weight have you got?

Here, here! Top result, Dave, definitely adds value I'd say. However, I'm also with you Ski on the toning issue. Whilst it may add sterling value to D's HC because it will now appeal to a wider market, I have to say I could very well live with both the pre AND post dip coin. It would very much depend on the general tonal trend of the collection it was going to sit within, I guess?

I've had some REALLY mixed results with acetone! I've previously stripped off what was a lovely golden tone over a nice lustred 20c XII, turned a reasonable silver hammered a strange yellowish colour, and gave an unnatural tone to an E7 farthing. I do still use it on really grubby coins, but I'm much more cautious with it nowadays! Will trial some of this dip, though, I've got a few 1887's in the sacrificial hold!

I can't not (double neg.) say thank-you for putting that effort in Richard so, truly, many thanks! Two days ago I would have thought it a simple numismatic formality, drawing the line between varieties and micro-varieties, naively believing the criterion to be extremely well defined! I'm amazed to find out how wide the grey band actually is, and of how much interest it really is to collectors generally! Another enlightening thread for me! Thanks to all, once again!

Ahh, now you say that, but out of around 20 coins I've bought recently, either because they were unusual or pretty, two of them are not in BCW. One is an un-noted die-pairing, and the other an un-noted legend feature! Small stuff, I know, but with an estimated (mine) 1000+ dies for the sixpences alone, there must be plenty up for grabs! I don't think many out there would care a toss about it, really, or pay any more for one, on account it would be a Very VERY long time before any collector got close to having only a few holes in their Elizabeth sixpence collection, and anywhere near thinking about paying a premium to fill it! I might just work backwards and collect the uncollected, now there's a challenge! Yes, I wasn't actually including hammered in my definition, as each coin is almost a micro-variety in itself! And that takes it back full-circle to whether they're micro or not? With clearly defined differences, which are so very different from another of the same type, I couldn't decide whether that made it a variety or a micro-variety! I guess the comparison is, if there was a 20 degree rotated E on a 1918 penny, would that be a 'variety' or a 'micro-variety'? It's quite a subject, and had me scratching my head for a couple of days now! No wonder I'm all but gone on top!

Ahh, now you say that, but out of around 20 coins I've bought recently, either because they were unusual or pretty, two of them are not in BCW. One is an un-noted die-pairing, and the other an un-noted legend feature! Small stuff, I know, but with an estimated (mine) 1000+ dies for the sixpences alone, there must be plenty up for grabs! I don't think many out there would care a toss about it, really, or pay any more for one, on account it would be a Very VERY long time before any collector got close to having only a few holes in their Elizabeth sixpence collection, and anywhere near thinking about paying a premium to fill it! I might just work backwards and collect the uncollected, now there's a challenge!

Thanks, Peter! I guess though, that a 'clear' variety is a variety, whether it's been published or not! I think it's perfectly reasonable to collect unpublished varieties! Any serious collector would acknowledge them as such, whether it was published or not, wouldn't they? I suppose on a commercial basis it might be harder to get comparable money for it until it's catalogued, the rarity of it could be a tough one until it's published, giving the collector base an opportunity to discover they've got 50 of them already!