Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Leaderboard

  1. jelida

    jelida

    Accomplished Collector

    • Points

      4

    • Content Count

      1,726

  2. secret santa

    secret santa

    Accomplished Collector

    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      2,709

  3. IanB

    IanB

    Sterling Member

    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      571

  4. Colin G.

    Colin G.

    Coin Dealer

    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      2,173

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/07/2016 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Garrett
    Hi everyone I have been eyeing off a farthing that was previously auctioned in the "Lorne Collection of Farthings" in Noble auction 82. http://www.noble.com.au/auctions/search/?sale=82&p=1&c=2429 Does anyone know anything of Mr (or Mrs) Lorne ? I am unable to find any info by a simplistic google search. It looked like a pretty nice collection of farthings, so someone here may know of this person. I am interested in knowing the history of any coin I might buy. I probably would have got on alright with Lorne. cheers Garrett.
  2. 1 point
    Colin G.
    I can't add any information, but it is quite a collection
  3. 1 point
    secret santa
    Prax, I'm attaching the excerpt from the Numismatic Circular of 1986 (before anyone knew that it was a pattern obverse with 122 beads) regarding the Max Brehm/M Gouby/A Scott coin. The article doesn't refer to it as a proof - it was Michael that described it as a matt proof. Richard





×