Leaderboard

It is definitely a priority and there will be changes for the better!! Will definitely keep you all informed!!!

Lighting is immensely important - I'd say the most important ingredient for taking good coin images. The type of light bulb (LED, incandescent, fluorescent) you use is less important, but understanding how to use that light source is key. For example, being able to set a custom white balance in your camera for your particular lights is key to getting realistic colors. The size of the light source (small bulb vs. large bulb) or the apparent size of the light source (e.g., a small light source diffused acts like a larger light source) is also important for fully lighting the coin's surface. The angle of the lights changes the appearance of the coin's surfaces a lot -- and your lights should always be placed above your mounted camera lens, if not even higher. With regard to lighting (in particularly angle), I wrote up a little article on the NGC forums some 3+ years ago, and I think it may be helpful. Keep your lights at a high angle to the surface on which the coin is placed, and diffuse them enough or use large enough light point surfaces to avoid hot spots on the coin. See my little schematic below of what my photography rig looks like. Second to lighting, I would say that mounting your camera on a solid copy stand or tripod is very important. Images taken with a hand held camera will be a bit "shaky" or lacking in detail. I have seen hand-held images of coins that get the message across, but the ability to zoom in and see details or inspect surfaces is very limited. Not only is mounting your camera on a sturdy surface important, but it is also important that your camera is aligned to the flat surface of the coin properly. By that I mean, the camera's detector (a small rectangular flat surface at the back of the lens where the image is focused) needs to be perfectly parallel with the coin's surface (i.e., in parallel planes). This is important for focusing reasons. The easiest way to make sure your camera is mounted parallel with the surface on which the coin is placed is to use a little mirror. Place the mirror where you would place the coin, and adjust your camera in the x, y, and z planes as needed until the center of your lens' reflection is perfectly centered in the camera's viewfinder. See the little schematic I created below. Lastly, practice, practice, and practice some more. I have now taken somewhere around 20,000 images of coins over the past 7 years. I have only been happy with my images for the past 4.5 years. It takes a while to get up to "happy" quality -- and I'm still improving my images and tweaking things today. I try to take at least some coin photos 2-3 days of every week. It just keeps me in the "zone". I hope some of these hints help a little. Best, Brandon

Yes here's his response Thank you very much for bringing this matter to my attention!Although the item does look authentic to me, i.e., surface pitting, double strike, edge etc., and even it was bought some time ago from an e-bay seller with a good profile, I take your point and have just removed the item from sales. I shall give it another think and try to find more info on the forgery network. Kindest regards,Alex

bought this a little while ago, i do like the NGC slabs, i find the coin rather pleasing Graded PF 63 Matte

Thanks so much guys. Does the terci stand for bury st Edmunds I can just see the TE.

Referring to Richard's site, he says that it's "distinguishable by there being only 5 border teeth from the upright of the R to the top of the I in VICTORIA". How was example 6 identified please? https://rarestpennies.wordpress.com/1881h-f103/

The first images he showed were of an 1860 mule toothed/ beaded penny, but the obverse was Freeman G, which wasn’t used until 1861. He had obviously mixed his images. In fact his 1870 had the beaded obverse. He has now been informed, and added the correct obverse image. He did meantime get a couple of bidders though. A bit of a penny thing. Did anyone see the F103 1881H early obverse penny that was on the bay last night, but pulled this morning, and sold (still much too cheaply) as a bin, presumably after behind the scenes discussions? I am going to have to start doing this, I have seen a couple of real rarities pulled in this way recently. Jerry

Kudos to him fair play. Really that is all anyone wants especially when they don't realise what they have. Better than the standard GFY you normally face

I'd be happy its a fair listinng, and price. There is another currently at £3 odd and some others from 75, 100 and more on there.

The RRITT 1817 shilling has always been considered a filled or broken B. I don't consider it a case of him making an unreasonable claim, rather a case of the wrong attribution having become accepted fact by virtue of the description, because collectors are the source of many 'errors'. It's no different to say a missing something which are clearly die fill and certainly not engraved on purpose. Pemember the 2005 £2?

Too many of these listing with ridiculous claims. "Hey matey Look at the feet one curls in one curls out that should be enough to tell you the both cannot be an R. Try broken B it's the honest claim" https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1817-George-III-Silver-Shilling-RRITT-Error/172924742263

Difference between Guaranteed Genuine and R "old collectors mark" what is one of those when it's @ home R for Replica I am surprised it never crossed his mind? But at least he pulled it @Ukstu Good job sir

I notice he's pulled it - did you have a dialogue with him? Mind you, it's more difficult to call on his other stuff.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CHARLES-I-SILVER-SHILLING-TOWER-MINT-UNDER-THE-KING-MM-PLUME-1630-1/292318084489 Reported! Take a look at his others . I don't like that Lizzie 6d at all it looks mushy. Emailed him about the above coin just to let him know it's a rep as he may not be aware. Could be genuine mistake as he mentions the R in the listing.

Although I contributed to this thread back in 2012, I have literally only just read the fantastic response from Michael Freeman above. As Pete would say "hat off". I refer to Mr Freeman's book literally on a daily basis. Obviously over time - a very protracted period of time - some of his estimates will be questioned and revised. But for the overwhelming most part, they are considered pretty much as accurate today as they were when first compiled back in the 1960's. That is some feat, and testament to his skill and dedication. Thank you MIchael.

I have read this thread with great interest and many points are very valid regarding Baldwins website and prices etc. I inherited many coins with high costs when I started at Baldwins last year and was in many instances amazed at what the previous team had paid for items. It is my intention to go through the coins on the website and try and reduce where I can the prices to a more sensible level. It is just a matter of getting the time but I will slowly get it done. With regard to the website, again I agree completely, we have changed it once this year as a temporary fix but it is far from perfect. Over the next 2-3 months we will be changing the website again and making it far more user friendly. With regard to some of the higher priced items, I would always consider giving a generous discount to clear some of these high priced items.

Yes I am probably suffering due to not enough light . That picture was in my room with the lights off and one small clip on spotlight on my pc desk shining down on my knees lol . So it probably struggled for detail. Normally light isn't so much a problem its the pics with more than one coin and all the reflections and shooting through plastic pages. I just hate to list coins I know are 10x better than the pics show. But sometimes the coins behave and still still for a few seconds

Michael Freeman has asked me to add the following to this thread: Everyone is entitled to opinions, but not to distort facts without having any knowledge about them. I did not 'self-publish for decades because I had to'. In 1963, I chose to publish 'The Victorian Bronze penny' myself because my friend, Stanley Langman, had a printing company in Glasgow and he gave me a reasonable price; and I had 'hands-on' involvement with everything. It seemed a good idea to try to sell them myself, which I did. This was a success, and in 1966 he printed a second edition for me. The same facts applied in 1969, when I wrote 'The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain'. I did not ask anyone to publish it. In 1983, living then in England, near London, I wrote another book on the subject of buying and selling coins, which Hutchinson published (in the name of Barrie and Jenkins, an offshoot company). They also published the 2nd edition of 'The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain' in 1985. I did not approach anyone else to do this. In 2006 Spink asked me if I wanted to write an updated 3rd edition; but settled for permission to re-print the 1985 book. I had sold my collection in 1984 and 1986, so took no interest in bronze coins from then on. The late Laurie Bamford, whom I had known for many years as an expert, offered to give me a list of what had been discovered since then, to bring me up to date, but by 2006, I did not have the same enthusiasm as I had when I was a collector. On the matter of my rarity estimates, I based these on hard statistics. In the case of post-Victorian coins, I withdrew large numbers of bags from banks, to augment what I had already noted. This was in the 1960s, when all the coins covered in this book were in circulation. There was no better way of assessing rarity - mintage figures do not give die varieties. Regarding Victorian pennies and halfpennies, by 1966, when they were withdrawn by the banks for melting, I held over 62,000 of the former and 3,000+ of the latter. A fair proportion of them were badly worn, but enough were not and I can think of no better means of assessing their rarity than this randomly assembled collection. It enabled me to compare and assume relative rarity to the point where I felt I could assign 40 different degrees of rarity. I developed a sharp eye for identifying very worn coins with only a few areas visible. An example was the 1862 obverse 2 penny. The top leaf on the bust points to a lower area than on the usual obverse 6. I wrote to Peck when I discovered it, as he had hinted at its possible existence in a footnote in his book. The same applies to many other distinguishing features, such as in identifying the rare reverse F from only parts of the silhouette of Britannia. I sold all my legible Victorian pennies at 2 1/2d each to Corbitt and Hunter of Newcastle in 1966. A crane lifted them, and the doors in my parents' house stopped swinging to the place where I had kept them! I have no doubt that my estimates are pretty accurate where I had thousands of examples, such as in the 1895-1901 Veiled Bust series. Where I had only a few, or one coin, of a type or die pairing, clearly there was not enough to go on to be certain of assigning an accurate rarity estimate. As I stated in my Introduction to the book (which is important and often not fully read), I knew some were likely to be wrong, and I think this applies to the very rarest, some of which, judging from auctions at the excellent London Coin Auctions, are less rare than I assessed them to be in 1969. I considered that melting down millions of coins would increase rarity; and I also took into account the fact that some types had become unidentifiable as a result of having suffered heavy wear from over 100 years of circulation, making the rare ones moreso. I am fortunate enough still to be alive at almost 75, so able to correct the unfounded criticism I have read on this forum. And flattered and happy to see that, worldwide, my book on bronze is used by top dealers and auction houses as the standard reference work." Michael Freeman

Edward VII Florin with Britannia standing for one. Victorian Gothic florin for another. Then a Cartwheel penny or twopence. Finally, a William IV halfcrown, just for the curtains, and maybe a George III shilling, to show how ugly he was.