Chris Perkins

I'll have a word with them about that and see if they have a banner that auto re-sizes for smaller screens.

I have a new forum 'partner' so you'll now see catawiki adverts on the forum pages. Catawiki are a Dutch online auction company that have recently set up a UK site. It's better than eBay in the respect that the listings are moderated by experts in each category field. They don't yet have the quality of items that eBay do, but what they do have should be of better quality, at least when they are established with a good number of UK based users. The auctions end weekly (currently 25,000) and they have many other categories from classic cars to jewellery and all manner of collectables. Please consider joining as a buyer or seller. A link is directly under this post (not sure if it's properly visible on phones/tablets yet, perhaps you could let me know).

Well done Matt, and thanks very much for sorting things so far.

I have re-enabled signatures (they seemed to be off in the upgrade) and note that some people seem to have their old ones back again. I'm afraid others (inc me) may have to add them again manually.

Signatures were apparently being re-built, but they don't seem to be back so I'm afraid we may have to manually put them in again (really sorry about that). I'm going to make Nordle11 an administrator now, as he seems to be fixing the problems (or offering work arounds) before I get a change to even find the cause!

Sorry, not been around much lately. Happy New Year everyone. I will look closely at the new forum issues and see what I can do!

What phone are you using Richard? Android?

The forum was upgraded last night. It seems to be up and working, but there are likely to be little things that will need perfecting. I'll also need to add some minimal advertising. Please report here if you notice any issues. So far the quotes don't seem to be showing up properly and signatures aren't right - these are both being re-built in the background.

Yeah, it didn't fix it. I'm using up too much memory (RAM memory I have learnt, not actual storage space memory). It should be ok now though as I've had an upgrade with more power all round. It may even speed things up a bit. And a new forum upgrade is also now definitely on it's way, now that the server and all the important software is bang up to date. It was the fiddling required for the forum upgrade that caused the issue.

You're on the right track Paulus, but I don't think it's due to the penny posts. I'm running out of memory, both in real life and on the server. The server has been re-started just in case there was anything running that shouldn't have been. If not, then I'll have to upgrade to a meatier server.

I've deleted the attachment with the address. You may want to censor that part and re-attach.

Yes of course, I've emailed you a December discount code!

Thanks very much SWANNY. Am just about to post it out (from Germany).

No idea, but you know what, I think a forum sortware update is due. Let's see what new tricks and repaired old tricks that brings!

Bit rude, crashing a topic to advertise a website that does appear to have some nice coins on offer, but also seems to use a bit too much marketing speak (akin to those well known peddlers of modern amazing limited edition rubbish) for my liking. Today I changed the security questions and have banned a couple of IP address ranges in an attempt to stop the current increased (mostly Polish) spam account registrations.

Alles gute zum Geburtstag Dr K.

That's choked me up Peter. We heard so much about Mrs Peter over the years. Really sorry to hear that

No Peter, that was another Oliver.

I sent some scrap pre 1920 off to Ollie and got back 4 bars of sterling, each containing an ounce of Ag. Larger chunks like that seem to be more popular than pre 20 silver coins!

What on earth is all this about???! It seems to have come out of nowhere. Are you ok PWA? I do think you may have initially over-reacted and fired the gun that seems to have started this avalanche.....then it was all ok again and Dave went off on a bit of a tangent. What happened there Dave? Seems to be a storm in a tea cup, we're all friends here. I won't delete anything, but I will go through altering some of the language, including things partially obscured by dashes etc.

Yes, good old JMD eh. If you ever see this JMD, and have forgotten your password, my email address is the same. Log in, say hello.

Topic title changed. Michael-Roo is right I'd say.

Here's something from Michael Freeman: I was lucky enough to be alive when Victorian pennies and halfpennies were in circulation, and in 1946, at the age of 6, encouraged by my teacher, I started collecting them. All and every one - even those with illegible dates! The first thing I noticed was that there were both a young-looking and an old-looking head on pennies of 1874. This made me want to find out when other changes occurred, and sometimes I noted that 2 or more types occurred in the same year, 1881 being a good example. With no book available on the subject, I learnt more and more simply from collecting them, and the next fact which I remember learning was that 1 in every 12 pennies in circulation was Victorian. This was around 1950. In the 1950s, at school, I used to play at guessing the date of any penny by looking only at the obverse. I could tell either exactly or within 2-3 years, from subtle differences, such as in colour, caused by variations in the alloy, by the rim height, and very minor flaws which appeared in certain periods - such as the mis-strike of the upper leaf of the garland on pennies of obverse 6 in 1873. On Bun pennies, the silhouette, or only part of it, can indicate exactly what obverse or reverse it is - such as on the many early 1860s pennies. By the time they were withdrawn in 1966, I had over 3,000 halfpennies and 62,000 pennies , with the Veiled Bust pennies of 1895-1901 running into a few thousand each date. I had discovered 27 major types not in Peck's book on Copper Tin and Bronze, which was published in 1964. In the Introduction to 'The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain', I wrote how difficult it was for me to decide what to catalogue as a type and what not to. An example was the 1874 obverse 7 with a distinctly hooked nose found only paired with one of the reverses, which one I forget now. I rejected it as too confusing. Reverse I (1874 only) was a toss-up which I opted to include even though it does resemble reverse J. I decided that the Victorian series was complicated enough without sub-dividing it into all the minor touched-up dies. The 1922 penny with an early version of reverse C was a case in point. Even by the 1980s, few people cared, so It was simpler for people to know it simply as a variant of reverse C, which it is. Nowadays things are different. Many minor and a few major omissions from my book are now known to lots of collectors, and, for them, this is an entirely separate reverse. The 1926 penny with Heritage, with reverse C has the proper adopted reverse used from 1927 to 1936. It is either a proof or first striking, with all details bold, struck from new dies of both sides. The letters 'ONE PENNY' are in high relief and double-struck (indicative of proof strikings), which can be seen best in the hand, although Heritage's excellent photos show this quite well. 1927 pennies have much softer details on both sides, as expected from dies which had to be used on millions of blanks. The 1922 penny with reverse C (variant) was quite a surprise when first discovered - after all, all known1926 pennies had reverse B, and reverse C first appeared only in 1927. The 1926 penny with this reverse, on the other hand, was perfectly likely, being the year prior to its use in full production. Moreover, the halfpenny and farthing of 1926 both have a reduced version of it. Logic strongly suggests there must have been a reverse die prepared for the penny, as well; and this coin is evidence that it was. My view is that the intended new reverse was designed and tested in 1922, then shelved until 1924 or 1925, when the die was refined to what became reverse C, but not used until 1926 when this coin, with a '6' punched over a partially-erased 4 or 5, was struck as a trial piece. Found to be satisfactory, but not used for production until 1927. As for the date numerals, first note the tiny dot above the '6', which does not appear on any other penny. Similar dots are known to have been used as a guide to where a character should be punched on a die. There is a faint trace of an exergual line lower than the intended base of the design. This could indicate a die alteration from the level it had been on reverse B. This coin had been examined under high magnification and no sign of a numeral '7' was found. (Modified Effigy, obverse 4 + reverse C, + modified reverse, pennies were struck for circulation only dated '1927'). Everyone can see the '6' has traces of other numerals, which have been partially erased. But on the DIE, not the coin. To resolve doubts, knowing the latest technology would be applied to examining it, I submitted the coin to Heritage, who had it at both NGC and PCGS before cataloguing it. All three institutions are experts and confirm what I concluded. Below is the full text of the description I sent Heritage, but which they did not use. I write too much! *1926 penny, OBV.4 + REV.C - the Modified bust AND Modified reverse. UNIQUE. S. 4054A. Ex M.J. Freeman. After many years of striking pennies which had ghosting (A faint unintentional impression of the king's head showing through on the reverse around Britannia), the Royal Mint found the solution. The high relief of the head had caused 'suction' of metal from the reverse, so, in 1922, a new reverse was re-engraved. A few specimens were struck that year, and circulated. These still bore the old obverse; but there is also a so-far unique penny of 1922 with a completely re-engraved OBVERSE, in low relief, paired with the new reverse. Both seem then to have been shelved for 3 years. No penny was struck in 1923, 1924, or 1925. The halfpenny and farthing were struck during these years, and in 1925 coins with both the old style and the new, modified, dies are found; but it was not until 1926, when penny striking resumed, that the new, modified head, was introduced on this denomination. Both the high relief (Freeman obverse 3) and the low relief obverse 4 - usually referred to as the 'Modified Effigy' - occur for 1926, although the latter is much the scarcer. On 1926 pennies, both types of obverse are paired with the same, earlier-style, reverse - B - with the exception of THIS coin. The 1922 modified reverse has been revised in slight detail, with Britannia's head a little larger. This reverse - C - remained, unaltered, on all pennies from 1927 until the end of the reign in 1936. From 1928, the modified effigy was significantly reduced in size, so the original, larger, modified effigy is found only on a small number of 1926, and ALL of 1927. On this coin there are traces of another numeral inside the '6'; but 1927 was the ONLY year known to have obverse 4 + reverse C, and it is definitely not a '7'; so the alteration was to the DIE, not the coin. This conclusion is reinforced by traces of an exergual line below the level found on reverse C, in fact where it used to occur on reverse B. My guess is that the reverse was engraved with the date '1925' but, as it was not used until this coin was struck, the '5' was overstruck with a '6'. The same '6' punch appeared on a reverse B 1926 Modified Effigy in another Heritage auction earlier this year (2015). SEE http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-george-v-penny-1926-ms65-red-and-brown-ngc-/a/3037-29783.s?ic4=OtherResults-SampleItem-071515 The designs on both sides are far sharper than usually found for these dies, and the reverse letters are double-struck, a feature which occurs on proofs and trial strikes although the surfaces are not prooflike. It is clearly a first strike for both the dies. The coin appears to have been dipped in 'hypo', which gives it its dark color, and some other pennies of later years had the same treatment before release into circulation. There are, however, small areas which are bright. The coin is about uncirculated, but has a small spot of verdigris on the lettering on the top of the obverse. It may well have had other areas where this was removed, along with the surface; hence the bright patches. An important link in British bronze. (Michael Freeman) I used to receive a lot of emails, but do not want to devote my waking moments to answering them, as I could do; hence my not wanting my email publicised. I am really pleased that lots of people share my former enthusiasm, but don't want to discuss coins. I read what was written, and, as I had previously been in touch with Chris who asked me about possibly producing a soft-back, or electronic edition of 'The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain, when I did this, I asked him to reply for me in the Forum. There is nothing sinister, as some comments suggest. I am selling my house and buying another 500 miles away. It is time-consuming and my health is not the best. I have taken up a lot of time in replying to try to clarify issues raised in the Forum, and hope goodwill will prevail! I can do no more. My thanks to Chris, who runs it excellently.

I'd imagine the stop in the die got filled with crud. Both look real enough to me.

He has a new email address and doesn't want to make it public. I'll ask for his input on the points raised.