Rob

Not a clue.

A bit like in March 1979 when we were discussing where to go caving that weekend. I suggested going down Ireby Fell Cavern on Ingleborough. Some cheeky bugger quipped 'That's Rob-speak for I have fallen over'. Wouldn't mind, but it came from the mahf of a Lahndoner.

Nobody knows everything about a subject, so you can always add to your knowledge. That is why a selection of reading material is a must. Too much is taken for granted as well. Last weekend I was asked what moneyer and mint a coin was from. Being a collector medieval pennies for at least the last 30 years, I had assumed that he would have a copy of North, but no, he didn't. Personally, I couldn't see how he could cope without what is a basic reference, but clearly he can as he knows more about his Edwards than I will ever know. The key is not necessarily going back to what you have previously visited, but rather to discuss things. It doesn't matter if your views are complete b*****ks as long as you stimulate discussion. That is when things are learnt. It is why the anodyne 'like' button should be banned as it makes people feel they are contributing, when in fact they are saying nothing. Only by taking a contrarian view can you bring out alternative theories - and that is how knowledge makes progress. Play devil's advocate (giving a thumbs down is not enough). Either one person will have to justify their argument (in which case the other may learn something), or the second person has to back up their disagreement with reasoning. It's a win-win situation. That is why all views on a forum are welcomed and valid. They might be shot down, but that shouldn't be taken to heart. Every day I learn something new and I know I am not alone in that.

For the vast majority, that is simply a function of subject interest. Anyone interested enough in their chosen area can get up to speed within a few years at the most.

Most cheap coins will stay cheap and most expensive ones today will continue to hold their value. The biggest impediment for you is knowledge. If you stop worrying about their value, and concentrate on their numismatic qualities, the question of collecting what you can afford rather than what is really cheap will determine your collecting habits. You will like things that are beyond your pocket (we all do), but even the more expensive relative to your pocket can be acquired without concern once you have done your homework.

You have just made a very good case for collecting the unspendable.

No reason to wonder. The money is in the 50p, £1 and £2 coins, but in terms of effort expended does not represent a huge return given any sale will likely be through ebay with its fees and then posted with the Royal Mail.. If the three are selling more individually than the sets are as a whole, then breaking them up is a no-brainer as a dealer, but less clear cut on eBay with the relevant fees and costs taken into consideration. I can sell £1 coins at any time for now - I think I only have 1 or 2 left. But I still have a healthy selection of 1/2p to 20ps. These I could use for small change at any time should I need to. There are collectors of all denominations, but most do just the three mentioned. As a rule, the question should be 'why do you not break them up?' Given the involvement of the general public as opposed to knowledgeable numismatists, I still think this feeding frenzy will end in tears.

What you mean to say is it didn't occur to you to keep them in a safe place, given it was your collection. For anyone with no interest in numismatics, a coin is just a thing which you can use to exchange for goods or services. To be hoarded or p'd against the wall - nothing more. Mustn't lose sight of the fact that collectors are very much the exception, not the rule. Thankfully, anything pre-decimal is no longer circulating, otherwise we would all be at greater risk of having our collections spent.

It's easy enough to scan through. You'll remember most of it either word for word or with the general meaning firmly imprinted in your mind. And that which you forget didn't interest you in the first place. That's why a book is so useful. You flick back and recheck what you thought you read. Can't do that with a fleeting glimpse of a webpage, because when you try to find it, the page is updated or gone awol. A book is structured, a forum thread not, and is why you have to repeatedly post the same thing. The most popular questions asked on this forum have been asked many times and the answers given a similar number of times. Funny how nobody finds those previous threads, but I guess that's the way of digital man.

What I don't understand is why you don't just take it to a bullion dealer and scrap it. The hole will make it only worth melt whatever the outcome, and they will be able to tell instantly in hand whether it is gold or not. If a modern thing and made of so-called white gold, then it will still be worth bullion because it isn't original. The original gold coins would be struck in conventionally coloured gold, and if it was struck in platinum (not impossible, but doesn't explain the copper colour), then it would still have bullion value. The biggest bonus would be that you could get an unambiguous decent piece without a hole from the proceeds of the sale as it is the sort of thing you should be able to pick up for around the melt price. I'm not sure where this thread is going. You say you have a gold piece. Others think it is plated something. This isn't going to be resolved by universal agreement.

Yes. Funny silver too.

A Henry VII mm. dragon, is an unaffordable Hobson's Choice coin for me. Ah well, hope springs eternal. Better buy a couple of losing lines for tonight's lottery.

A lot of these come up looking pitted.

I still maintain cubing is just bad spelling. The apposite Ballsie75 couldn't even get his name right.

Can't differentiate between a really nice example of this or a really nice example of that. A coin that stands high and proud by a wide margin above all the other coins in a collection looks out of place. A collection needs a bit of balance to be aesthetically pleasing.

Good grief. I had assumed it was abbreviated text speak for clubbing (that's going to clubs for those who don't understand). As bad as my son. Me: 'Do you want a cup of coffee?' Son: 'I'm good.' Me: 'Sometimes you are, sometimes not. Anyway, do you want a coffee?' Son: 'I'm good.' Me: 'You still haven't answered the question.' Son: 'No padre, I don't.' So by deduction, am good means do not. Who could possibly have guessed that? I appreciate that all languages evolve, but at times I might as well be in a foreign country for all I understand about a conversation.

And I've found a copy of part 6 of 5 - the lots that missed the sale were included at a later date.

Get Dave Groom's two volumes on bronze and Cu-Ni. The Identification of British 20th Century (insert your own metal) Coin Varieties. DaveG38 on this forum is the person concerned. He might have a spare copy. As with any list it is continually being extended, but is a good start.

Most of the 2E images I have are quite well centred with a full ring of border teeth. What I was thinking of is things like the B of EBOR has the small protrusion above the top of the B from underlying detail, but then the letter positioning relative to the border teeth is all wrong, or the king's crown is too high relative to the inner circle. The stippling on the saddle cloth is non-existent in the copy, yet the reverse dots in the crown and garnishing are perfectly reproduced for both number and position. Compare with the attached.

Interesting. It is closely modelled on the 2E die pair, but isn't quite right. I wonder how they get it so close with some of the finer detail replicated, but then again so wrong with something that is more obvious. If the portrait was that good, they would easily have the hair detail down to a fine art.

0.5 - 0.6mm thicker than what number? Without a thickness for the flan, you can't work out the volume and by extension the density. If you can calculate the density it will be obvious whether it is gold or not. I personally wouldn't hold my breath.

But how thick is it at the moment? The thickness will tell you instantly if the material is anything like as dense as gold.

Given you are rubbing bits off left right and centre, why not take it to a bullion dealer and cash it in? There won't be much left soon. You can always do a specific gravity check. Alternatively, 17mm diameter, density of gold is 19.32g/cm3, density of copper is 8.96g/cm3 assuming it isn't alloyed with silver in which case use 10.49g/cm3, weight 1.6129g for the complete thing without hole, reduce the weight by about 7% for the hole, purity if it was gold would be 0.9000, volume of a cylinder is 3.14 x 0.852 x height. You can therefore work out if it is gold just by establishing the thickness, give or take a bit seeing as it isn't a flat disc. 19th century gold coins were not made from white gold. This is something driven by modern fashion tastes. It would be bog standard gold alloyed with bog standard copper or bog standard silver on a 9:1 ratio.

I've got Bole 1 -5 here, but they haven't been listed yet. PM me if you have no joy.

I'm going copy. It looks too new and a copy would likely be plated copper. I have no idea who would make them this side of Shanghai, but there will be somebody somewhere. Maybe France?