Rob

Truth is Vicky, there's a lot we don't know. Last week I was shown an 1887 6d with the second reverse that had the last digit a full tick to the right of all the others seen. That had to be put in by hand too as it was slightly misaligned. I think it is a case of take everything you read with a pinch of salt unless you are happy in your own mind it is true.

Somewhere on this forum is an 1870 with variable spacing, so make of it what you will.

I'm not sure it was specifically because the early coins were outsourced. Up to about 1880, the last digit or 2 digits were entered manually on the die. This is why you sometimes see a variation in the width of these dates, with the right hand digits showing variable spacing. The footnote on ESC p.135 refers. It may possibly have occurred after this time, but I have no documentary evidence to support the theory.

Not a clue. I haven't been to one of their sales for 10 years - not since an 'unc' 1905 halfcrown looked to have been in the possession of Viking invaders at some point in the past. Unsurprisingly, nor have I felt inclined to bid blind.

I have one of these - an 06-plate Cayman S that I've had from new since March 06. Nearly 90k on the clock now and I still love driving it. Much like coins - quality is indeed the key. I've never regretted pushing the boat out for the Cayman, even when it's thrown me the odd big bill. Sorry for the thread hijack Non. I love your halfcrowns. When funds allow, I'm aiming for similar ones too! Most people struggle to afford the Cayman rather than a few halfcrowns.

Sorry, I must read all the description. Didn't see the 'inverted' bit. There is a slight variation in 6 punches, but nothing that stands out as being markedly different from a 9. I would be surprised if they had distinct punches for the two. I don't have many images of 9s, but all the 6s and 9s I have fall into one of the attached. The 3rd 6 might possibly be over a corrected 8 given the shape. Given there are several punches used and that a 6 is an inverted 9 or vice-versa, I can't see how you would say one was a 6 as opposed to a 9. It is possible that more punches were used as a 6 than as a 9 given the prolific output of the new coinage, but that doesn't make them specifically 6s. Alternatively, you could take the view that all 1816s are struck as 1819s in error.

Not a clue who sold them. Sorry

I phoned him about 12 months ago and discovered what Peter has written.

Debbie, I think 9/9 too. Eric. There is nothing to suggest a 9 over 6. If 9 over 6 there would have to be an arch representing the top of the 6 loop, but all I see is the bottom of a loop. i.e. 9 over 9 as has already been said. Whether it was someone at the PCGS office having a bad day, or them relying on what they have been told, it's clearly wrong.

Sorry, cannonball pennies get under my radar. I would like an 1897 dot penny though to sell on if I can make a bit on it.

I think we will all have to agree to differ on this one. I can't agree re the Cannonball if you are referring to the W/SA halfcrown though as this appears to have had the SA removed because the die moved away from Shrewsbury(?) to a new location. The varieties I have the real problems with are those arising from general wear and tear or those where the same nominal design is employed, but due to individually punched features show slight positional differences or have used several punches. Errors, corrected errors and discrete design differences are acceptable to me. Blocked stops are not.

Ah, thanks Vicky. It appears that my login buttons were hidden. What a load of rubbish. They have taken the login fields and hidden them behind an arrow which gives no indication as to what lies below. On the plus side, it appears that both new and old login details work. On the down side, the button to logout is not where the login is found, rather it is in the same place as it was previously - where the login button sat before they messed around with the format. The login button I inadvertently found in help when searching the help files for clues on how to login still doesn't work! I think 'could do better' applies here, so I'll still leave it in Room 101. Trouble is, PCGS are not very amenable to re-education (thinking back to the wax removal service).

Do you mean Sharon or Ozzie? I presume you mean Sharon, as the only coherent half of the partnership she is the one most likely to construct an offensive statement. Not sure why the other two though.

No, I don't see anything upper left, just the CU forum logo and then the various forum tabs down the side. Tells you who is logged in at the bottom, but there isn't a login link in sight.

Upper right is where the login link used to reside. Now it seems to have disappeared and the only login I could see was in 'Help' - which somewhat ironically didn't work.........

Not sure - can't check just now but check in one of the documents at the end - some of the later issues have a separate document for short articles and plates I think. Depends on what the last plate is. p.220 is staters relating to the article which starts on the following page. The article has two plates, the first for pennies and the second for halfpennies and farthings. Of course, if people had the books it would be easier to check and eliminate transcription errors. Something that is rather more difficult with a pdf.

The PCGS forum. What a disaster. The forum layout was revised over the past weekend and now there is no login button as there was previously. An invitation to join to reply was duly followed, but wouldn't let me use the same id and details as I had before. Clearly it recognised I should exist. Having joined again using a modified id (and a different email address), I decided to use the help/search facility to search for the means of logging in only to see a login link in the top right of the box. Oh joy! Sadly it doesn't recognise me in either my current or past incarnations and when I try to retrieve my password says that my email address doesn't exist!!! As an added bonus, there is also no 'contact us' link for those wanting to communicate with a human being. What a load of bo***cks. Still, at least it stops people cluttering up the forum with posts.

We are trying to define what constitutes an accurate representation of the object in question and I am not convinced that is possible. Whatever programs are used to take images and convert them into a web based picture will all affect the output to a different degree depending on the method of converting data. Contrast, saturation, more blue, red or whatever colour will all change the outcome and by extension your perception of what someone is trying to do. Everyone tries to show their item in the best possible light. e.g. If everyone used a scanner, then colours would appear to be mostly washed out in comparison to those seen in hand. Would it be misrepresentation to enhance the contrast and colours? All I know is that getting a faithful reproduction of what I see in the hand is a complete lottery and more the product of good fortune than photographic skill. I think you have to take everything with a small pinch of salt. For the record, in hand the pattern halfpenny shows the multicolours seen when held at a specific angle to the light, but in any other direction looks somewhat browner than the image I took today. i.e. it does not accurately represent the coin. FWIW I thought kryptonite was green? I am willing to stand corrected.

The question of colour is a bit misleading. It is quite easy to see how you can get totally different colours from what is essentially the same coin because the lighting can have a dramatic effect. Some members of this forum will be familiar with the pattern halfpenny in post 5 of this thread. http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/6366-rainbow-toned-us-morgan-dollar/?hl=p1169#entry59576 However, how many would say that it is the same coin as that in the attachment below? I took the attached 5 minutes ago. I have no idea what conditions were for the earlier image.

I was thinking out loud in terms of the public's psyche. A high grade currency piece without the polished fields of a proof is much less likely to catch the eye of the general public than a proof. i.e. a proof is more likely to stimulate them to look further. Most coins in your pocket will not be very reflective, if at all.

Somebody is trying a wind-up here.

This is one area that will never reach a consensus. I'm firmly in the 'varieties are design differences or errors' category. I specifically exclude claimed varieties that result from normal die use. This information has a place in a die study, but if every minute change is considered a discrete variety, then the number of varieties is theoretically infinite and tempered only by the number of coins extant. On this basis, even a 1933 penny with a population you can count on your fingers has the same number of varieties.

A piece breaking off can be any shape, including those that can resemble a letter or other characters. There are no rules when it comes to breakage, which is why it is important to seriously question any claim for overdates, legend errors etc. Some dies have always chipped with use over time.

Just a bit of metal flaked off the die at the edge of the 0. An example of the endless possibilities for die degradation. This is one area where the variety specialists need to take a cold shower.

We don't have Taco Bell AFAIK. Does this mean regional varieties of AT?