Rob

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?

The listing certainly has a 'recently manufactured' look about it. If it is that rare, it should be possible to tie coins to past sales. i.e. provenance (yet again)

Perhaps the mint was still experimenting with design relief, which as we all know has a marked effect on the finished product. Also, if you look at the decimal patterns of the late 1850s, there are a good number which suffer from laminating flans suggesting they weren't fully up to speed as regards the striking pressure required, or maybe it was down to sheet preparation with what would be a new alloy for them. It's all conjecture without documentary evidence for something that has a large number of variables. The mint was still using Boulton & Watt equipment to produce the coins, as the machinery installed for the 1816 recoinage wasn't replaced until the 1880s. Maybe this equipment wasn't so good for producing coins on a thinner flan? I am inclined to think that the large number of varieties was a reflection of the huge output in the first few years. Up to 1863 there was a massive replacement of the old copper coins which would require a lot of dies. It wasn't until 1864 that numbers reduced and it is probably no coincidence that from here on there is essentially an adopted die pair for a few years. So if you couple fulfilled demand with what was still an experimental situation, the number of different designs is perhaps not so surprising.

But we already do. M(ostly) S(mooth) with variants being from 60 -70(%) on said deficiency.

Somewhat disturbingly, if you click on the link to ebay, at the bottom of the page eBay brings up a few suggestions that you might be interested in. Top row is a run of smooth worthless pennies. An intelligent promotional system would realise that I am not interested in crap. It should be able to make a connection between crap descriptions, not pictured items. That would also reduce the number of options available - washers are everywhere, but amusingly described washers are considerably scarcer.

Unfortunately it is unlikely to be worth more than melt. 500 silver pieces with few exceptions are quite plentiful in top grade, so people will just wait for a decent example to come along. If VF or less they effectively aren't very collectable. They will go green from the pvc sleeve. Not a good way to store them. You should use either a cabinet, 2x2 flips with mylar windows or acid free envelopes.

Apparently he no longer offers this service having effectively retired to look after his grandchildren, who keep him fully occupied.

The pictures could be better. Let's start with where did you get it? Weight? Does it ring correctly for silver? What is the edge? The thickness at the rim?

Is the problem not a little more subtle than the different ranges? I get the impression that the larger auction houses (and to a greater extent US slab devotees) will only consider NGC or PCGS. i.e. anyone else is ignored. What scale CGS use is for the most part irrelevant if the coin has to be accredited by one of only two TPGs. Personally I have never had a problem with ANACS, who in my view more accurately than NGC. I think with Heritage/NGC/PCGS it is more a case of a closed shop, with the auction house absolving themselves of any problems re-description or legitimacy by requiring their lots to be slabbed by one or the other. This would make things very difficult to return as they have already been cleared as genuine, and the grade is taken as a given. Effectively all Heritage do is make a list and auction it off on a regular basis. I think it is an unholy alliance, because there is no means to regulate the minutiae over and above the lotting that we take for granted with a conventional auctioneer. Any disputes also have to be made without extracting the coin from the slab, which also makes the task more difficult.

No I don't think so. Scratches can be any size.

It's a bit flat in the middle which is a pity, as the periphery which is usually the weak point is much better than average. If the centres were the same as the legend I would be chasing that one.

Next meeting is this coming Monday. We are having a bit of fun with a version of 'Call My Bluff'. Starts at 8:15 upstairs in the Nursery Inn on Green Lane.

I think this area has been pretty much fully discussed. Variety collectors follow the publications. Some collect varieties to provide additional boxes to tick, as has been mentioned. Others come to light when someone does an in-depth study of a series and subsequently publish. These then allow the aforementioned individuals to create more boxes. These references are not particularly helpful with regards to rarity though as many more examples tend to appear once the variety has been published. The ultimate reference has to be as complete a die study as possible, but even then there are a few that get away.

It can depend on how assiduous the RM is in collecting duties. Sometimes they aren't on the ball.

I'm not aware of it cheaper elsewhere. Given it's a new book without a dated revision in the near future, it is a bit early for discounts.

We stopped having auctions because the collecting habits of members were simply too diverse, with only a couple people collecting similar pieces, i.e. there was virtually no competitive bidding which rendered an auction meaningless.

It's possible the Mint was trying to anticipate demand. Before the mid-90s there wasn't the annual flood of commemoratives that we now find familiar. You had the new £2 coins in 86, 89, 94 95 & 96 and the occasional crown up to 1990, together with the revaluation of that item from %/- to £5. Once they became £5 they were simultaneously issued on an annual basis. In the case of the Sovereign, there weren't many collectors of modern RM output in the 1980s, so it is quite possible that none were produced because they didn't think they would sell. Proofs are much easier to sell to the general populace than a dull currency piece. As the sovereign wasn't a currency piece despite its nominal face value, any bullion issued would be based on perceived demand for storing gold. I think it is necessary to cast minds back 30 years when the public's collecting habits were vastly different to today.

Yes, some of those topics do sound quite captivating. Moreover, having guest speakers is definitely a good thing. Of course, Manchester, being a big City, will have more members, and be able to attract notable speakers. I live in a medium sized town, and the available pool of interested parties will be that bit lower. Unfortunately. The size of the city is not important. Our club has just over a dozen members. The Lancs and Cheshire has fewer. Most guest speakers are persuaded on the back of individual contacts. Most people who visit to talk are on good terms with one or more members. So for example, the talk about William the Lion required someone from our club to reciprocate. I was therefore volunteered to give a talk at the Uni in February for the Lancs and Cheshire. It helps if the constituent members are part of the BNS and attend conferences and the like. This enables like minded people to help each other. We also meet in a pub. The Nursery in Heaton Moor which does Hydes beers.