Rob

Interesting how he has said a 1658 coin is dated between 1662 and 1816. The Chinese must have been busy earlier than was previously thought.

I wanted to find the Goldberg's Live bidding page, but couldn't do so. Any way in would have been acceptable but it was not to be.

Virtual drinking?

Why on earth would anyone, however passionate about slabbing, want to waste money having that graded? The only rarity value it has is that thankfully there are very few in such bad condition. This also begs the question why it wasn't given the minimum possible grade (the apposite - poor 1) on account of the lack of detail. It must be very difficult to decide when to give the lowest possible grade as there is precious little to go on when deciding the reason for the lack of detail.

Oh, I don't read the descriptions, just look at the picture to give me a better idea what's on offer.

I had the BT person check all the settings and he also tried with IE, but that gave the same results.

A guinea weight at £50 is not too far off the mark.

Hello stranger.

ok. though it has been like this for a year or more, which seems a bit long for someone else not to flag up the same problem. I can't be the only person using their server. I'll try to find someone in the morning. Thanks.

Server: BThomehub.home Address: 192.168.1.254 DNS request timed out. timeout was 2 seconds. Same again *** Request to BThomehub.home timed-out. If that makes sense.

Which means that the DNS lookup failed. The DNS server is provided by your ISP to translate names into IP addresses. Therefore it sounds like an IT issue at your ISP. Ok, ta. I doubt they will do anything other than check the line and say it's working ok though. This internet is p'ing me off a bit. It keeps stopping for a few minutes every hour or so and then restarts of its own accord - really frustrating. This can't be the same problem though as other websites work ok, such as this forum. I can't find any figures for what constitutes acceptable net down-time. If it was mine and not BT's, I'd say it is crap.

Not that

Ping request could not find host www.goldbergcoins.com. Please check the name and try again.

What IP address does your computer think is www.goldbergcoins.com? Run a command prompt (cmd.exe) and type 'ping www.goldbergcoins.com' (without quotes). My DNS gives me 209.222.0.237. That doesn't work. Just says it can't find it in different colours. Sorry, the website cmd.exe cannot be found.

I fired off an email to Goldbergs not expecting an answer because I assumed the website would not be found, yet they received the email and replied. Not too helpful because they assumed I was unable to log in. I would dearly like to be in that sub-optimal position. I suppose the question is how can a website recognise you are emailing, yet hide away if you try to access it? Is there anything I could do at this end to help the Goldberg site recognise me?

Nope, that gives the same message as all the other links to goldbergs I have tried, i.e. can't find the server. Rob, Try www.sixbid.com That should take you there. Sixbid did show the sale as the top item on the auction list, but using the link at the top of the page to Goldbergs just gives the default response of can't find the server. You can't bid live on Sixbid.

Does anyone else have problems accessing the Goldbergs site in order to participate in live bidding? For over a year now I always get the message cannot find the server at www.goldbergcoins.com, this despite them repeatedly sending me emails with links (allegedly) to their site and the auctions. Although there hasn't been a great deal of interest in their sales of late, it seems a bit off that their website doesn't work any more. This must be costing them a lot in lost bids. According to their catalogue the sale is also listed on the Saleroom (can't find it) and Sixbid (can see the catalogue there, but it won't do live bidding - only commission bids). I was going to email them, but if I can't find www.goldbergcoins.com, then I am unlikely to successfully send an email to info@ this unavailable site either. A phonecall would negate any potential profit on the single item I was going to bid on. :angry: :angry: :angry: Yours Miffed of Manchester

Ditto.

Pre the 1816 coinage, groats et infra were almost certainly struck on an as required basis with no consideration for the Maundy distribution. Although money was dispensed at the ceremony, it must have been taken from existing currency supplies. One would assume that the poor weren't particularly concerned what condition the coins were in, nor whether their date was current. In my opinion, the concept of Maundy Sets dated prior to the 19th century is something that has been retrospectively applied to those years where all denominations were struck, rather than as a result of a conscious decision to produce sets for the ceremony. With the introduction of Boulton and Watt's presses used for the recoinage of 1816, it enabled the mint to strike a consistent product, and it is this that I think led to the production of yearly sets, though obviously the priority was the production of regular silver currency pieces following 60 years of neglect throughout the reign of George III. Although there are a couple of gaps in the first years of the new coinage, since 1822 Maundy coins have been produced every year since. The number of individuals collecting has also increased progressively down the years, possibly as a result of wealth trickling down from the spoils of the industrial revolution and so we also see sets being made for collectors, in addition to those needed for the Maundy ceremony. This was the norm until 1908 when you could order them from the mint just as you can buy their 'collectable' items today, but from 1909 onwards the sets were essentially made for the Maundy distribution. 1762 is clearly a year where they only needed threepences, but it could just as easily have been any of the other denominations.

It can happen at any time on any denomination. They occur when the sheet of bronze used for making blanks is insufficiently displaced in whatever direction to clear a previously punched section of the sheet by the blank cutting tool.

As long as the missing arc is the same radius as the coin in question it is likely to be genuine.

Methylated.

It's a big no-no to get mucky fingerprints all over them. I appreciate you may wish to handle things, but you have to decide whether they are to play with or to collect, keeping them in the best possible state of preservation whilst you are the custodian. i.e. you don't want to do something that will damage the coin beyond its condition when acquired. If you just want something to play with, buy cheaper, low-grade pieces. Again, if you want to regularly handle them you could put them into plastic capsules or 2x2 flips. Sorry, don't know what a Schulz album is.

Most patterns (and as far as I'm aware, all the RM pieces) tend to be like proofs, with just the design varying from the norm, so I'm not sure that a non-prooflike version would be struck as a pattern. There are a few patterns I have such as the Taylor 1807 unfinished proof halfpenny where the design is only partly recut including the date 1807/6, or the Eginton 1787 pattern 6d in white metal which are clearly not prooflike. These aside, all the other private patterns are most definitely struck as proofs, as are the RM pieces, including all the decimal patterns from the 1850s. The nickel strikings of the 1923 & 1924 shillings are not prooflike, but here we probably have an experimental striking to test the suitability of nickel as a metal for currency.

You could try disabling the Firefox Silverlight plug-in. Using the icon with three horizontal bars (top right corner) click on "Add-ons" then "Plugins" on the left hand side menu. Scroll down to find Silverlight and change from "Ask to Activate" to "Never Activate". Big plus for this tip. It also has a box which allows pdf files to always activate, which is a much better idea than always being asked if I want to open a pdf. (I invariably do - that is why I have tried to open it in the first place)