Rob

No, I'm a Royalist long before I will ever be a republican. The comment relates to how little detail there is per unit surface area on today's coins compared to times gone by. Greek, Roman, Celtic, or even Saxon coins had a very good level of detail by comparison, but clearly were not subject to the far more rigorous operating conditions demanded today. The design must reflect the functionality of the die, i.e. first and foremost it is just a tool. John Bergdahl, one of the current mint engravers, gave an enlightening talk at the BNS meeting in Manchester a couple years ago where he discussed the question of allowable relief in the design. It's remarkably little, even when magnified prior to reduction, we are talking typically of less than a mm relief (0.7mm was a figure mentioned for one design in question). There isn't much room for error and given the portraits of Tudor monarchs are in similarly low relief, I think it is probably better to applaud their efforts whatever technological period we are in. 500 years ago, regular die failure was part of the expectation, whereas today, die longevity is considerably more important given the capital cost of the equipment involved. It needs to be working to earn its keep. Scott. First time I saw the boar's head, I thought it was a woman with her possessions over her shoulder too. It's amazing how conditioned we are! The traveller in childrens' books is always depicted in this manner, but how many books contain a reference to a wild boar? Not many I suspect.

Here we go. A direct comparison between something contemporary, showing the fine detail of the tiara on a 2002 £2, and something current in about 25 AD. No prize for the winner.

I just like coins, whatever their purpose may have been. Plus I like patterns for a feeling of what might have been given the ornate designs regularly proposed but never adopted. I also like proofs for the better strike. Strangely though, i don't have any desire for a medal collection. As there are many issues which are not found as proofs, or at least not remotely available even if they exist, a few proofs alongside a few coins that don't exist as proofs gives quite a nice broad balanced collection IMHO. Nothing should be excluded just because of its identity. Even I have a dozen or so bronze pennies with a few gaps waiting to be filled for example. Irrational, but that's life.

The other consideration of course is that you might willingly start say a 1921 penny at £1, but wouldn't start an elizabeth 1st fine sovereign for the same £1. Very highly valued items are best dealt with off ebay, as it is in nobody's interest other than eBay to buy on this platform. Why pay 15% more than necessary just for the privilege of being seen to buy an expensive item. Very few people willing to spend seriously large sums are going to buy off a dealer on eBay when they can go direct in the traditional manner. Paypoo buyer protection is irrelevant in the case of established sellers, so yes, it should be used only as a showcase if the seller is wise.

He was online at the same time as Coinery posted yesterday.

That was to add the second line, not correct the response.

The X of REX looks 5g-i, the h of hENRIC 5f-i, the R 5d-i and the A 5a-7. The crown says 5g, so with Ricard only striking at London up to 5g and taking all the letters into consideration, that makes this a 5g. You now need a copy of North vol.1

No you didn't - you meant holey dollar Try again. Third time lucky.

It finished at over 400 with the juice, but that was when they went for 200 in a lightly bagmarked unc. Yes I do regret not going higher.

If they can sell overpriced tat, then good luck to them. Whilst we all look on in amazement at the prices they want and the fact that some people will pay that price, it is only the free market working as it should. The same argument applies as for overpriced slabs. If the buyer is happy paying that amount, then it's a good deal for all. Most of the disappointment arises when the time comes to sell, either the original vendor or the inheritor's realisation that their benefactor wasn't quite on the ball. You cannot dictate prices across the board, and for a business to survive, it has to make a profit. As a business you are better off selling 1 item at £100 profit, than 100 items at £1 profit each. That someone is willing to pay what you or me would say is overpriced is irrelevant. Should you want to buy the same items in the secondary market, the price you would be willing to pay would not shift from your current perception of fair value.

Sorry Richard, only 10 to gap. I've sent you an email.

Sorry, can't remember what dot to dot refers to - a clue would be good. All 10 pences have a beaded circle of dots inside the rim which can be joined using a fine pen. The larger, old style coins are easier to work with. Here's one I did earlier.

I want a mint state Godless and haven't seen one in the past 6 months. I thought I just wasn't looking hard enough. Hello Potlings. There was a really nice 1856 slabbed PCGS 65 in London Coins 117 (2007) which I stopped bidding on and have regretted ever since. I haven't seen one like it since. Super coin with a greenish tone.

You often get people with chequebooks at fairs, particularly older customers. The other option for the buyer is to take what potentially is a very large wad of cash. To take cards on the spot you need some means of connecting to the card processor which involves a card reader which you can plug into a phone with an internet connection. Many dealers don't have a website, so card payments are not something they would consider.

It's just a variation on a theme. None of us has the ability to save people from themselves. If you don't want to see people being ripped off, all you can do is ensure you don't engage in nefarious activities yourself and casually point things out if engaged in an exchange of views. What you can't do is stop CGS making a business out of grading and slabbing. Every business on this planet provides a product or service that customers perceive as being too difficult or time consuming for them to do, or else they have convinced themselves that they need whatever is on offer. All of us rely on others to provide the items or functions that we are not self-sufficient in. Being charged £200 for something that will return a tenner and feeling a t**t is the best education anyone could get. Less useful would be you to save someone the grief this time round, only for them to make an even greater mistake the next time. Being told something isn't as educational as a kick in the b******s.

Dealers might accept cheques from people at fairs, but only ones you know could pass a cheque over and take the goods with them. Everyone else waits.

Spink give £275 fine and £700 in VF (which doesn't come into it). It doesn't make fine in my opinion, so work down from the first figure to say £200 tops. Based on prices, this is one of the commonest varieties of 1/4 noble. It would be a rarer type if the pellet in the centre was replaced with an E.

Not entirely! The banjo player is my best mate's daughters boyfriend so they all know my secret...if you know what you're looking for, which of course most of you won't, you can see my hair bouncing around far left through most of that vid. They will be back at the Prince Albert Stu, I'm sure, so we should organise it... Given you didn't show your face, even deciding which hair was yours in that company was a big ask.

Welcome. Florins are not the easiest to collect if you want mint state pieces. If you do - then the best of luck. If you don't, you should do ok.

Perhaps I could pay you $1.75 plus postage to have a look at them after you? I'm just saving up a few images from eBay past sales, and I'd feel confident in saying the better ones are cast complete with the full edge attached to the obverse, with the reverse inset into it. That's me spent up for the month. Can't afford anything until Slaney 2 now.

Just ordered one each of the two varieties of Northumberland currently available on Alibaba. At $3.50 for the pair including postage it seems to be the easiest way to reverse engineer them.

Here's another I've borrowed with the owner's consent for the purposes of this exercise. There is a fine, but sharp flaw leading out from near the base of the first G which crosses the first depression up in the drapery folds before ending at the vertical straps. That is on my coin too, but doesn't appear on the obvious fakes. Trying to sort out when that appears will help with the chronological indicators. There is also a flaw which forms across the tops of the right hand letters in reverse from AIT, then dips slightly to cross the A at the inner apex of the two legs, then out to the top of the R, continuing in an arc to join the teeth and on my coin ends at the tooth to the left of the stop. This is seen on most examples if I recall, but this last one is not on the attached image, suggesting an early strike..

One thing that stands out on the obvious fakes on the previous page is the shape of the 3 top laurel leaf tips. All appear to be slightly rounded whereas the ones that purport to be ok are quite pointed.

The problem with the image taken from Greuber is that I have to try to hold the page flat whilst taking the image. As it is bound, over 100 years old and in immaculate condition, I don't want to wreck the binding. I've got a Northumberland, but isn't the best, struggling towards aEF. It has a broken G, O and R, but is also slightly mistruck below the clasp and has a haymark, which when taken with the milling (middle one of the three edges above), inclines me to believe it is kosher. Mistriking could lead to defective letters. Pics attached.

There might be some mileage in checking the edges. Every shilling I possess from W3 up to the 1787 issues with the exception of my 1750 has evidence of apparent double cutting on a short section of the diagonal milling. As this is different on each coin, I'm assuming that it is due to the way the edge was put on. I don't know for certain, but think it was put on by rolling it using Castaing edging equipment or similar where the blanks were rolled along a strip containing the edge required. We know the lettered edges used on the larger denominations were done in this way because you see overlaid letters on the Anne pattern halfpennies (P708-11 and other edges not listed in Peck). e.g. My lettered edge halfpenny reads DECVS•ET•TVTA[M]NNO•REGNI•DVODECI+•+• with only the left hand limb of the M present. These are all unique to the coin in question, so it is not unreasonable to assume the diagonal milling would be any different if applied in this manner and this is what I see on at least a dozen coins over a 100 year period. So the next step to pursue this would be for others to confirm what I have written above, and if anyone has an obviously dodgy Northumberland shilling, to check the milling. Hopefully you can see what I mean with the attached image. It is inconceivable that the copies were made after the edge was applied using the traditional method, so any known dodgy piece should have an edge that is consistent across the copies. It may have a slight mismatch in position relative to the two sides between batches, but the milling profile should remain constant between copies.