Rob

Are you talking about the pictures here (above), Rob? I'm not sure that any email is involved? It's just either an internal attachment on this site, or a direct link to somewhere like Photobucket. I'm not sure how Outlook can block pictures on a website - I rather think you've got a browser issue. No, pictures on this website and other are fine. It is outlook telling you that outlook blocked the pictures to protect your privacy but they can be downloaded by right-clicking. This is complete b****cks. If it wanted to protect my privacy, all it has to do is stop the emails. This happens too often anyway such as failing to recognise an email from the wife in another room of the house is probably legitimate. Having decided to allow the email through, outlook should include all the content. I haven't got time to download everything separately because I probably get 20-30 a day, so all these emails get binned. If outlook decides a BT or CNG logo is pornographic or whatever reason and not fit for the eyes of a broad minded 55 year old it blocks it, there's no hope. I should change from Outlook to Windows Live, or Outlook's 'big brother' Exchange , if I were you. Apple's Mail "hides" images in any email it's marked as Junk, but if you click Not Junk, the images are all there, and next time it won't mark that sender as Junk. Don't have the alternatives on my computer, but it isn't worth buying them unless I know it will solve the problem. What someone needs to come up with is an intelligent facility for the user to tell microsoft who is acceptable & who not. If the system was able to learn from your assigning junk/not junk status to a sender, there would be little need for outlook to block most of those things it currently does.

http://stacksbowers.com/auctions/auctionlots.aspx?auctionid=192&sessionid=436 Link to the August sale. It starts with page 10 as that's where the British coins commence but you should be able to search from there for anything else. Thanks Richard. I see that lot 34819 is yet another incorrect slab attribution. P1243 instead of 1233 for anyone who wants to know. 34805 is worth chasing if anyone wants a DH11 with guilloche edge. A lot harder than the 966 and that looks a nice example.

Are you talking about the pictures here (above), Rob? I'm not sure that any email is involved? It's just either an internal attachment on this site, or a direct link to somewhere like Photobucket. I'm not sure how Outlook can block pictures on a website - I rather think you've got a browser issue. No, pictures on this website and other are fine. It is outlook telling you that outlook blocked the pictures to protect your privacy but they can be downloaded by right-clicking. This is complete b****cks. If it wanted to protect my privacy, all it has to do is stop the emails. This happens too often anyway such as failing to recognise an email from the wife in another room of the house is probably legitimate. Having decided to allow the email through, outlook should include all the content. I haven't got time to download everything separately because I probably get 20-30 a day, so all these emails get binned. If outlook decides a BT or CNG logo is pornographic or whatever reason and not fit for the eyes of a broad minded 55 year old it blocks it, there's no hope.

Need a link please. Unfortunately, since I replaced my computer three years ago, Outlook blocks most of what is in an email. Attachments get through IF the email gets through, but any pictures contained within the email don't and get removed by Outlook. All incoming items from Stacks (and most other salerooms) fall into this category. At least the physical catalogues are legible when I receive them.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1p-1-Pence-One-Penny-Coin-Buy-It-Now-Auction-/261262763900?pt=UK_Coins_OtherBritish_RL&hash=item3cd479677c The about me page is somewhat enlightening. Glass houses, stones, black pots and kettles etc spring to mind. Assistance with the translation can be found http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/documents/egenproc/egenproc.pdf here

Could be guide lines for the engraver. The circle appears to touch the tips of the lis on the tressure. Wire lines are commonly seen on hammered coins where there is no beaded circle present at that point. so for example. this type 3 shilling reverse has one to tell the engraver where to place the letter bases.

Probably not if you call names. Anyway, it doesn't tick boxes as a blatant attempt to deceive given the estimate, so must go down as a genuine mistake coupled with a faulty proof reader.

I think you will have to add some grades to the pieces you have for disposal before anyone would be interested. It is not just a simple case of all coins being equal and you just swap them at random. Some will be higher in value than the others, e.g. I admire your optimism and assume it is added in for completion's sake, but I think the idea of a copper 1860 being available for swaps is somewhat naive. I'd like one too. They can be picked up for somewhere between £5-10K and the total number known can probably be counted on your fingers..

Welcome to the forum William. It's always good to find young people joining the ranks, particularly those that are interested enough to read about the background and learn their subject in greater depth which you must have done to get to this forum. You will find a lot of penny collectors on here, but fewer farthing and halfpenny collectors as the large coins are the most popular. Your end date is a little odd given the £sd coins were only issued for another 17 years - any reason other than being a contrarian? Post your wish-list and you might find a few of them are available. Also people will give a heads up if they know what someone is looking for.

I remember...and just who was that girl/woman? Err what woman, are you thinking of The High Chaparrel (Linda Cristal) I presume we are talking television here? Leaving aside the name which is irrelevant. How irregular? Any worthwhile pictures? (says he in anticipation ) Linda Cristal played Victoria. I'm struggling to find any decent pictures of her.....or indecent 1960s I presume? We didn't have a tv then and only got one in 1971 when my younger sister insisted she was missing out. She still watches her LCD tv to this day (Lowest common denominator television)

Definite EL, which is printed as part of the catalogue. Eaglen doesn't even mention him, let alone show tickets

I remember...and just who was that girl/woman? Err what woman, are you thinking of The High Chaparrel (Linda Cristal) I presume we are talking television here? Leaving aside the name which is irrelevant. How irregular? Any worthwhile pictures? (says he in anticipation )

Luckily they are doing 2 for 1 at the moment. Use the first pair to do a bit of background reading, and the second to correct your faulty eyesight. See previous post.

Link I can't see either an 8 or a 7 - just a 3 or a 5 partly obscured by a blob. It's an 8. The 8 isn't conventional on Eliz.1 coins having a flat top to one loop and rounded on the other. A 1563 or 1565 dated coin with the coronet mark would be an anomaly as the mark was only current from 1/7/1567 until 28/2/1570. It wouldn't stay listed for long if genuine.

I had a 1938 penny a few years ago with the same feature and I was inclined towards a genuinely faulty blank. I think an acid induced hole would be more regular and have smooth sides. If it has to be post-production, where does this leave my York shilling in the thread a week or two ago in this section of the forum?

Fewer a's, more question marks and an explanation please. What on earth are you on about?

Personally I don't think it makes any difference whether you use sniper or sit there with a mental maximum. The highest bid will win either way. What is more frustrating is when a like minded person with deeper pockets outbids you on something you have already pushed the boat out on. My first eBay encounter with GC about 10 years ago was one such event. Having identified a 1718 1/2d with most lustre and EF, I placed what I thought had to be a winning bid with seconds to go and duly came second - even though we were several hundreds above 3rd place, who had bid roughly book price. Nice coin though and worth every penny.

I don't it would be possible to be offensive with binary - the biggest you could get is a 1. Hexadecimal would be a different matter though, lots of potential Fs

I doubt it, we are talking almost immediately post war here. He retired in the late 70s or 80s(?). Tsk tsk. The first computer was invented in the 1930s, and was originally intended to be an electronic calculator. Addition and subtraction machines had been long used - analogue decimal machines - but the only way they could get multiplication and division automated was by using binary (in binary, both processes are essentially achieved by adding and subtracting). So he COULD have used binary, especially as the rush to patent occurred immediately post-war. I know what you're thinking : "It's all Geek to me" I know what you are saying, but for the masses binary wasn't common knowledge. Most people of his generation left school at 14, and binary didn't come into their maths lessons. True enough, but we don't know that he wasn't also a bit of a techie buff on the side, keeping up with all the - well publicised - advances and to-ing and fro-ing in the fledgling computer industry. Remember, it was the height of the sci-fi era back then, and more people than you'd think were interested in all that, with popular magazines devoted to radio, electronics, science, etc. You're just being contentious. You would need to be brain of Britain to formulate a coding using binary that was practical. It has to be something easy to remember, and even if the letters stood for binary, that would mean all prices would have to consist of 0 & 1. A binary figure as a code could translate to a number, but a letter to a binary number would give you prices such as £1101011. All this in an era when a decent hammered halfcrown went for a few quid. I think not.

I doubt it, we are talking almost immediately post war here. He retired in the late 70s or 80s(?). Tsk tsk. The first computer was invented in the 1930s, and was originally intended to be an electronic calculator. Addition and subtraction machines had been long used - analogue decimal machines - but the only way they could get multiplication and division automated was by using binary (in binary, both processes are essentially achieved by adding and subtracting). So he COULD have used binary, especially as the rush to patent occurred immediately post-war. I know what you're thinking : "It's all Geek to me" I know what you are saying, but for the masses binary wasn't common knowledge. Most people of his generation left school at 14, and binary didn't come into their maths lessons.

I doubt it, we are talking almost immediately post war here. He retired in the late 70s or 80s(?).

Just a guess, but a buyer looking through a box of envelopes marked "EH/Z/Z" "BEE/Z/Z" "SEE/Z/Z" "DEE/Z/Z" ... etc, might soon crack the code To put it into context, Foster 80 was a lot of 2 silver Soho patterns (1788 & 1790) which sold for £11/10/-. Lot 79 sold for £7! and contained current pennies 1806 x2, 1807, 1/2d 1807, 1/4d 1806 & 1807. Proof 1d 1806 x4 (bronzed, copper and gilt x2), halfpennies 1806 x7, 1807 gilt (non-mint) and Ag proof, farthings bronzes and gilt. Some in original shells, all extremely fine. £7 was a bargain. He had a silver proof 1797 2d for £25 - wasn't Foster 74 which was bought by Baldwin for £27. £12 would therefore be reasonable, but the markup on £7 for 20 pieces outrageous.

No, it's an old one. I've had the coin about 6 years after Spink listed it together with Selig's 1806 silver proof halfpenny in the Circular. The background used varies depending on what seems to give the most realistically coloured image.

If you would think on a slightly more grandiose scale, you would find a ready supply of up to 19 million Chuchill crowns.

Is there anyone out there who knows the late dealer Geoffrey Hearn's cost codings? I have an 1807 silver proof halfpenny which I am fairly minded to conclude is probably unique and was produced as a set of 3 (gold, silver and bronze) as the variety is virtually unknown from auction catalogues. If not unique there can't be more than one or two others hidden away. Documented examples I have found are Murdoch (III) lot 304 part (3) Sotheby 1904, brilliant mint state; Foster 79 part (20) Glens 19/10/1953 extremely fine, bought Hearn and reappeared as lot 228 in 'Coins from Geoffrey Hearn's Collection' part 2 in December 1954 which was issued in catalogue form but with fixed prices; H Selig 1408, Spink 131 2/3/1999 ex SNC 4/1982 no.2953. It was unsold in Selig and stayed with Spink until I purchased it a few years ago. Infuriatingly, every 'lot' in Hearn's catalogue has a price against it except for the silver 1807 proof halfpenny which has the cost code EL/Z/Z. An educated guess says that Z = 0 because the only sensible alternative price would end in 6d, but £xx/6/6d doesn't sound right either. E realistically has to be either 1 or 2, with L=?. A silver 1797 2d was in the list at £25. Any older members out there know? For the record, the coin is EF+ with a couple of light scratches in the reverse field which would tie in well with the Foster catalogue. You would not expect a silver 1807 proof 1/2d to be lumped in a bulk lot of 20 unless impaired in some way. Uncirculated in Hearn's catalogue is dealer hype as is Spink's description in the Selig catalogue of 'Practically as Struck'.