Rob

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'.

More likely to be a die flaw than an overstruck date. There are no known 20th century penny overdates to my knowledge, or for that matter halfpennies or farthings. The mint had got its act together by this time and with everything reduced down from the original engraving, the scope for manually changing dies was virtually eliminated.

People should join and complain about the language if they get offended. Virtually all of the 'offensive' language is used with particular reference to individuals who are taking others for a ride in the mind of the speaker(s). Nobody is going to be castigated for not saying something offensive. Far better that more people contribute to a debate than abstain as everyone has something to bring to the table. The question then would be, 'Who will be the first person to get a warning point?'. Personally, I quite like the concept of cyberstocks but need to think through how it would be applied.

Of rather more use is the message it conveys. If someone is acting underhand thinking they will not be rumbled, you can rest assured that in a face to face situation they are probably acting in a similar manner whilst still trying to maintain an air of respectability. A leopard doesn't change its spots. Either way it is likely you are being ripped off.

Although the top image isn't clear, there is also an extra line running down the side of the bottom A. This would be an example of a double cut letter, but as dies were engraved on a reducing machine by this time must be on the master. Some of the letters appear to be a bit thicker, but that might just be down to wear. The more worn the coin the wider they appear because the sides of the letters are bevelled. If there are differences in the punches used for letters on both obverses this would imply two masters, but it would be unwise to claim that on the basis of a worn coin and would require comparing two mint state examples. You also get die blocking, so the apparent profile of a character changes, but this is due to the fine incuse detail on the die filling with metal particles produced during striking and is quite common on worn dies.

I suspect what you see may depend on what you have or have not done, with or without your knowledge or intent. I am not aware that I have ever marked a forum as read, but only three give me the option of doing so. I can't see a first unread post or latest topic anywhere. Presumably it recognises what I have looked at in the past, but how I wouldn't like to speculate. As one of the three not marked as read is a week old since the last post and another has had a reply from me within the last week it all seems rather random. A little experiment clicking on the forum with the presumably 'unread' thread has resulted in it now being marked as read. Bizarrely, I had previously read the thread down to the last post, but this didn't mark it as read. This is probably a good reason for us all to have our various markers as to what needs to be read and what not. Ironically, the one forum that doesn't seem to mark as read of its own accord is this one! Does this post exist? I can read it but is it just a figment of my imagination? Is this all a dream? Does this forum exist?

It's a very useful die. I was talking in terms of die sequencing.

It's a very useful die.

I concur. Almost all of them appear to have some minor defect or other.

I would feel the same way. This is Brooker 1083, which shows how good the damaged one was before the mark was made. The figure of 1K was plucked out of the air, but shouldn't be too wide of the mark based on the Brooker coin selling for over £3K. The lustre on the Brooker piece makes it win hands down.

It's killed it. From being a 2K coin to a 1K coin, but you would probably have difficulty shifting it with the gouge. There is a better 3B out there, such as Brooker 1083 which was on the market earlier this year. That one has virtually full lustre and is effectively mint state. I wouldn't want a coin which had that gouge, however good the rest of it.

I decided I needed a life. His basic problem is that if a proof is listed in Spink for a type, what he lists is a proof. So here we have a bog standard worn 1937 crown, but it must be a proof and fortunately for this imbecile, a Matt Proof is listed. ipso facto he has an extremely rare matt proof - coz it isn't shiny like the rest of them. Price it a bit higher than the regular proof and you arrive at the listing. Spink apparently has the complete list of coins, so only one 1806 proof halfpenny exists and Peck wasted 10 years of his life writing the book. He said he has been collecting/dealing for 54 years. The last 53 have been wasted.The last 53 wasted? I'd say the last 54 were True, but Peck was first published 53 years ago. Before that, the standard reference for proofs and patterns was Montagu (1893)

Thanks chaps.

I decided I needed a life. His basic problem is that if a proof is listed in Spink for a type, what he lists is a proof. So here we have a bog standard worn 1937 crown, but it must be a proof and fortunately for this imbecile, a Matt Proof is listed. ipso facto he has an extremely rare matt proof - coz it isn't shiny like the rest of them. Price it a bit higher than the regular proof and you arrive at the listing. Spink apparently has the complete list of coins, so only one 1806 proof halfpenny exists and Peck wasted 10 years of his life writing the book. He said he has been collecting/dealing for 54 years. The last 53 have been wasted.

All of it. I deal, collect and question marks are as a red rag to a bull leading me to spend large amounts of time understanding the unexplained.

I think it's a rerun of an old article. i.e. they were scratching about for something to fill this month's pages. As for selling it, I don't think so. It is too useful as a research piece for the provincial mints I am working on to get rid. In fact I could do with lots more coins of various types but in a similar condition.

Could be a reversed C?