Rob

The above image shows the effect on a 1932 halfpenny. In order to standardise conditions as far as possible, there are three coins from the same year which should mean that they share a common master engraving before reduction, if not the same die. The two decent coins are full weight at 5.65g whilst the middle one is a miserable 2.49g. Unfortunately I got rid of it 5 or 6 years ago, so the montage had to be assembled from old images. As seen, there is no rim, the legend is thinned compared to normal and the detail is lost. The weight of 2.49g is 44% of normal. There are also more subtle indicators of physical removal of surface metal such as the border teeth which are thin lines compared to the normal podgy fingers or the small indent near the front of George's nose just before the end which is in lower relief at this point. I standardised the images as best I could by measuring the distance from edge to edge on the thin one and matching it to the others such that the distance to the inside of the rim was the same on all three coins, as we can say for certain that there would be no lateral movement of the design. In fact the thin one is 1% larger at this dimension, but the distance from truncation tip to the top of the head on a line to the colon at 12 o'clock is roughly 1.5% less on the thin one when compared to the original version indicating that material has been lost by a sideways or at least an oblique angle attack. I have tried to explain what would happen on this drawing. To explain the depression around the letters and the head on your coin, assume that the flan starts with a homogenous crystal lattice. I know nothing is perfect and as an alloy is involved with different sizes of atoms this is inherently so, but some things are more perfect than others. When a coin is struck, metal flows into the recesses of the die and forms the features seen. This will disrupt the lattice structure at the flow points leading to structural weakness due to broken atomic bonds. In effect, you get microscopic fissures on the surface of the flan at the atomic level. It is these points that would be subject to a greater degree of acidic attack because they would allow a deeper penetration of the acid when compared to an unaffected surface which would retain atom to atom to atom bonds in the pattern dictated by the metal concerned. Deeper than normal penetration into the flan surface at the previously stressed points combined with ongoing horizontal chemical reactions in the same manner as would affect the legend, will result in the areas of metal flow being hollowed out at a faster rate than would otherwise be obtained on an intact crystal lattice. Obviously there will be anomalies within the flan and other environmental variables which would result in some inconsistencies, but it shows the overall picture - I hope. It would apply to both silver and base coins equally, but not gold except for the impurities contained within the metal mix.

Or acidic soil, or in a drain somewhere, or.......... It has all the hallmarks of a chemical attack, notably the depression around the letters and the letters are sharpened giving the effect that they are honed to a knife edge.

Grease on the first one, acid attack on the second. The legend has a depression surrounding the letters which is consistent with this chemical reaction. There will be stress fractures associated with metal flow where the legend was formed leading to a deeper ingress of the reactant and consequently more damage caused.

You are probably ahead of most dealers over here who wouldn't monitor the gold or silver price in the middle of the night. With gold falling nearly £100/$150 in 24 hours, someone is going to get their fingers burnt. Actually, make that lots of people. I read the commercial and supply rationale for the falls, but the world is no more stable now than it was last week or last month. If North Korea does anything stupid, it will rebound in a flash.

I have to confess I nicked the image, so no reverse. BTW, these make for a wonderful discus if you obey a simple rule. Just be careful where you throw it and remember, crusty side in the palm of your hand.

I know quite a few professional workers with remortgages that have them in a neutral (at best) situation, after 10-15yrs of paying their mortgages. I even know of one person who took the endowment route in the 80's, and were massively let down by the second component, to the degree that a couple of the apparently 'usual' remortgages has left them with negative equity after a 30yr spell of home ownership, and crippling repayments! The greatest irony is they still view themselves amongst the proud elite, as a homeowner? A very interesting family of sheep is this our great and proud society! The only change to the mortgage I ever contemplated and did was to almost pay it off as soon as, leaving 50p outstanding to ensure they looked after the deeds. Best thing I ever did and one of life's unforgettable pleasurable moments. Which is why when the politicians were in the dock for falsifying expenses with one claiming he had forgotten it was paid off, my obvious reaction was complete and utter

That's because many of the housing market constraints were lifted by the easy access to mortgages whereas the coin market still operates in the same fashion that it did fifty years ago. More or less without exception, people do not borrow to buy coins - certainly not as a collector. i.e they are paid for with ready cash deposits. Houses on the other hand are purchased partly with debt, so that a fairer assessment would be to compare the average net asset value of the individuals' houses, i.e subtract the value of the mortgages outstanding from the retail value of the housing stock. I don't know what the numbers are and don't have time to do the research, but I'm certain the divide will narrow quite sharply. Could it even swing the other way?

Have you got a consistent lighting set-up? Also, I don't know what the function's called, but their was an F setting on my camera that needed fine-tuning to stop the camera from focusing on the background instead of the coin (something to do with depth of field, I think? Maybe this is what's giving you some blurred shots? Nick would probably know more! The F-stop is a measure of aperture size. Large apertures give small F-numbers and vice-versa. The larger F-numbers give greater depth of field, which dictates how much of the detail nearer than and further away than the focus point appears in focus. In the case of Rob's obverse picture, adjusting the depth of field won't help because none of it is in perfect focus. It means that the "auto" focus hasn't. Autofocus works by adjusting the focus until maximum contrast is obtained within the focus region, which means that if the focus region contains a monotone colour and no features then AF can struggle. In cases such as these, I usually move the coin off-centre so that either the legend or the rim are in the focus region, so that the AF system can see some contrast. Having said that, I don't believe that the Nikon AF system is particularly good. Unsurprisingly, I concur. But I can also see an advantage in having a background with detail such as Stuart uses. If your Nikon has a LiveView mode, try using that as you can move the focus rectangle to any part of the view. This might be difficult to ascertain. I lost the manual ages ago. I think it did a runner courtesy of Lord Lucan riding Shergar along with my copy of Murdoch part 1. You might be surprised what you can find on the Internet... Remarkably there appears to be over 100 web pages devoted to manuals or problem solutions for an obsolete camera which I will need to peruse! A lot of people must have a lot of spare time to waste as you wouldn't think that people could get so passionate about what is essentially a tool.

I also can't stand the abbreviated nonsense, again all in lower case! c u tmoz 4 t dont b l8 It's alright, I've just had an enquiry on the website that I will have to decipher. If not immediately obvious, I will ask them to clarify in English.

People who text in a continuous stream of lower case letters, whose only concession to the concept of punctuation is to add a colon in order to make a smiley. The codes for which they know off by heart, needless to say.

Blimey Declan! That capsule must be the size of a side-plate. Inner Diameter = 65.00 mm, Outer Diameter = 71.374 mm and the inside depth = 5.486 mm. The ring would have an inner diameter of 41 mm and an outer diameter of 65 mm. Course I now have to work out where to put the capsule, it obviously won't fit in those boxes with the flips, but at least the coin is safe! Buy another three cartwheel tuppences, put them in these capsules, drill a hole through all four, mount them on cocktail sticks and you can provide transport for the rest of the collection which will be contained within the chassis. As least you can have confidence the wheels will withstand the journey and the foam adds suspension.

Not at that price. It is worn quite a bit on both sides. I would have thought something in the £25-35 ballpark. On the plus side, it is remarkably free of edge knocks which makes it more desirable, so perhaps you could up it marginally.

Have you got a consistent lighting set-up? Also, I don't know what the function's called, but their was an F setting on my camera that needed fine-tuning to stop the camera from focusing on the background instead of the coin (something to do with depth of field, I think? Maybe this is what's giving you some blurred shots? Nick would probably know more! The F-stop is a measure of aperture size. Large apertures give small F-numbers and vice-versa. The larger F-numbers give greater depth of field, which dictates how much of the detail nearer than and further away than the focus point appears in focus. In the case of Rob's obverse picture, adjusting the depth of field won't help because none of it is in perfect focus. It means that the "auto" focus hasn't. Autofocus works by adjusting the focus until maximum contrast is obtained within the focus region, which means that if the focus region contains a monotone colour and no features then AF can struggle. In cases such as these, I usually move the coin off-centre so that either the legend or the rim are in the focus region, so that the AF system can see some contrast. Having said that, I don't believe that the Nikon AF system is particularly good. Unsurprisingly, I concur. But I can also see an advantage in having a background with detail such as Stuart uses. If your Nikon has a LiveView mode, try using that as you can move the focus rectangle to any part of the view. This might be difficult to ascertain. I lost the manual ages ago. I think it did a runner courtesy of Lord Lucan riding Shergar along with my copy of Murdoch part 1.

Have you got a consistent lighting set-up? Also, I don't know what the function's called, but their was an F setting on my camera that needed fine-tuning to stop the camera from focusing on the background instead of the coin (something to do with depth of field, I think? Maybe this is what's giving you some blurred shots? Nick would probably know more! The F-stop is a measure of aperture size. Large apertures give small F-numbers and vice-versa. The larger F-numbers give greater depth of field, which dictates how much of the detail nearer than and further away than the focus point appears in focus. In the case of Rob's obverse picture, adjusting the depth of field won't help because none of it is in perfect focus. It means that the "auto" focus hasn't. Autofocus works by adjusting the focus until maximum contrast is obtained within the focus region, which means that if the focus region contains a monotone colour and no features then AF can struggle. In cases such as these, I usually move the coin off-centre so that either the legend or the rim are in the focus region, so that the AF system can see some contrast. Having said that, I don't believe that the Nikon AF system is particularly good. Unsurprisingly, I concur. But I can also see an advantage in having a background with detail such as Stuart uses.

Very good. Tripod, no hands and a Nikon using autofocus(?) link Not so good. Colour's good, and the reverse is pretty damn sharp, just a little out of focus on the obverse, that's all! You can have one with the obverse in focus and the reverse not, or both not, or both in focus. You can also have images that are totally wrong in colour. Take your pick.

I have often thought about getting my PL67 crown re-slabbed and sent of to the likes of Heritage. The problem is the slabbing, to get it put back into it's PCGS slab is very involved and expensive for a one off unless you are a member. You are also assuming it is going to make a similar grade or attribution as it did previously. I sold a US customer a proof halfpenny (P1235) that had previously graded 64. It came back as a currency strike MS62. Easy money if you can make it with no comeback.

Very good. Tripod, no hands and a Nikon using autofocus(?) link Not so good.

I will admit to having a chuckle when I saw that description. The more so that the close up photo of the coin does not really match the hyperbole. As a sixpence collector, this and other coins in the auction do interest me. But the prices are completely over the top. Which is a shame as I would have been willing to drop a decent number of dollars at prices which more accurately matched what I believe to be the value of the coins. I have bid and won a few times at Heritage in their weekly internet auctions and, usually, the prices are more or less what one would expect. But this particular auction seems to be completely over the top. I don't know if this is due to unrealistic reserves being set by sellers or by an auction house trying to manipulate market prices. It will be interesting to see how much success they have. You've hit the nail on the head Jaggy, OTT prices coupled with market manipulation. I said it before in a thread a few months back, but Heritage normally start the bidding at Spink book for grade and work upwards from there. Just because a Common 1853 sixpence is a Good UNC does'nt mean i want to pay 3 times over Spinks price guide. Of course, a quality soecimen i would have thought in the £259-£350 range, but over £1300 is a bloody joke if it Hits top estimate, in fact the £650 start price is a joke, thats Double what spink Rate a UNC at , and checking back on Londoncoins previous auctuons, best i can see sold for £160 in 2011 and another in UNC or near so in 2012 for £135 That's because 1853 isn't a rare date.

Not wanting to buy it Rob, its the BS description that comes With it to Hype the bidders into a frenzy for a Common date coin and then whio in an OTT start and estimate price That really gets on my nipple ends Yes, but that's part and parcel of the estimate. Nobody is going to list a lot described as a decent example and then expect it to sell for multiples of its normal market value. It isn't any different to all those on ebay who extol the virtues of their listings, just that with eBay you are a bit more circumspect knowing who is likely to be the seller. In many US eyes, a 68 is an abnormality that should be pursued - hence the high estimate. It only needs one person to put a bid in at the reserve and it's sold. Many people buy the number just to improve their set ranking.

It is just another example of Heritage (and others) pandering to the number assigned by the TPG. Once a coin gets a number above 65 or 66, US buyers will pay way over the odds based on another's numerical opinion. Leave it. Nobody says you have to buy it.

Know anyone, Rob? I'll have one if you do? Me. Not for sale, but I paid £50-60 for it a few years ago.

You get proof-like halfpennies. Well worth a premium.

A grain of truth in the description. The main feature which is the corrosion is clear and it has been honed to a fine point in the various places as the crystals have grown.

A type set would comprise one of each denomination for an issue. So predecimal Eliz. II would have a farthing, halfpenny, penny, threepence, sixpence, shillings (English & Scottish), florin, half crown and possibly all three crowns. You could extend that to include a maundy set and a sovereign if desired and also a 1953 set because they were the only coins of the reign with BRITT OMN in the legend. George VI would be the same base and silver denominations, but the silver threepence would be extra. Again you have the early coins with IND IMP, but following Indian independence, this was dropped from 1949. George V has 925 silver, 500 silver, ME coins and the final issues. You can make your criteria as wide or as narrow as you feel comfortable with, but it gives mental encouragement if you know you can complete a set.

The last question is the easiest to answer - Yes. When you start out you can't hope to know what you will prefer in the future, but once you have a focal point it is easier to decide what you can afford in terms of grade. By all means choose a single denomination if it suits you. Once you go into the realms of varieties there isn't a hope in hell of completing a series, so make the best of what you can achieve. If you like coins in a certain grade, then stick with them throughout the series as it gives a more balanced visionary impact. A single blazing BU coin will stand out like a sore thumb in a tray of fines. The converse is true as well, but in this instance it is likely to be low grade because that's all there is available. There is no right or wrong thing to collect because you are doing it for personal pleasure. If you have already decided that you are not going to collect silver back to 1880 on the grounds of price, I would suggest you collect anything that appeals. A collection doesn't have to be focussed on a certain denomination, so maybe a type set of each reign is what you will gravitate to. It means that you can probably do the entire hundred years at reasonable cost because you don't have the expensive key dates to worry about. Whitman folders are not a good idea. All card produced in recent times is acidic from the bleaching process, so you should avoid contact with paper other than that produced by traditional methods. The 2x2 paper envelopes are acid free for example. Filling gaps as quickly as possible is not a good way to go about it in my view. Better to wait for the right coin for you to come along. Patience is very important when building a collection.