Peckris

Yes, that's the normal colour of a coin that's been buried a long time. Ignore the hype of eBay sellers - they will claim all kinds of weird and wonderful things as "rare", "unique", etc. The recut of dates was usually done on the final figure of the date, as the date punches for the dies were either 18-- (last two digits blank), or created for a decade, like 186-. When it came to the final digit on the dies, yes they would punch them in individually, which is why you see such a variety of spacings and angles of final digit. This is especially true for 1861 and 1862, which was a combination of 1) the early days of bronze coinage production and 2) very high mintages (which was also the case in 1863, then it tailed off dramatically). Bottom line - a recut 1 over 1 on a particular die for this particular date is not terribly exciting though it is interesting if you collect such things. A worn one for £26 obviously attracted one such collector, so if you put yours on eBay you might attract another, who knows?

Are the 1927 sets in cardboard cases supposed to be in any way inferior? (I'm assuming not). Is there much of a premium for a set in a leather case, if so, how much?

Cool! The thin remaining diagonal of the N is presumably the last bit they couldn't quite fill in?

Dave's favourite seller! (That mat's been DIPPED). And you can get them from here for £12 cheaper http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/271321735117?hlpht=true&ops=true&viphx=1&lpid=95&device=c&adtype=pla&crdt=0&ff3=1&ff11=ICEP3.0.0&ff12=67&ff13=80&ff14=95&ff19=0

Dave's favourite seller! (That mat's been DIPPED).

I'm not sure I agree as far as coins are concerned. Unless it's a ghastly AT 'rainbow' coin, most coins have a narrow dynamic range - i.e., they are a single object where the desired effect is a flat even lighting rather than one which has introduced highlights and shadows beyond the minimum required to make out the design. That's exactly why a few 20th Century proofs were produced using 'sandblasted dies' - this was to flatten the tone for photographic purposes. Admittedly as coins, they aren't the prettiest, but for the purpose of showing every last bit of detail (the detail, the whole detail, and nothing but the detail), they did the job. Now, if one is photographing coins as if jewellery, then fine - I'd go along with you 100%. But if recording a historical artefact, then I'd say a narrow dynamic range is the ideal. That's why I say that in my opinion, your middle right shot is better than the bottom right, which is where we began this whole debate. To be honest, I have to say that lustre can be shown by scanning as well... You have an excellent scanner ChKy! (I'm pretty sure mine doesn't give results like that).

The higher the angle, the wider the dynamic range of the image (as you can see from the histograms I provided). As the angle decreases, the "flatter" the image looks (i.e., the histogram compresses into a narrow region of indistinguishable hues). Photographically, the optimal image is that produced with the highest angle of light. This doesn't guarantee that the image is optimal to the subjective tastes of each individual. I never said my method was the best or any such thing. All things are subjective, and people should take the bits they find useful, and discard the others. I was only posting this as "some food for thought". There is no magical coin photography/imaging method. I have been "tweaking" for years, and will continue to do so. That's exactly what I was saying. HDR photography is all about COMPRESSING the tonal extremes BECAUSE of the high range, by subduing highlights and bringing out detail in shadow areas (though much of what passes for "HDR" is actually nothing of the sort - it's tone mapping). That's why I said your row 2 shot 50º was what I thought the best for coins, in that it preserved full detail without over-emphasizing any part of it, but also giving a modest indication of lustre which scans entirely lack. But to repeat what I said before, and which you acknowledged - it's all subjective. However, your 'food for thought' is most valuable, and if I was able to photograph coins, I would immediately set to and try your method out.

That does look interesting, and there's a Mac version too. It says it's a document camera - I would hope it has enough depth of field for even the most raised or deep engraved coin design? (I'm especially thinking 1797 twopence here). One problem is that unlike one rival, it doesn't come with a built-in LED light.

"Green" is normal for buried coins. Your photo above isn't green in any way - it's a whitish silvery colour.

In my opinion, your best result by far, is the mid-angle 50º shot (3rd, i.e. "Both"). It combines the evenness of detail of a scan, with the tonal values of a photograph - in other words it's the ideal compromise. Your 80º shot has too much unevenness of tone especially in the reflections, and over-emphasizes portions of the design as shown by the dark shadow to the right of the profile. Also, the signature has almost disappeared and there are unnatural reflections at the edge at 12, 4, and 8 o'clock. By contrast, the 50º shot seems closest to the HDR ideal that coin photography requires. Of course, in the end it's all subjective, I'm sure you'll agree. But that's exactly what I'm trying to say in this post. Others here would I'm sure benefit from your valuable experimenting, but rather than accept your judgement as to the best result, should tweak the set-up to obtain what they feel are the best results.

The obverse legend has been part destroyed, perhaps by soldering (to create a ring?) - but there is definitely N over something in PENCE.

The whole of the coin - it's a whitish colour that copper and bronze doesn't usually have unless it's been coated in something like silver (compound) or chrome or even some kind of paint, though yours doesn't look painted.

That's the scanner Peck. Here is an example with my newer printer scanner and while it's another coin I think it just lacks something in comparison with the earlier example. I think if you have a scanner that produces acceptable results, great. But I just don't seem to be able to find how to tweak the images to my satisfaction with this one. xxxxxxx.jpg Superb for detail, and would be ideal for a book illustration. But yes, the overall tone leaves something to be desired.

The phenomenon you point to is where a date numeral on the die has been recut, usually due to wear - there are a lot of variations on the first few years of bun pennies 1860-63. That's what you have there. What's more interesting is the metal - it appears to be silver or something similar like aluminium or cupro-nickel. Is it really that colour?

Picture please.

, maybe they did, but none escaped or any that did were not noticed. When you and I were checking 5/- bags of copper in the late 60's, most GV halfpennies were reduced to washers. God, weren't they! The reverses, anyway. You could make out the date usually, and the figure of Britannia gave a whole new meaning to 'ghosting'. 1. The Mint realised a lot earlier about the ghosting, hence a) the 1913 redesigns c) the recessed ear of 1915-16. 2. - 11. Does make a lot of sense! But the strange thing is, there isn't any ghosting on the few 1922/27-reverses that exist, which indicates that the revised obverse of 1921 plus the experimental reverse of 1922 DID fix it? As for point 7., the strange thing is that the ME was first used for the halfpennies not the pennies (but perhaps that's explained by the fact that halfpennies were in a parlous state even compared to pennies?)

OMG. You mean... you're... you've... Oh well, none of my business after all.

Now that IS interesting. It shows, despite my earlier misgivings, that the experiment was actually begun in 1922,,which raises a whole bucket of further questions: • Did the Mint already know they weren't producing pennies for the next 3 years, and thus it was a good time to start experimenting? • How come the penny reverses were deemed more of a priority than the 'modified effigy' (3 years later) - was it another attempt to eliminate ghosting? • Why were halfpennies - which had even worse ghosting - never included in the experiment?

I know they are not the same coin, but somehow I much prefer the scanned example here.

Excellent list! One small criticism of the Gouby classifications : the 'recessed ear' variety of 1915 and 1916 is a properly issued experimental obverse that was abandoned after 2 years' use. It's more distinctive than the differences between Obverse 1 1911-13 and Obverse 2 1913-21. It had as much proper exposure as the first ME obverse of 1926-27. It should have its own obverse.

I'm not sure if Numismatic Photography has much of a following of interested persons outside the USA, but Mark Goodman's book that you linked to is superb. I know of about two dozen or so of us semi-professional and professional numismatic photographers here in the USA, none of whom use scanners. There's a reason for that. Will you PLEASE stop with all that. Some of us have no choice. Yes, I'd be happy if things were toned down a little, or at least sensitive to the forum masses as a whole!I think in the 'excitement' of the thread, we have become a little channelled and have forgotten, in this instance, at least, that not everyone can afford a decent set-up, or even have the privilege of photographing their collection even if they did! This forum is made up of individuals who can afford 10's of thousands for a coin and, equally, just £10, we need to avoid becoming too elitist in our excitement! I'm only griping coz I'm skint myself! Com'on Scott bring us all down to earth! Thanks. It's not only an equipment issue though...

Cool logic

Apologies for the cruddy nature of this item, and it may be too worn to identify any useful die indicators, but here's an 1816 shilling for your attention :

Without knowledge and experience, it can be quite tricky. However, proofs - provided they haven't circulated - generally have a sharply defined finish with no weak spots on the design (which UNC coins might have due to wearing dies). Also, a proof tends to have very sharp edges to the rim and, if relevant, perfectly even teeth or beads. A scruffy coin COULD be a proof, but you would probably need expert opinion. A picture here would help greatly.

Awesome. Is there a system behind it, e.g. chronology, or possible engravers, or something like that? You really ought to be writing a book on this if you're not already! You will be the Freeman of Forgeries.