Peckris

The nearest I have is this Arcadia siliqua (sorry about the tiny size, it's the best I can do without rescanning) :

If we're onto copper and bronze...

Is she well toned?? From what he tells us, the Misses Peter might be worth a look too, all togged up in their Friday night best. So that's artifically toned then?

1911 proof halfcrown :

Is she well toned?? From what he tells us, the Misses Peter might be worth a look too, all togged up in their Friday night best.

Access will of course allow you to embed pictures, but with a decent size collection the file size will grow to excessive proportions. The way I do it is to have two "tables" (databases), one containing all the coin details, the other just containing the pictures plus a unique identifier that occurs on both databases and links each coin with its picture(s). Then I have picture fields defined on the non-picture database, and by relational magic FileMaker pulls in the pictures from the other database. That way the main coins database remains a slim & trim size, fast to open and use, but all the pictures are there when I want to see them, without having to open the other file.

It's a bit similar to Paulus' offering, but most of my best NT coins are scans, and as you know, scans do for toning what Cameron does for the welfare state...

Can't help it, although it does get my heckles up big time. I was just reading some Coin News articles about toning and AT from a few years ago, and they stress that one of the main motivations behind AT (apart from inflating the price) is to hide imperfections ... something to bear in mind! The toning IMO is an imperfection. AT yes, totally agree, the articles I was reading suggest that an artificial toner is no different to a forger. I am a fan of attractive (to my eyes) natural toning, makes a change from a collection full of bright BUs alone! I don't regard NT as an imperfection per se, do you Peter?Me neither. Mind you, there's pretty NT and there's downright ugly NT too!

Excellent!

Ah, but are they Type 1 or Type 2? Is the P of POTTER to a tooth or a space, that's what I'd like to know Couldn't agree more Peck, definitely not my cup of tea! One of my many criteria for what I keep or sell is 'do I enjoy owning/looking/holding it, does it have eye appeal and a sense of history for me?' That one to me is utterly ridiculous, it's not even as if you could use the weight to authenticate it with any certainty!! I entirely agree, but...... if you are a completist with a relatively modest budget, how are you going to fill the 1839 gap? To buy a decent quality one is going to run into many thousands and that's out of many people's reach, so a grotty one like this may be the only way to fill up the nagging hole. Of course, this is a good argument against being a completist at all, but some of us can't help that. For me it goes back to the days of collecting Brooke Bond tea cards and sticking them in an album. Albums had to be completed at all costs and so the completist is born! Well, ok, but I'd have to be a pretty wealthy completist, or else keep my wife in the attic, if I had £670 to blow on a very very grotty specimen of the numismatic art (that may or may not be genuine...)

Um. So rainbows are now White Yellow Orange Red Purple Blue Green? Whatever happened to the Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain spectrum that I learned at school? Oh that's right - it got Americanised...

Anyone willing to pay £670 for a Poor Vicky halfcrown must have a screw loose. Where's the pleasure in owning that? To take it out at regular intervals, coo over it, and tell yourself it is possibly genuine if only there was enough detail to tell?

Am I the only one to think that that is ridiculous? What is the argument that it should be other than 50-50? Absolutely ludicrous. I've never considered one face of a coin to be more significant or important than the other. I think this must be some kind of urban myth.

It's where bits of the legend started to wear - the relevant letters were 're-cut' but as they couldn't be aligned with the previous letter absolutely exactly, you see this 'doubling' effect. Very common in the 19th Century. Yes, sometimes there are cases where coins are double struck, but then you see it all over not just certain letters.

It's where bits of the legend started to wear - the relevant letters were 're-cut' but as they couldn't be aligned with the previous letter absolutely exactly, you see this 'doubling' effect. Very common in the 19th Century. Yes, sometimes there are cases where coins are double struck, but then you see it all over not just certain letters.

If 'being cynical' means telling it like it is, then yes. So it's all down to planchets then? In that case, there must be the same ratio of rainbow Morgans to non-rainbow Morgans over here, as over there. And conversely, there can't be many rainbow UK coins over there either. Unless of course ....

Probably a re-cut / re-punched legend rather than double struck - good spot though.

Nice 2mm. There are other differences too, alignment of letters with border beads and a shorter trident. There are only 3 basic reverse types (though lots of varieties) for the bronze penny A: Ship & lighthouse - Bun pennies 1860-1894 (34 yrs) B: Just Britannia - old head Vic, Ed VII, George V 1895-1936 (41 yrs) C: Lighthouse - George VI & Eliz 1937-1970 My view is that each series should be treated together for die identification, rather than splitting into reigns I've never really thought of it like that, but the 3-category split does make sense. Well, I would split the B into pre-1927 and post-1927 (B1 and B2?) - but I think it's a good principle.

That looks absolutely typical natural silver toning. For God's sake Gary - couldn't you have issued us with sunglasses before posting that?

Fixed now? I didn't have any problems viewing.

looking for more 1898s and 1895s so far found 3 varieties of 1895, the 2mm all appear identical but hard to find spares of the 1mm with intact border beads date differences on the 1mm quite striking, but is there a slight difference in the relationship of the drapery, waves and rocks to the union flag on the shield?? scans done together at roughly the same orientation correction lighting from the opposite direction shows NO difference in the 2 1mm reverses - top image is a 2mm still looking for another wide date(s) David, It looks like the 1mm examples (bottom two pics) have the 5 located at a different location in reference to the edge tooth! One is right over the tooth, and one is to the side of the tooth(gap). Yes, that's exactly what I spotted too - the 5 is to a different pointing entirely.

I'm not sure it's correct to call this a "split R"? If you knitted the split together, you would have a very fat end to the curve. The lower portion looks like the proper R, while the question is, what caused the upper portion? I have an 1862 farthing with a 6 that also looks 'split', though in that case it might be an repunched alignment.

1905 would be your Key date for the halfcrown. Liverwho? Liverpoo Sorry - intermittently defective l on the keyboard. You meant Manchester Untied? (sorry, my keyboard goes into Moyes Mode every now and then )

Fair