Peckris

Their grade is the usual conservative one - most people wouldn't hesitate at classifying that as EF minimum. And as they say, it has good eye appeal, so I'd say it was about right myself. If you got it for the lower estimate you'd have a bargain IMO.

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. Windows Live is the free default Microsoft email client now. For some reason they don't include it on new machines (or didn't, for Windows 7) but you can download it for free.

Try telling that to a prospective buyer of a BU 1874 "G's over sideways"

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.

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.

Quite! ROFL

Whatever you like the most - simples! I don't know what sort of money we're talking about here, but I'd like a high grade 1864, 1869, 1871, and 1875H ... if you're buying, that is

I only know Stephen - from the days when he used to attend the Midland Fair. I always got on well with him, but I don't know the others.

Is this a wind up?

If you posted pictures here we could give you some advice - it all depends on condition above all else, and then on rarity and popularity. Perhaps put up a few pictures of your best pieces.

Welcome Will

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 How strange that you passed go and still thought of exactly the person I actually meant!What an elegant item she was! Rather attractive in full-lustre I would think? Certainly BU threepenny bits

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. Yes, but the bottom loop doesn't even pretend to be complete - there are Liz 1 8's where the bottom loop is a circle. Have a look at this: http://www.historyincoins.com/xxx-14-9-9-5.jpg

Lol and worth £355, i think not. The man Must have been drunk when he put in the price My thoughts exactly. I remember...and just who was that girl/woman? Err what woman, are you thinking of The High Chaparrel (Linda Cristal) Oh yes, the High Chaparral, i remember it well. Who was that annoyingly grinning Mexican, Man....... something-or-other ?

I would be more than 99% confident that it's a post-production effect, either a drop or two of very strong acid, or something else?

Link I can't see either an 8 or a 7 - just a 3 or a 5 partly obscured by a blob.

Cool. That's easy enough. It's a shame that uploading an attachment from my own computer doesn't embed the image, but instead provides a somewhat pathetic thumbnail that has to be clicked on. I wish they'd change that.

None, just a modafinil tablet

It seems that for those affected, it's caused by the fairly recent change made by PhotoBucket to their links (to include a url=...). However, for those with PhotoBucket accounts you can turn off this behaviour. Log in to PhotoBucket, choose "User Settings" then "Albums" and untick "Link back to albums" and "Save". This change reverts the image links back to how the used to be. I set up a Photobucket account a long time ago, and used it once - I was so incensed by the general user-unfriendliness that I stopped then and there. I doubt if their cookie has even survived my occasional cookie purge. So I don't think that's the reason. Unfortunately, your links (in another thread) took me to the host site, whereas Nick's embedding of images seems to be the answer. We need a tutorial in how to do that!

Seems to behave just like PhotoBucket. I prefer the images to be embedded (regardless where they may be hosted) rather than have to follow a link. For example here are your images embedded: I'm not sure how you did that Nick - but if everyone who used an external host did the same, it would make life so much easier!

That's REALLY weird. The first time I clicked on one of those links I was taken to the Photobucket site itself and watched paint dry while it finally decided to load the image. Then I clicked Goback and returned here. When I clicked the link a second time, I instantly got just the jpeg image on its own, and nothing else - no Photobucket. How is that even possible?

I don't, but what a stupendously resonant - almost comic book - name! Mild, bespectacled Ken King, ignored by fellow-numismatist Joan Allen, gets changed in a phone box and becomes... SuperDealer!!

This is one of the reasons why I so hate Photobucket : go there, look, click once, look. Goback. Goback. Goback. Goback. Goback. Goback. Why do they make it so difficult to just return to where you came from? It's the only website in the world where getting out is so much harder than getting in.

So that's what Mrs Peter calls them?

This is the real art of buying. Book price is one thing, but one also has to weigh 1. Where book price is unrealistically low, as Spink can be where coins rarely come to market 2. How far above book one is prepared to go, to win something one really really wants 3. imponderables such as 'above average eye appeal' or strike, etc I've been far too guilty in my time of using 'book' as a kind of bible, above which I wouldn't go, and missed some beautiful coins as a result. The example that comes most often to mind is a W&W auction in 1997 or 1998 - one of my first, if not the first - where there was a BU 1873 penny. Book price was then, I think, around £75. I dropped out at that point, and the penny went for over £100 (£110? £120?). Oh why didn't I stay in? I just didn't know, as I do now, that truly BU examples of any bun penny between 1864 and 1881, very rarely appear and are snapped up as soon as they do.