Peckris

Yes, too much red for comfort! Instead of cropping, you could just 'magic wand' select the red in an image editor and change it to - say - dark blue.

While none of those GV coins is UNC, you still got an absolute bargain for the whole lot - including the crowns - at £70.

He didn't get that message in time it seems. But equally, we should perhaps avoid "quoting" a post that includes the same information? (I've fallen into that trap too ). Happier? All we're left with now is his original post, which he is now too late to Edit!

It's difficult to say. I've been using FileMaker Pro for my coins since 1994 (System 7 Powerbook, FMP v2) and now use FMP v10 on an Intel iMac. In that time, it's grown organically to be quite a complex and sophisticated database, but more to the point, it exactly suits my own needs, being bespoke. And you would find the same with Excel if you feel comfortable with that. I had a quick look at iCollect, and while fairly simple and clearly laid out, I'm not sure how much room there is for expansion? For example, my own database contains a complex calculation after inputting Spink values, shows a history of values back to the 60s, has ample text and comment fields for when I need them, pulls in pictures from a related file, stores locations, full purchase details, and even where when and to whom I disposed of it if that applies. If you're anything like me, you would soon get frustrated by software that didn't allow you to expand to suit your needs. It's your call, I guess.

He didn't get that message in time it seems. But equally, we should perhaps avoid "quoting" a post that includes the same information? (I've fallen into that trap too ).

I have the silver (pewter?) version of that Diamond Jubilee medallion. It's a nice design, though not rare. From what I can remember of my schoolboy Latin, the inscription seems to be saying (I paraphrase ) "Length of reign in her right hand, glory in her left". BTW washing silver in soapy water will remove superficial dirt but won't give a 'cleaned' appearance. That 17thC Crown looks as though something a bit stronger was used? Unless he really scrubbed it, of course!

IF... you collect by date AND... the lots are cheap THEN... it would be ok I suppose.

Thank you both Peter, as in "booze booze booze Chinky booze booze booze"?

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each. Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely? I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but there is a weighty tome explaining the entire working of the Royal Mint (c. 1870) in excruciating detail (and I really do mean that) which may contain some useful information. If not, it's a handy cure for insomnia. The publication is "The Royal Mint by George Frederick Ansell" and you can download a PDF free from Google books. The pages relating to matrices, punches and dies are 63-67. Brilliant! That sounds absolutely perfect, and a likely cure for my lame knowledge of matrixes! I'll just need to fill in the years between 1870 and the computer age to be home and dry! Any references for that anyone? Thanks, Nick! There's also a fairly comprehensive article on production of proof coins in the 1985 edition of Coins and Market Values. I'm in the throes of moving home, so don't expect a scan anytime soon, but briefly: 1. artist prepares a large plaster model 2. from this is produced a rubber mould which is electroplated with copper and nickel 3. the electrotype is reduced by special machinery 4. the resulting steel punch is in relief 5. the 'reduction punch' is used to sink a matrix (incuse) at which stage beading is added BY HAND and any blemishes removed 6. from the finished matrix working punches are produced (relief) 7. the working punches are used to sink working dies (incuse) as many times as needed There's much much more about the production of blanks, but I thought this might be helpful. And as you can see, when the beading is added manually, it would be easy enough (though delicate and small scale) to add a 'broken tooth'.

Stanley Gibbons comes up on that link, with the keywords you've quoted crossed through, as if it's 'unknown' on eBay? Yet interestingly, RJ Marles was the guy behind the original Check Your Change and Collectors Coins series - i.e., the owner of Rotographic before Chris took over. He obviously had fingers in more than one pie! I wonder how many other collector areas he published for? Toys? Books? Diecast models? Dolls? Plates?

I don't know why they've recently added that URL tag nonsense. The easiest way to add a PhotoBucket picture now is to copy the 'direct link' and use the 'Insert Image' icon. Ah, right, thanks for that, will do that in future! There's got to be something in it for them, so wrong that it overrides your privacy settings. It doesn't! (See my post above). There is no way to 'share' a picture without making it non-private - but it won't interfere with your Photobucket privacy except for those you've given permission to view an image via another forum. Sorry, didn't catch your above post! The main difference between my usual posting of pictures, and today's aborted efforts (using the same process), were that, ordinarily, you couldn't click on the image and be redirected to the contents of my private album on photobucket. Today I posted images which contained a URL allowing just that. So, I basically had to manually remove the URL extension to arrive at the images as you now see them, WITHOUT the capacity to click on them and view my private album on photobucket! I confess to knowing very little about the whole thing, but enough to know I didn't want the whole world wading through my photographing trials and tribulations on photobucket! Incidentally, I wonder why Davies opted to define reverse A & B with the indicators he did (letter bases), when Nick's tooth ID separates even the most worn examples in an instant? Oh I see. Either Photobucket have changed their policy - in which case, shame on them - or there are a variety of html formats presented (as in Image Shack for example) and you unwittingly picked the wrong one.

Your information sounds similar to what I have found whilst scouring the web, except that my understanding is that 'master die' is another name for a matrix not a hub/punch, but I may be wrong. There is much conflicting terminology out there. I spent the best part of an hour scouring the net, but only finding modern methods (mostly current US), involving computer programming, which only served to confuse matters further...definitely lots of conflicting info! When you've pulled the whole thing together, Colin, I'd very much benefit from and pleaure in the read, because I can't get my head around it at all! Someone give me a later medieval broken punch and an over-mark anytime! The original design sculpture reduction will be in relief, so from that (in hardened metal?) they must sink the incuse master/matrix. That in turn must be used to create the punches in relief, which in turn are used to sink the incuse dies. Does that sound a reasonable sequence?

Nice! (Technical note - if you went into A (Aperture Priority) Mode and set the aperture to the biggest number, e.g. f8 or f11, you'd get the obverse in better focus too.)

I don't know why they've recently added that URL tag nonsense. The easiest way to add a PhotoBucket picture now is to copy the 'direct link' and use the 'Insert Image' icon. Ah, right, thanks for that, will do that in future! There's got to be something in it for them, so wrong that it overrides your privacy settings. It doesn't! (See my post above). There is no way to 'share' a picture without making it non-private - but it won't interfere with your Photobucket privacy except for those you've given permission to view an image via another forum.

'Private' on image hosting sites means that observers who scour the 'latest postings' on the site will not see yours, and nor will they gain access to your albums without a password. However, once you use a 'sharing' URL for an image, as people do here for example, that gives people who use that forum, read-only access to the image in question. Otherwise, it's still private to the world at large.

I'm not sure that there are many, this is the most well known catalogue for that era but I expect you already know of it! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stanley-Gibbons-Britain-Specialised-Catalogues/dp/0852598165/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366580592&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=Collectors%27+Stamps%3A+Queen+Victoria+and+Edward+VII+1837-1910+by+R.J.+Marles Stanley Gibbons comes up on that link, with the keywords you've quoted crossed through, as if it's 'unknown' on eBay? Yet interestingly, RJ Marles was the guy behind the original Check Your Change and Collectors Coins series - i.e., the owner of Rotographic before Chris took over. He obviously had fingers in more than one pie! I wonder how many other collector areas he published for? Toys? Books? Diecast models? Dolls? Plates?

Not quite sure what you mean but there were two distinct reverses used on pennies during the period 1874-9 known as 'narrow' and 'wide' dates. This is simply a shorthand for a whole host of differences including the 'narrow date' penny having a tall thin lighthouse, whereas the 'wide' version had a short fat lighthouse; Britannia looks quite emaciated in the narrow date etc. Without going into too much detail, the 'narrow date' is rare for 1879, ludicrously rare for 1877 and non-existent for 1878. Generally speaking, most designs will show variations in date width, as the last and sometimes the last but one digit are punched in on already prepared dies but in this case, the whole reverse is rather different. Your best chance of seeing an example of each is 1875, where both types are fairly common.

I do hope that's the case - I wouldn't have any degree of confidence in diagnosing one without the tooth as an indicator. That's interesting - when I was a schoolboy collector, I noticed the 'recessed ear' examples (without yet knowing that's what they were called), but only recently learned of the broken tooth feature. They were quite distinctive, but perhaps more so when fairly worn? Maybe they are harder to spot when EF - UNC.

You're quite right, Gary: 1915 top, 1916 below.... So how did one die make so many coins? You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices. This is what we're trying to determine. For me personally, I'm saying they're likely not the same dies at all, but rather an error (or deliberate marking) further back in the production proccess, at matrix level, though I don't fully understand the matrix story myself. If the two coins are different dies, then that would rule out a blocked die, except by an amazing coincidence, suggesting damaged matrix (or original cast, whatever that's called - anyone got any decent educational links for the matrix proccess?), whether deliberate or not? I'm a bit hazy on the physics, but I seem to remember that the original design is a massive piece of sculpture that gets reduced in a complex piece of engineering that scales down the original EXACTLY. From there, I assume that a master matrix is produced and is used to create the punches automatically. So I would hazard a guess that the tooth - if it was broken deliberately - was possibly done on the matrix which would explain the slightly haphazrd success with the operation.

You're quite right, Gary: 1915 top, 1916 below.... So how did one die make so many coins? Alternative theory : The 1915 attempt to deliberately 'mark' the die was only partly successful, and Mint employees had a hard job spotting them. So in 1916 they made a better effort at it. The point is, 1) are there any intermediate stages? and 2) Declan's question - how did one die get used on so many coins? It also goes without saying that there WAS a definite and deliberate change to the obverse die, which resulted in a much better reverse strike on those pennies, as Steve's pictures show. Having the broken tooth present on ALL those obverse dies on not anywhere else, seems stretching coincidence a bit too far.

It's actually a halfcrown, but did it really come from a river? That's amazing.

which also suggests a single die variety..? Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die? On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable? That's a good thought - the deliberate marking of a die (and thus, potentially, more than one) Numbers: 1915: 11.4% of 47m - loads more than one die could do 1916: 18.7% of 86m - well that's conclusive then. It's more than one die, which means that the broken tooth has to be deliberate. Wouldn't it be more logical to 'add' a mark to the dies to identify them, like a hairline or something, which would appear raised on the coin? Breaking a tooth would actually mean blocking the tooth on the die wouldn't it? I of course have not actually looked to see how the broken tooth appears on these coins, but will tomorrow! We call it a 'broken' tooth, but it's actually more like a half tooth, and something that could be done quite deliberately I would have thought, as it would be undetectable to ordinary users, while collectors of the time didn't even bother with much of anything after 1816. But even they did, few would have looked closely at a new currency issue, as 20th Century coins just weren't of any interest at all pre-WW2.

which also suggests a single die variety..? Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die? On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable?

Yer i like them but they are going to be my only ones for now as i dont have a clue about roman coins, i just thought i could'nt go wrong for 99p each. Very good value! Surprisingly they would only value between £10 - £20 each, but it's still exceptional what you paid

Thanks its one of my best i think, prob paid alittle to much for it at £24 but im happy to own it. I'm away without the bible to guide me, but I'd feel pretty happy shelling out £24 for ANY top-grade E7 (poor old farthing excluded...though even they must come close in my mind, if you really want the Uncs!)! I like it, nice addition! Ye thinking about £24 pound is not to bad for that coin what grade do you think so i can check in the coinsgb book for a value There's no detectable wear apart from a very slight rubbing on Britannia's thigh. It hasn't got full lustre so I'd venture a grade of AUNC. £24 is good value even for a 1902.