Peckris

Can you turn the item number into a link, please?

I'm assuming that the streakiness above wouldn't have been visible until the lustre wore off? It's hard to tell from the images, but looking between the crook of the first N in PENNY, and below the Trident Hand of Britannia, it looks as if the light-coloured material is all 'sitting' in deep pockets/flan flaws (for want of a better word). Also the unusual lines, radiating out from GRA across the bust, and the fact that the worn surfaces all appear to be uniform in metal colour, makes me wonder if there's more to it than meets the eye. Is it a possibility that the flan has been atrociously rolled, leaving pits in the fields, and more shallow depressions where the devices have forced the metal into new form, and what we can see is lustre sitting behind in recesses and pits? Only thinking out loud, as I can't get my head around how a poor metal mix, after being rolled into sheets, would manifest itself as 'flecks'??? Yet it's weird that it should manifest for only those two dates, while at the same time there are enough examples to make it known 'feature'?

I just checked my collection, thinking I had one : turns out it's a 1900. Checking in Spink, it seems that none of the 1901 silver is rated lower/commoner than earlier dates. I should have been clearer. What I meant was, comparing the 1901 to Victorian shillings in general, with exception of the 1887, 1893 and 1897, it's price in Spinks would suggest an UNC would be an easyish find. I was actually replying to Nick's point about them being not easy to find in high grade. Spink seems to concur - it isn't an 'easy' date unlike the bronze (but not MORE difficult than earlier)

Yes, I'm sure you can. The iPad holds photos and it also has the Safari browser, so as long as you get the picture down to the right size, no problem.

Finally - the image itself

Step 5 - as you can see, the final image size is only half the 150k limit.

Step 4 - I've clicked 'Export' and selected the final image size in pixels, JPEG, and quality setting which in this case in 'Minimum' (which turned out to be acceptable).

Step 3 - I've clicked 'Apply' which then does the Crop

Step 2 - I've clicked and dragged the area I want to crop to, which in your case will be the coin, the whole coin, and nothing but the coin!

Step 1 - I've loaded the picture into Picasa, selected the Crop tool, and chosen the "Square - CD Cover" option

One of the difficulties posting pictures here, is that the allowance per post is only 150k. Considering the multi megapixel capabilities of most modern cameras, that means people have to resort to using external picture hosting sites to display pictures here, using links. The problem there is, one has to then register for and maintain a separate site, which in the case of Photobucket, is user unfriendly, and it's a lot more work to get a picture from there to here, than simply posting directly here. However, all is not lost as the following will explain. The main thing is to create a much smaller copy of the picture you want to post here. 1. Import the picture into any image editor (Photoshop, Elements, or free apps like Apple Preview, or Picasa will do it.) 2. (CROP the picture if necessary, so the coin fills the frame) 3. Reduce the SIZE (600 x 600 pixels will do to see a coin's finer details) 4. Reduce the RESOLUTION to 72 ppi, which is the same as a computer monitor; anything more is wasted 5. SAVE the picture as a JPEG, and use a medium setting when prompted. Your picture should then fit nicely into 150k, though you may need two consecutive posts for both obverse and reverse. I will now add a series of shots showing how to do this using Picasa on a Mac (which I downloaded especially for this, so this was my first use of it - I may be showing my inexperience). I have used an art picture as I couldn't find a coin picture that needed cropping.

I've pinned it and copied it to the Beginners Area, which is the most my Admin powers allow! YAY. Thanks. Now it's pinned, I'll expand on it more fully (next post).

I'm assuming that the streakiness above wouldn't have been visible until the lustre wore off?

Would certainly up their SEO if they haven't copied and pasted it from an Encyclopedia, that is! I might list a 1966 penny with a description like that, just for the email responses from bemused collectors worldwide! "This 1967 penny is the finest we've ever seen - and we've seen many! Almost full iridescent lustre, this coin is virtually in the state it left the Mint in 1969. (Yes, note the historical drama - despite carrying the date 1967, this penny was actually minted in 1969 due to the quirky law passed by Great Britain's Chancellor, Jim Callaghan. This minting of a coin bearing the incorrect date was unprecedented since.. the year before). The generous size of these old pennies puts today's hastily struck minor coins into perspective. Remember - a 1967 penny is the last of its kind, redolent of that lost era between February and August 1971 when - already doomed - it and its peers could be seen gasping out the last weeks of their existence. This particular specimen is 100% guaranteed genuine, having been taken from a receipted Mint Sealed Bag which lay forgotten in the cellar of a 1960s coin dealer who went out of business in 1972. All the other specimens in the bag were damaged by environmental factors, but this miracle specimen emerged virtually unscathed and we offer it - slabbed and annotated - as an artefact of a lost age of coin collecting." I think I will list one Peck with your exact wording, just for the craic! (with your permission!) Feel free! (Don't mention me, though )

Would I be correct in thinking this is only the second one to come to market, the other being the CGS 85. I like the idea that it's still in it's set and would perhaps increase it's desirability if not it's value. I shall be looking on with interest. Yes - that's why I've kept my proof 2+A farthing in the set it came in. I would have preferred to have bought the set containing my 1+A proof halfcrown, but it was only offered as a singleton. Was it identified as a 1+A when you bought it. Freeman rates the 2+A farthing as R9 and 2+B as R6 so out of 40,000 sets that's 30,000 2+B and 10,000 2+A. In my opinion he should perhaps put the 2+A up a notch or two to R11 at least which would make them about 10:1, even then they don't come up very often. Could the Half Crown be as common as the 2+A Farthing and has any of the other denominations ever come to light. I thought I had the Obv 1 Scottish Shilling but I now think it's more likely to be a very early strike akin to the proof-like Crowns you occasionally see. Colin cooke farthing catalogue cites the 2+A farthing as extremely rare and I think they have only sold two in the last ten years or so - the second one around £300 if I recollect correctly. I have rescued several off of ebay over the last few years although not seen one recently. They have usually only made £30-40 once identified so the one CC sold must have been very special. Are you talking about the proof? That is supposed to be very much rarer than the currency, which makes Freeman's rarity rating rather strange.

1901 shillings aren't easy to find in high grade, nor are 1898. It's odd isn't it, as the price-guides would have you believe otherwise! Having a quick scout around, revealed nothing in UNC across the web either! I just checked my collection, thinking I had one : turns out it's a 1900. Checking in Spink, it seems that none of the 1901 silver is rated lower/commoner than earlier dates. Well, I'd argue against the rich dark purplish 'Mint toning' as being unattractive - but for years the 1901 values for bronze were way behind the earlier dates (akin to 1936). I think the general public put the bronze issues aside as keepsakes, considering Victoria had been the longest reigning monarch. Certainly, in my days dealing in the 1990s, 1901 pennies in high grade were incredibly common

Would certainly up their SEO if they haven't copied and pasted it from an Encyclopedia, that is! I might list a 1966 penny with a description like that, just for the email responses from bemused collectors worldwide! "This 1967 penny is the finest we've ever seen - and we've seen many! Almost full iridescent lustre, this coin is virtually in the state it left the Mint in 1969. (Yes, note the historical drama - despite carrying the date 1967, this penny was actually minted in 1969 due to the quirky law passed by Great Britain's Chancellor, Jim Callaghan. This minting of a coin bearing the incorrect date was unprecedented since.. the year before). The generous size of these old pennies puts today's hastily struck minor coins into perspective. Remember - a 1967 penny is the last of its kind, redolent of that lost era between February and August 1971 when - already doomed - it and its peers could be seen gasping out the last weeks of their existence. This particular specimen is 100% guaranteed genuine, having been taken from a receipted Mint Sealed Bag which lay forgotten in the cellar of a 1960s coin dealer who went out of business in 1972. All the other specimens in the bag were damaged by environmental factors, but this miracle specimen emerged virtually unscathed and we offer it - slabbed and annotated - as an artefact of a lost age of coin collecting."

I hate external links like the plague (what good is a forum if you can't upload pictures directly into a post?) At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time (and for the umpteenth time, Chris, WHY DON'T YOU ALLOW ME TO SET UP A 'STICKY' ON THIS???) - to get your picture within the 150k limit : 1. reduce its size to around 600x600 pixels; despite some of the 'dinner plates' that abound here, that's perfectly adequate to see a coin's finer details 2. reduce its resolution to 72 ppi (that's the resolution of a computer monitor; anything more is just wasted) 3. save it as a JPEG and compress it when you save, e.g. to Photoshop's 7/12 setting (or 'Medium') It should fit into 150k, though you might need to post the obverse and reverse in consecutive posts.

Thanks The main problems (without a special lighting rig) are getting close enough to the coin without the camera casting a shadow on it. If you can do 'macro zoom' with your camera, that would help. If not, set your tripod up so there's about one foot between the lens and the coin, make sure the plane is exactly right angles, and use the maximum res as you may need to crop out a lot of surrounding material!

The usual crappy blow-up in Photoshop (even that king of software apps can't increase the size 3-fold without making it look horrible), but apart from what looks like a couple of tiny carbon spots, here's mine:

Would I be correct in thinking this is only the second one to come to market, the other being the CGS 85. I like the idea that it's still in it's set and would perhaps increase it's desirability if not it's value. I shall be looking on with interest. Yes - that's why I've kept my proof 2+A farthing in the set it came in.

Yes. I have a 1920 and 1921 penny exactly like this, included in an auction lot from the 1990s. They are in a Whitman folder, and the previous owner has annotated the streakiness as being caused by the use of WW1 shell casings in the mix. He doesn't say where he got his information from, but it would explain why it only occurs on those two dates, and is quite unlike the kind of streakiness so often seen on high grade coins, where it seems to be a factor of the lustre. This is definitely a feature of the metal alloy used, and one can certainly imagine the top brass (pun intended) finding a sense of relief that "What do we do with all those...?" was solved so readily!

In the bronze series, I would say that ought to include a beaded and toothed 1860 possibly 'crosslet 4' and other 1864 but not essential to have both IMO 1865/3 1875H one wide and one narrow date from the 1870s 1902 Low Tide possibly 1903 'open 3' if that floats your boat the GeoV H and KNs as you have said 1926 ME Those are all fairly major varieties.

The 1934 in particular, as it's 3 times rarer than its nearest competitor.

Yes I agree with Rob's reply. I "converted" from date collecting to type collecting some years ago, but the process is never an absolute one. For example, I love my date collection of bronze pennies, but am resigned to not upgrading pre-1887, as it would now cost too much. And I have been disposing of some dates in my halfcrown run from 1911 to 1967. I also have a complete set of brass 3d. But my Edward VII halfcrowns are a very mixed bag : one UNC (1910), and three rares (1903/04/05). As Rob says, how wide or how precisely you define 'type' will vary from person to person, and there is no hard and fast rule. Tastes change over the years. Enjoy what you collect, and if that includes the challenge of the pursuit, enjoy that too!