Peckris

To an old cynic like me, it looks suspiciously good. Absolute BU specimen. If it's genuine then it's a peach, but could it be a replica?

Paulus was talking about TRIBUTE bands, not originals, Dave. I haven't seen the Australian Floyd, but they are supposed to be the best, like the Bootleg Beatles, and - rumour has it - Fred Zeppelin I think one reason tribute bands are so often so good is that they work hard to reproduce the band's recorded output note-perfect, where the original bands who are still touring, or who have reformed and go out on tour, usually don't give a stuff about being note-perfect; in fact, they often take pride in reinterpreting their own work, confident the fans will still love them. The best tribute band I ever saw was Talon, who cover The Eagles. I knew it was going to be a good night when I took my seat and counted 18 guitars lined up and ready on the stage! They did an acoustic half, then an electric half, and managed to fit a version of "Hotel California" into both!!

The frosted appearance is produced by sandblasting the sunk portions of a die. It's actually a particular minting technique, and should be distinguished from - e.g. - proofs produced in the 1970s, which are non-frosted mirror-like proofs. The particular difficulty is with George VI - some of the proofs have a very mild frosting appearance (which may or may not have been caused by treatment of dies), while others of the same year / denomination don't show any. I often wonder what the Edward VII matt proofs would have been like if the matt effect had been restricted to only the raised portions of the design.

Picture, please.

We crossed - do see my added paragraph.

Sorry, but you must be mistaken. The only silver coins currently produced (apart from things like non-currency Britannias) are proof issues, always lower mintages than the CuNi proofs. DO NOT DIP PROOFS!!! (My mistake - the exception to the rule is the limited edition Silver Sports 50p Collection, minted to .925 silver in BU. I do hope you're not paying their issue price of £49.99 per coin? If you are, you'd be well advised to stop if you can - they will turn up on the secondary market at less than half price in a year or two. The Mint overcharges for everything, and their issue price is almost never recoverable when selling on, even to a collector. In fact, if you're getting brown spots, that would be the perfect excuse for returning them and asking for a refund.)

I imagine that if Spink produce their catalogue in a future century, they will be listed but as at present - Extremely rare

That's fascinating - would you say it's from a genuine original? (The obverse looks a bit suspect, but the illustration I'm comparing it with, is Spink 2937, which is the Pound). The engraving is a real historical drama done on what is a pretty boring underlying motif of fleur de lys and a date. I should think - scarce and valuable though the original is - that particular engraved example could well outshine the normal price.

If you visit Colin Cooke Coins, and click the Collections tab, there are a lot of great pictures there.

1. As others have said, that will almost certainly get you hooked! and not necessarily on the best items for investment. You probably need to separate out the two aims. 2. I think you're right about the Britannias, and more fun than shares! but do your research carefully - if keeping for the long term, it's probably a respectable strategy, but do keep a regular eye on the selling prices of the pieces you keep. 3. Good! The cheaper you can get them for the better, obviously, but just don't pay Royal Mint prices.

??? Why not just force quit your browser? You don't need to pull the power and restart!

I agree. Google aren't the only villains of course, but there are plenty of other sites which let you browse and view to your heart's content, and only require you to register if you want to post a comment in their forums or wherever. I guess that's why most people here don't use Google Docs for coin pictures? Admittedly you have to register with Photobucket in order to upload pictures there, but people you send the links to don't have to. And don't forget, although you only get a parsimonious 150k per post here, it's far from impossible to add pictures to a post : 1. The pictures don't have to be 'dinner plate' size - up to 4x actual diameter for larger denominations, and up to 8x for the smaller ones, is quite sufficient. 2. The dpi resolution only needs to be 72 for people to see a decent picture on their computer. 3. The image can be compressed when saving it in most editors (even Preview on a Mac) - in Photoshop or Elements for example, you can choose from 12 (maximum quality) down to 1 (awful). 7 usually gives a good result, and if reducing from a good quality image, you can even get away with 5 as a one-off. The lower the number, the smaller the file size. 4. Save images as JPEG - that gives the smallest file sizes. 5. If posting both sides here, the obverse can be 150k in one post, and the reverse 150k in the next.

Indeed. The link works only for those with a Gmail account or the like. You don't need a Google account to view the pictures. You can use your own email address to login in. Doesn't work - my email address isn't a Gmail address.

That makes a certain amount of sense, especially if their research shows that buyers of gold are a much smaller market. Splits up the issues for most reigns though, which is a pity. I'd buy into a "Standard Catalogue Part I Roman to 1662" then "Part II 1663-1967". Those who collect hammered AND milled would buy both (as at present) but others could just buy the half they were interested in. There is a precedent of sorts - in 1968 Seaby published a catalogue of coins from 1816 onwards - unlike the main catalogue up until then, it carried values for every date, not just every type.

I'd strongly agree, but you'll find we're not such big fans of 'bullion' coins on here, Jay! Having said that, I do think the Britannia series is a beautiful design, and should keep their popularity (but try to avoid paying Royal Mint issue price for them - you will always pick them up much cheaper later on, in what's called the 'secondary market'. To quote Frank Zappa, the Mint are "only in it for the money"). Wreath crowns will always be scarce, and popular. Which is why they hold their value extremely well.

Indeed. The link works only for those with a Gmail account or the like. Right. You don't need a Photobucket, Omnicoin, or Image Shack account to see other links. That's why I suggest Google ain't such a good idea.

Waste of a bleedin' post - your links just took me to a Google anonymous home page. I suggest you use Photobucket (or similar) in future then everyone can see your pictures. Links work fine for me (and Rob by the looks of it). This is what I get : Everyone else's links - e.g. to Photobucket - just work. I don't have to do anything. They just take me to a picture of a coin. But that's all I get for the above links. Useless.

Really? I'd heard about the post-decimal split, but not the hammered. That suits me down to the ground - I can go the library for my few Roman, and just get the milled book which hopefully will be reasonably priced.

Waste of a bleedin' post - your links just took me to a Google anonymous home page. I suggest you use Photobucket (or similar) in future then everyone can see your pictures.

The rare proof is Matte, so yours is most likely the regular one. CCGB 2 years ago was a bit conservative on the non-proof, £60 BU compared to £40 for proof. Yet Spink way back in 2005 had the proof at £40 also, but even back then, the non-proof was £75. Now it would be at least £100 I'm thinking. Spink 2013 has the proof at £50 and currency at £150 Wow! That means the BU currency is significantly rarer than the 20,000 proofs, of which I'd guesstimate that between 10-15,000 still survive in more or less FDC condition.

Only one hour left of this magical date Last 'repetitive' date of our lifetimes.

Yes, something of a coincidence - I got mine (almost BU) for 20p from the Midlands Fair in the late 90s. A bargain bin that was - let's say - "unsorted"!

You're not on your own! I had also starting looking through a couple of my old images to see if I could pair anything up! Doh! Me too - I've had Freeman for a mere 34 years and only just realised it had that Appendix III

Not if you watched the Xmas Day Dr Who! Stay warm and safe Bob! David Really really silly story. But it doesn't seem to matter that much as Dr Who is character-driven these days, and his latest companion is OMG drop-dead gorgeous. You need to stay off those little blue meds Peck, you're mixing them up with the angina tablets I should see her before making any more comments, Dave

The rare proof is Matte, so yours is most likely the regular one. CCGB 2 years ago was a bit conservative on the non-proof, £60 BU compared to £40 for proof. Yet Spink way back in 2005 had the proof at £40 also, but even back then, the non-proof was £75. Now it would be at least £100 I'm thinking.