Peckris

Good one!

There's no mystery. You have a bad day at work, find an old sixpence and lob it into the blank hopper. Et voila. The intriguing thing is that 1959 sixpences were very common in BU even up until decimalisation. It almost seems as though they minted far too many for the actual needs, and even after trickling them out gradually, theY didn't all get issued. So it's not out of the question that there was even a bag of them still around in 1983, which was three years after the humble tanner was demonetised. Just a guess of course.

Errrrrrr yes Mongo, that'S the one i'm selling :lol: :lol: Haha! Classic, Im such a duh :D Not really! Not unless you knew Dave's eBay seller name...

There are no dates on coins until Tudor times, but it's often possible to narrow down the date range from the Spink type. I'm no expert on hammered types, so someone else will have to identify yours more closely.

Economies of scale, that's why - it's easier for a mass producer to sweep up a minority producer. And Britain has never been much cop at industrial management. Finally, those marques were internationally recognised as extremely good, which is why they were easy to sell off to the likes of Ford and BMW. The same couldn't be said of Rover which turned into a disaster in the 1970s and wasn't able to be pulled back from its self-inflicted brink. I suspect we have opposing reasons for regarding the welfare state as a joke. To disabled people in Britain, it feels as if their crutches are being kicked away; this government tacitly supports all those 'scrounger' 'workshy' headlines thrown out by such as The Daily Mail, Express, and Sun, with scant regard for the actual facts and figures. The bottom line is that the 'powers that be' have decided that the current levels of disability cannot be afforded, and as a result we are a sacrifice to the Tory gods.

Hello Clive.......Thank you also for your reply, much appreciated. I am in silly old Suffolk, also fairly near the Essex Border, ie Colchester. I do feel like screaming, as I just feel so helpless and clueless. I did sit on the floor the other day and try to sort out 1 Tin of coins. I tried putting them into countries for starters, but gave up totally frustrated as I just dont know what I am supposed to be looking for......if anything! I have got a bag of around 50 maybe more of Halfpennies.......but???? what do I look for/do with them? Arrrrrrrrhhhhhhhh Just to give you an example, I am looking at a silver coloured coin(about the size of a old half crown) with CC CP OANH Py6n6? on the front and 1870-1970 and a mans head on the back. Er??? Another brown metal coin that looks a bit like Britannia on the front (very worn) say Britan NIA on one side and what looks like GEORGIVS III REX. The date is badly worn but could be 1775??? I need some Anadin quick! I could still be sitting here this time next year trying to figure some of these out! Thanks again ~ Toshgirl My dad was a Camulodunian (Colchester!) and we used to go there as kids to see the grandparents. But I spent most of my childhood on the edges of Liverpool so I'm a kind of Scouser Your copper coin is either a halfpenny (approximately the size of a 50p) or a farthing (smaller than a 10p) of George III. The "back" - reverse - is of Britannia. 1775 is quite a common date for copper, but condition is everything - in worn condition but with all details readable, a halfpenny would be worth between £5 and £10. But in EF condition it would be worth between £200 and £250. If you could post a picture of both sides, we could advise on condition. If the date is as worn as you say, it's probably Fair, and worth about £5.

I never said a good car was defined as "affordable to joe public", in fact I specifically said "not mass market" before you moved the goalposts. Derek gave you a list of marques, to which you can add Caterham, TVR, and probably some other minority but still very good marques. As for foreign owned, just because Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Jaguar, etc have been taken over by foreign owners doesn't make the cars any less British, as they are still designed and built here, we just don't see any of the profits. Land Rover may be owned by BMW, the Mini also, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the cars are designed and built here. The only mass market manufacturer we have left is Vauxhall who have been owned by General Motors since the 1920s. (Did Ford pack up their British operations?) There are EIGHT F1 teams based in Britain - that includes MacLaren, Red Bull, Caterham, Force India, Lotus, among others. Just listen to the interviews when there's a GP on. Even Ferrari use some British expertise e.g. Rob Smedley who is Massa's mechanic.

First of all, don't worry, we're a friendly lot around here and won't bite! Second, do look up bullion price of gold and silver, as that should be a guide as to what the metal value is of your dad's coins. A dealer won't pay you full whack of course (needs his profit), but if you work on a "Can you pay me 66% of bullion value?" that would be reasonable. Any Englsih silver coin dated 1946 or earlier has actual silver in - 50% to be precise. Before 1920, it's sterling silver, i.e. 92.5%. So any of those old halfcrowns, florins, etc, are worth their bullion value according to date. If it's any consolation, coins have steadily increased in popularity compared to stamps, which have fallen dramatically out of favour (hence the auctioneers' comment). Coins however always have an intrinsic metal value, but you need to know what the metal is. Most of the proof commemoratives are not worth a great deal, often just bullion value. As for the older predecimal coins, and foreign, it depends on condition and rarity. It doesn't sound like there's much there, but you could try sounding out a dealer (depends where you live, but there are coin fairs in York, the Midlands and London are the biggest). Selling individual low value items on eBay would take more of your time than would prove worth it, unless there is an item of great rarity. There are a few dealers on this forum. They might be willing to help out. Good luck.

Actually I only use Variety where there is one, e.g. LT for 1902 pennies, or H / KN, or ME, stuff like that. If there's a Freeman or Peck number I'll use that for less well known varieties. Description I use for a multitude of purposes - e.g. Lot Number (auctions), perhaps a general rarity comment, people who helped me with information about the coin, more precise details about the seller - e.g. my Midland Coin Fair drop down choice doesn't identify who the actual dealer is. As for your Spink description, I leave it in Spink (no point in duplicating that!).

Oh great, I'm just the OLD one

We still make the best cars, just not mass market. And it's no coincidence that the majority of Formula One teams are based in this country.

Deja voo, Peck! I can hardly believe people actually knowingly paid for a repro crowns just so they could have one, I'd rather not bother! I think if the fake industry one day becomes a legitimate reproduction industry, then it will be supplying a totally different market to those that are the true collectors of historic coins! It would be akin to going to a superstore to buy a repro Tudor four-poster, in the hope you'd get anything like the experience of sleeping by candle-light in the genuine thing (you can spend 3X as much and get the genuine article, worth it I'd say!). Give the Chinese a spot-on planchet of .925 silver at a competitive price, then it's game over! I think we all have our own strategies to minimise the impact of the Chinese on our own areas of interest, and to each their own! I tend to agree, but there are a few exceptions : those repro Gothic crowns were staggeringly beautiful, and I've had happily paid out for one. And also for a faked 1933 penny. The crowns were never issued for currency anyway, and no-one will be in a position to buy a genuine 1933 thisside of a blue moon. So I have my weak points. I even paid a tenner for one of those fantasy proof pattern 1798 halfpennies. It was a satisfyingly chunky and handsome piece, and while some would probably turn their noses up at it, I've never regretted buying it.

I think that is just a case of "looks like" ghosting, it could just be a strip of missing lustre, an effect of the photo or a depression in the planchet I tend to agree. True ghosting has to survive the disappearance of lustre bloom, and still be evident on a coin that's worn to some extent. I'm not sure I've ever seen true ghosting on a George VI (no, scott, I didn't see it on your coin!!)

You mean Harold Wilson's "I'm Backing Britain" campaign? I have memories of it - 1968, I think. Union Flags everywhere, on everything. Perhaps he thought we would forget all about devaluation if we had enough red white and blue stickers. I think you're all right about our woeful loss of manufacturing industries. I blame it on Maggie Thatcher myself, though it is also true of the big technology companies - look at Apple for example, all their gear is made by Foxconn in China. However, we also mustn't forget that this tiny island was world leader in manufacturing through the entire 19th Century, and it wasn't until the Edwardian era that Germany began to overhaul us. In terms of our numbers and size, we couldn't stay ahead forever. And it's also been a fact for a long time that industry flees to the places of lowest costs, i.e. wages. If it helps to balance out the world economy it's not such a bad thing - we have to get used to the boundaries between the first two, and the Third World, blurring over time. But we have forgotten basic skills and that's a bad thing. We should relearn some of them, and not just be a tourist destination with a few plumbers, electricians, and mechanics thrown in.

We may be getting towards the situation where Chinese fakes become so technically perfect that it will be near impossible to tell them from the real thing, especially if the dies are 'corrected'. In which case we would need some way of dating the production of coins, for example some future equivalent of Carbon-14 dating. In numismatics, unlike record collecting or books, 'first issues' are of no importance in themselves, only that 'first strikes' can be of higher quality; if a second strike was of higher quality then they would attract the premium instead. What we may have to come to accept some day is that 'originals' are regarded as 'first issues' and command a price X times higher than a 'second issue' (a later fake). Thank goodness we haven't reached that stage yet, but I fear it may happen. After all, the number of potential collectors per original coin will grow and grow. Technically perfect fakes could be regarded in the same way as - for example - those Gothic Crown repros of a few years ago, and which went for around one tenth of the price of an original. And if that day comes, China may become the world leader in 'reproduction' coins and sell them openly for a profitable fraction of an original.

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix. The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it). There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria. The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it) (PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd) Given that the obverse dot is common to all three questionables, but the reverse flaw only to two out of three, then there is a strong possibility that either the same forger used one original obverse and two original reverses to make a series of fakes, or that the reverse flaw somehow got into the process as part of the forging (a bit of gunk on the "die"). I'd tend to suggest the latter is more likely. On the assumption that both the PCGS and Palves' coins are copies, there must be at least two obverse dies in use. You would expect two reverses in this case. One obverse has a pointed top to the A whilst the other is slightly flat. The top serifs on the C are completely different thicknesses too. Good point, but how would you then explain the dot? The fact that it is in EXACTLY the same place is odd, if different dies are involved. Unless it's a deliberate mark placed by the Mint, in which case there will be genuine items out there with it. On the other hand, if it's a mark imparted as part of the casting process, it would tend to vary with each different casting. We're now looking at a situation where the dot may be a genuine artefact, and is present on at least one series of forgeries. Which also means that one or more of those 3 examples may be genuine. And which takes us back full circle to the weight issue as the best means of determining fakes. I don't think any kind of casting process is involved making modern counterfeits. They are probably using some kind of computer controled engraving machine like this one: However the result may be similar to casting in the way that the machine will reproduce any imperfections in the design from the genuine coin used, if not corrected. We may be getting towards the situation where Chinese fakes become so technically perfect that it will be near impossible to tell them from the real thing, especially if the dies are 'corrected' as you say. In which case we would need some way of dating the production of coins, for example some future equivalent of Carbon-14 dating. In numismatics, unlike record collecting or books, 'first issues' are of no importance in themselves, only that 'first strikes' can be of higher quality; if a second strike was of higher quality then they would attract the premium instead. What we may have to come to accept some day is that 'originals' are regarded as 'first issues' and command a price X times higher than a 'second issue' (a later fake). Thank goodness we haven't reached that stage yet, but I fear it may happen. After all, the number of potential collectors per original coin will grow and grow. Technically perfect fakes could be regarded in the same way as - for example - those Gothic Crown repros of a few years ago, and which went for around one tenth of the price of an original. And if that day comes, China may become the world leader in 'reproduction' coins and sell them openly for a profitable fraction of an original.

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix. The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it). There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria. The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it) (PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd) Given that the obverse dot is common to all three questionables, but the reverse flaw only to two out of three, then there is a strong possibility that either the same forger used one original obverse and two original reverses to make a series of fakes, or that the reverse flaw somehow got into the process as part of the forging (a bit of gunk on the "die"). I'd tend to suggest the latter is more likely. On the assumption that both the PCGS and Palves' coins are copies, there must be at least two obverse dies in use. You would expect two reverses in this case. One obverse has a pointed top to the A whilst the other is slightly flat. The top serifs on the C are completely different thicknesses too. Good point, but how would you then explain the dot? The fact that it is in EXACTLY the same place is odd, if different dies are involved. Unless it's a deliberate mark placed by the Mint, in which case there will be genuine items out there with it. On the other hand, if it's a mark imparted as part of the casting process, it would tend to vary with each different casting. We're now looking at a situation where the dot may be a genuine artefact, and is present on at least one series of forgeries. Which also means that one or more of those 3 examples may be genuine. And which takes us back full circle to the weight issue as the best means of determining fakes.

On the discount question, I was always very crafty - if I thought I'd paid slightly too much for one of the coins, I'd deduct it from that one alone; otherwise I could do as you suggest; or if you feel you are likely to upgrade one sometime, you could apply more of the discount to that one, so you can sell it more advantageously when the time comes. It's as broad as it's long - in the end, you paid what you paid, so how you split is up to you. On the grading, does Excel allow you to put text functions, e.g. drop down lists, in your worksheet? In my database I have a drop down that splits Condition into three : 1. A or N or G or blank 2. BU UNC EF VF F Fair 3. (a longer list for those occasions where obverse and reverse are different, which only happens in a minority of cases, so it's not used so much - basically it goes from /AUNC down to /NFair). Then behind the scenes my database concatenates all three Conditions into Grade. I'm sure Excel probably allows this, but if not, it's one clear advantage of databases over spreadsheets.

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix. The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it). There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria. The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it) (PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd) Given that the obverse dot is common to all three questionables, but the reverse flaw only to two out of three, then there is a strong possibility that either the same forger used one original obverse and two original reverses to make a series of fakes, or that the reverse flaw somehow got into the process as part of the forging (a bit of gunk on the "die"). I'd tend to suggest the latter is more likely.

No...we have them de-clawed and shave their tongues at birth. My cheeks are also very tough after living with Mistress...I mean Mrs Peter for a long time A fatal flaw in your cunning plan is the failure to have their teeth pulled. If they decide to have a nibble whilst licking you may find yourself feeling rather deflated (you know how puppies love to chew on balls)....... I like to hold a pair of puppies whilst my balls are chewed.... Make sure you're not reading anything provocative while sat there - you know what dogs like to do with sticks I think puppies would have little use for a toothpick though Peck :D Speak for yourself! Oh, you were...

I cleared out loads of shrap last year.Amongst other tat we cleared £250 in 2 1/2 hrs and then spent £50 on lunch on the way home.The remaining £200 was split 4 ways. I did have a wander around the other tables but it was junk.Someone did leave their medical eyepiece on our table...which was nice. You done well there Peter! I sold lots of stuff from a stall when I was young, most of it I wish I had kept now... my Star Wars, Action Man, Thunder Cats, Ghostbusters, Beano and Dandy, He Man! I think I made around £80 which was nice at the time, but all that lot is probably worth a few hundred at least now! That is what puts me off, all the junk I would need to explore just to find a few coins, which will probably always end up junk grade anyway. I might just take a wonder down one Sunday when I am bored and see how it is. Precisely why I leave eBay pretty much well alone! If time is money, that "bargain" doesn't look so cheap after all. Much like sifting through auction lots crap, bidding on the one thing you felt halfway attracted to, winning it, and then wondering why your expected "happy" feeling didn't arrive

Wonder how he will celebrate Christmvs?

If you don't adopt any of my other suggestions, then at least add a "Variety" column - you may come to regret not recording this separately right from the start (you can always leave it blank where there aren't any).

No...we have them de-clawed and shave their tongues at birth. My cheeks are also very tough after living with Mistress...I mean Mrs Peter for a long time A fatal flaw in your cunning plan is the failure to have their teeth pulled. If they decide to have a nibble whilst licking you may find yourself feeling rather deflated (you know how puppies love to chew on balls)....... I like to hold a pair of puppies whilst my balls are chewed.... Make sure you're not reading anything provocative while sat there - you know what dogs like to do with sticks

Toilet puppies! Well, it makes a change from the toilet duck...