Peckris

The Beginners' Forum has a 'sticky' post explaining how to upload pictures to the site.

Hi JayBart55 I don't know if other members here are as suspicious as I am, but there is no way on earth I'm going to download an unknown file from an unknown person. If your enquiry is genuine, then please repost it as a reply here, and upload pictures. Thanks.

I think it's a combination of wear and weak strike. The reverse is clearly EF, while the obverse has wear (looking at the discoloured areas), but if it was a weak strike it wouldn't take much wear to make it look like that (VF for appearance).

It's happened again. Seems to happen only if I reply to an old topic, i.e. earlier than the latest 'Unread topic' which in my case is early January 2017. I have no idea how it resolved itself last time - I can only hope it resolves itself again. Sigh.

When I returned to predecimal, I started going back through unread topics, first the current ones, then ones listed under "Earlier" going back in time (a few at a time). When I got back to a topic from mid January last year, I stopped, and have been using that as a marker for "I've read everything recent now". However, today I noticed something odd. Several topics not marked as 'unread' were sitting above that January 2017 topic. I decided to click through them so they disappeared, which they did only to be replaced by others. In fact there is a total of 7 topics there, all marked as "read", and even if I go into them, the total remains at 7, though they are different after I've clicked in to make them go away. They are all dated after January 2017, and are marked as "Read". The 'Unread content' filters show I'm only supposed to be seeing stuff I haven't read, so why are there 7 read topics sitting at the top of the "Earlier" list? What do I have to do to make them go away?

They're all going that way.

How did you get to see my wellies?

Yet another dead link...

What makes you think it's silver? I'm seeing a copper coloured coin on my computer.

From what I can see, most of them are mid- to late-Empire bronzes, which exist in huge quantities. However, well over half of yours are sufficiently well preserved for identification purposes. I haven't spent any time doing that, but if you're interested, one of the Rotographic books in the banner above (Roman Base Metal Coins) might be a useful thing to get.

Dead links. A perfect example of why members should not use external hosts as they are failing rapidly (unless you cough up and take out a subscription with them...)

It was Portillo's leap backwards when he tried to retrieve the coin he'd just struck, and the machine gave a loud click, that gave me the biggest laugh!

Many people upload their pictures directly here, despite the maximum size per post. Others prefer to use an external host and then use the 'direct link' URL to get the picture displayed here. Until fairly recently, either method was just as good. However, looking through older posts on this site, it's quite apparent that external hosts cannot be relied on. I've lost count of Photobucket and TinyPic links that are broken and therefore there is no picture displayed. And last year, Dropbox broke all links to existing shared 'Public folder' links all over the internet. So, despite the upload limit - and there are ways to reduce file sizes if you ask, or look in the appropriate 'sticky' in the beginners forum - please upload your pictures direct to this website, and future users will thank you when they see the accompanying picture actually displayed. Thanks!

I take your point, but at least your picture will always be here (I shouldn't think many members want to delete pictures?). If you use Photobucket, TinyPic, or Dropbox, you must now pay for a premium account to guarantee your links might survive, and even then, there's no guarantee. I should think most external hosts will sooner or later adopt this as a business model.

It's quite common for base metal coins to be plated post-mintage - often in chrome, sometimes even in silver. One way to be certain is to weigh each one; if it weighs (within a very small tolerance) as a bronze halfpenny should, it's been plated. If there is a significant difference then it is most likely to have been struck in the wrong metal in which case it could have a collectable value, though not huge.

NO price guide is accurate - they are only 'guides'. For prices to pay, they are just a rough guide to go on, but they are more useful for showing the differentials between common and / or unpopular coins versus rarities and / or popular coins. For example, a 1902 LT penny is usually about 6 times the price of the high tide, in all grades.

For 'easy' years (though it can be relative): 1887 Jubilee Head silver 1902 1916 and 1918 1936 1937 1948 1965 and 1966 (1967 doesn't have shillings though everything else is extremely common). There are other relatively easy dates for particular denominations: 1758 shillings, 1754 copper, 1787 shillings and sixpences, 1806 copper, 1816 silver. Good luck - there's a wealth of research and digging around and general exploration to do!

Yes, the link I posted has self-adhesive type too.

I remember you could get plastic-lined card holders which were punched with a central hole to suit the size of coin you have. You then stapled the holder closed after folding the card over the coin. I don't know if they're still available but Windsor Coins used them extensively at one time. Here: http://www.safealbums.co.uk/Zen/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=201_207_490_492

This I think is the problem. Just as with those commemorative porcelain plates, these issues are trumpeted as 'low issue' and 'investments for the future'. That relies on there being a steady - or increasing - market for them, which just simply isn't the case; people who buy such things for investment purposes are doomed to disappointment. Look at the secondary market for such modern issues : they can be bought at auction for usually less than half of the original issue price - modern proof sets are a clear example of this.

I would say that is a poor quality photograph (out of focus - deliberate?) and it's therefore difficult to determine if those are R or E. On that basis, I would say 95% certain they are E. The winning bid was somewhat OTT.

They're clearly not medals, but I would argue they are not coins in the normal sense either. The Mint exists not merely to strike coins of the realm, as their traditional role, but to survive on their own now as a profit-making commercial organisation. Many of these 'special issues' should be regarded as no more indicative of 'for general use as currency' as those awful commemorative plates were, that were so popular in the 80s and now can't be sold for love or money. The problem is where we - as collectors - draw the line. Obviously proof sets (which the Mint have been producing as annual sets since the 1970 set) are special strikings of currency coins, and have been struck for centuries. Yes, for collectors and "VIPs", but they could always be set side by side with their currency equivalents. However, since 1983, the Mint has been producing special editions in greater and greater numbers purely to be sold for commercial profit. Some of these were never issued for circulation, such as the Britannias and piedforts, and should they be considered coins? I would say not, but apart from the obvious non-coins like Britannias, it is a grey area. How many people have spent crowns as currency for the past 100 years? Yet they are legal tender, and the cupro-nickel versions in the decimal era have been available from post offices at face value. Yet I'm prepared to bet that few shopkeepers have ever had one pass through their hands.

The second one has crisper detail but has been buffed, so it's a no-brainer really.

It's too worn to see whether the exergue has the curve. Now what you need to tell us is - where are the initials LCW? Below the lighthouse or below the foot?

There are no 1955 crowns. However, the 5 and the 3 on the Coronation crown are almost identical apart from a small stroke connecting the top stroke to the loop. It's possible there has been some die fill, or damage, which makes the 3 on a few crowns look like a 5. Yes, pictures of the date would be most useful.