Peckris

Don't worry, I'm not a mason! What I'm saying is this. Unfettered opinion and genuine freedom of speech is being slowly but surely sidelined from mainstream communication and everyday life. This results in it being forced 'underground' and nowadays appearing on the nether reaches of the internet. The government is clearly not happy with this situation and has demonstrated every intention of wanting to police all such communication (witness the recent moves forcing ISPs to make data available). That's one step closer to allowing governments to open our mail, in my opinion. Whilst I most certainly don't agree with many opinions expressed, I will fight for the right to express them (to paraphrase Voltaire). You have in effect agreed with me. Why should we all have to 'sidestep' monitoring in everyday life. The UK is already the most surveilled country in the industrialised west, by the government's own admission. Ah, I see what you're saying. You're talking about the SOPA stuff (is that right acronym?). What you forget is this : if everyone who is worried about such stuff, whether or not they have anything to hide, set up several online identities, each one centred around a hotmail address containing fictional personal details, then anyone who was serious about monitoring us citizens would soon be chasing their tails. In actuality, if enough man hours were expended, such fake identities could be traced via injunctions served on ISPs (provided that the courts were presented with the evidence to furnish an injunction). However, this expenditure on man hours would entail more staff working on it than the entire Civil Service employs. For myself, I am endlessly grateful that the more limited effort that Government agencies expend, is to track down the activities of terrorists. Mike is quite correct. It only takes a little nous to sidestep a perceived lack of anonymity, and anyway the Government is neither interested nor has the resources to spy on the likes of us. As for people 35 or under, many hurl all their personal details into Facebook, so the lack of privacy there is self-inflicted and I have no sympathy with anyone who falls foul of scammers, government spies, or anyone else, if they don't have even the basic idea of personal discretion.

:lol: I know, I know - we think of a size then double it

You'd be forgiven, the way some dealers jump straight to Fine for everything below VF. Fair is better than Poor, but less than Fine. For example, if there's no hair left on the portrait it's Fair. If the main elements of design (e.g. the lion face) is worn flat, it's Fair. To be Fair, the legend has to be completely readable. On your better picture, I'd rate the '05 Fair+ but it's definitely not Fine. My 1869 penny just about rates as Fair, but only just.

Does it offer the option to always allow specific people too? The latter is more important than being able to block emails. Getting annoyed with incessant spam is one thing. Not receiving something you needed because of the provider is a level up in inconvenience. It surely can't be beyond the bounds of reasonable programming to have the facility for me to tell the email filter to always allow messages from abcd@123.com for example. Though my sisters and I are Mac users, my sister had a lot of email problems when she was with BT. It does seem that they apply filters before the emails even reach you, that's before Outlook even sees them. However, the suggestion to use hotmail (Microsoft Live or Googlemail) is very sound. You keep your email addresses however many times you change your ISP. Plus, you can still use Outlook or another email client if you want - you just tell (e.g.) Googlemail to set up your Gmail account as a POP account, then you simply add it as a new email account in Outlook, and you get all your hotmail downloaded to your computer while it also still lives on, in Google. Finally, you can add an existing POP account (e.g. your BT email address) in Googlemail so you can get it online too. It's all a lot more fluid and flexible than it used to be.

The two 1902 shillings are certainly at least EF. The 1910 is better than VF I'd say - there is some wear to the hair (always the first to go), the remainder shows little. I'd say GVF or perhaps even a bit better. The 1905 is less than Fine - I'd rate it Fair.

Interesting story. I've wondered whether my 1966 brass penny was produced in the same way, though security for anyone working at the mint would surely be extremely tight. At the end of the predecimal era, the mint was relocating from Tower Hill to Llantrisant. It appears that most of the oddballs from this period were mint workers having a bit of fun. Very few coins produced in the mid-60s were of high value. You had the odd sovereign run, but the bulk was low value Cu-Ni and bronze. Nobody would be likely to pinch a lot of these and so a few unoffical strikes would easily get out. Though officaldom would probably have appreciated somebody relieving the mint of the odd million Churchill crown or two. Yes and no! Llantrisant would be the new Mint of course, but only for decimals. Which means it must have begun work in 1968 though only officially opened in 1969 I believe? The Tower Hill Mint continued to produce the remaining predecimal coins, so although there may have been some staff transfers, the technology all stayed in place and the job continued much as before. I also believe that London started producing the proof sets? As it didn't close until 1975 I assume they must have been doing something to justify its continued existence and proof sets would seem to be one way to keep going for a short while.

as if! I think I did say "except Proofs" and I believe the Gothic crowns fall under this category and although there are worn examples it was not meant to be a currency coin. Am I wrong? That's absolutely correct. Are they all proofs? Not sure, but I am sure someone will tell us!

You HAVE to be kidding!! While I agree with the "privacy" thing, "opinion" is something that now runs wild and unfettered, thanks to the internet. God save us from all the trolls who are proliferating behind their computer monitors and broadband. There's far too much opinion out there now. IMO Not kidding at all. How can unfettered opinion be a bad thing? God save us from the day when we are not allowed to have our own opinions! Whilst I agree that the internet has provided a place where some pretty outrageous opinions can be voiced, one has to presume these opinions were held prior to the arrival of the web. Only the ability to communicate them has changed, though there seems to be a fairly concerted attempt to police this (witness jail terms handed out for twitter comments etc.). We need to be careful not to build a dystopian society where only opinions which align with prevailing political thought or policy are allowed. Fahrenheit 451 maybe. Sorry, I'm having difficulty squaring your circle Steve! On the one hand you say that opinion will soon be consigned to history books, on the other you say that we have unfettered opinion. Not sure which way your pendulum is swinging (no sexual references there, I hasten to assure you )

Nevertheless, it's true. I've looked at it very closely, and I cannot see any fingerprints when the coin is held in hand ~ and I have extremely acute eyesight. Don't forget the pic is considerably enlarged. When unclicked on it is exactly the size of a penny (on my screen anyway), can you see any fingerprints then ? errr, no You mean they're actually in it ? Crikey I think you missed my joke there Mike - you were talking about a fingerprint that was invisible in hand ... oh, never mind. No, the Jocks aren't in it. That's the one advantage they have over us I'm missing pretty much everything today, Chris. The constant rain is addling my brain Oh God, you should be down here in the SW. Not just constant rain but high winds. To think we were basking in very warm temperatures only two weeks ago.

But it's a halfpenny? Farthings weren't minted after 1956, or maybe that was a typo on somebody's part. In any case, a fascinating story.

Nevertheless, it's true. I've looked at it very closely, and I cannot see any fingerprints when the coin is held in hand ~ and I have extremely acute eyesight. Don't forget the pic is considerably enlarged. When unclicked on it is exactly the size of a penny (on my screen anyway), can you see any fingerprints then ? errr, no You mean they're actually in it ? Crikey I think you missed my joke there Mike - you were talking about a fingerprint that was invisible in hand ... oh, never mind. No, the Jocks aren't in it. That's the one advantage they have over us

This doesn't come up on Google. Do you have the link?

I'm not sure. Personally I wouldn't risk it. You could place them in acid-free envelopes or in special non-PVC coin flips. What were they in before the cling film?

An invisible "in hand" fingerprint ... I will sit down and think through the surreal logic of that I'm so confused. Right footie starts tomorrow.How do you think the Jocks will get along? Right footie? Isn't that sinister discrimination against all those left sided players? I think the Jocks are in even worse state than we are, which is saying something

The Maundy sets are the best on offer there - both sets are EF (or thereabouts) with nice toning. I don't know anything about hammered, but none of those three jumps out at me. Of the four silver "coins", the first is actually a Victoria Diamond Jubilee medallion (so very timely!) which came in two sizes - crown and shilling-sized, yours is the shilling size. It's in nice condition though its value is fairly modest. The William IV groat is of interest, but only Fine+ condition, so no great value but worth keeping if you like it. The other two are only worth "silver melt", of which the Vic florin - being pure silver - is worth much more than the 50% silver sixpence. The two 1953 coins are common enough in high grades, a lot were minted and kept at the time.

Normally I would agree with you choolie but crowns in VF and above kind of overstep my budget! I have most of the crowns post 1818 except the Proofs, 1847 Young Head, a few of the old heads and the only Wreath I have is the 1928. Just thought it would be nice to try and get a few earlier examples staying in budget of cause which this one did. Wow, you have a Gothic crown? Now any of those DEFINITELY oversteps my budget!

Um, surely I can't be the only one who sees that the first 7 in the die number is inverted?? (Thank you Nick - now I see the title of the thread! That'll learn me to read it fust..)

You HAVE to be kidding!! While I agree with the "privacy" thing, "opinion" is something that now runs wild and unfettered, thanks to the internet. God save us from all the trolls who are proliferating behind their computer monitors and broadband. There's far too much opinion out there now. IMO

An invisible "in hand" fingerprint ... I will sit down and think through the surreal logic of that

On that note, there are some listed on ebay that state they are made from 'furniture board'. Not sure if this is mdf or something else, but proper mahogany trays are tried and tested and safe. MDF is not recommended for coins of any value as we don't know the long term effects of the glues etc that are used in manufacture. I had my cabinet made by Peter Nichols, but they can also be picked up at auction, though that way you have less choice about the size of the various holes. But a bit cheaper. I guessed that from a picture you posted on another thread! There's something instantly recognisable about the wood he uses, then there's those red felt inserts... I have two of 'em. St Leonards on Sea, isn't he? Or something like that.

I have seen many silver coins that look like this, all in low grade, it is nothing unusual. OK, I have an awful feeling I am about to learn something I should already know! Here are my questions however... Surely the silver alloy would be a consistent colour throughout the entire depth of the planchet, not just on the surface? There seem to be numerous other low-grade coins of the same type that do not manifest this copper colour beneath the surface! Isn't this quite simply a plated copper halfcrown? Oh, and apologies to the seller if I've brought a genuine article into disrepute! Not to mention the number of G5 coins I've binned on account of copper showing just below the surface. Anyone? Right, this is a complex subject! First, the Mint had a lot of difficulty with the new 50% silver alloy, the other 50% of which consisted largely of copper, though they experimented with the precise tiny proportions of tin and zinc. The discolouration you see is present on most coins between 1920 and 1926. In the earlier years, i.e. before 1923, some of the coins have a distinctly yellowish appearance, then you get the pink coppery colours a bit later. You don't see any discolouration on the BU coins as I believe the blanks were washed in pure silver before striking (can anyone confirm?). After 1926 the mix was more stable, but even so you can see ugly discolouration on worn coins all the way through to 1946. Precisely why the copper shows through more on worn specimens is something that perhaps a chemist would need to answer. Certainly the alloy was supposed to be of even mix and quality, but it may not have been particularly stable when it came to wearing characteristics, i.e. with environmental factors and the properties of sweat, etc? Some coins instead of showing the coppery hue you see there, show an even uglier grey colour. That would tend not to draw so much attention from people like yourself, wondering if it was indeed a copper coin. But I can assure you that I have seen many many examples just like that coin on eBay, and the more worn they are the more discoloured they are. The exception being coins of 1920-1922 which can often look yellowish even in high grade and led to the Mint tinkering with the alloy to try and get it right. I'd say that coins of 1925 are possibly the worst for showing the pinky colour, so it is possible they tried a one-off alloy mix in that year? Well, just as I said, I thought I was about to learn something quite significant! Thanks, Peckris, for your usual full and diligent response! I have to say, I have genuinely learnt something quite monumental there, I'm staggered, guess I've played about pre-1920's for far too long! Time to give G5 a try then I find George V to be just about THE most fascinating reign, numismatically speaking.

With sets that contain "sets only" or "proof only" coins, it is an observable fact that selling those coins individually will generally bring in more than the whole unbroken set would. I've split cheap 70s proof sets before now in order to supply demand for individual coins, and never regretted it (financially). The same is true of 1953 'plastic' sets which can be bought absurdly cheap sometimes - yet you could sell the BU penny for near on a fiver, the halfcrown for £3-£4, the halfpenny £3, etc etc. If keeping for your own collection, then if you really don't want them in the packaging, then go ahead and break it. Just remember that the coins MAY degrade quicker once out of their protective shells, unless stored carefully. However, do bear in mind that (e.g. 1983) coins that aren't "sets only" issues, will have little more than face value for years to come, so you must make that calculation yourself.

If selling it on eBay Oops, no, then it would be near EF :lol:

I have seen many silver coins that look like this, all in low grade, it is nothing unusual. OK, I have an awful feeling I am about to learn something I should already know! Here are my questions however... Surely the silver alloy would be a consistent colour throughout the entire depth of the planchet, not just on the surface? There seem to be numerous other low-grade coins of the same type that do not manifest this copper colour beneath the surface! Isn't this quite simply a plated copper halfcrown? Oh, and apologies to the seller if I've brought a genuine article into disrepute! Not to mention the number of G5 coins I've binned on account of copper showing just below the surface. Anyone? Right, this is a complex subject! First, the Mint had a lot of difficulty with the new 50% silver alloy, the other 50% of which consisted largely of copper, though they experimented with the precise tiny proportions of tin and zinc. The discolouration you see is present on most coins between 1920 and 1926. In the earlier years, i.e. before 1923, some of the coins have a distinctly yellowish appearance, then you get the pink coppery colours a bit later. You don't see any discolouration on the BU coins as I believe the blanks were washed in pure silver before striking (can anyone confirm?). After 1926 the mix was more stable, but even so you can see ugly discolouration on worn coins all the way through to 1946. Precisely why the copper shows through more on worn specimens is something that perhaps a chemist would need to answer. Certainly the alloy was supposed to be of even mix and quality, but it may not have been particularly stable when it came to wearing characteristics, i.e. with environmental factors and the properties of sweat, etc? Some coins instead of showing the coppery hue you see there, show an even uglier grey colour. That would tend not to draw so much attention from people like yourself, wondering if it was indeed a copper coin. But I can assure you that I have seen many many examples just like that coin on eBay, and the more worn they are the more discoloured they are. The exception being coins of 1920-1922 which can often look yellowish even in high grade and led to the Mint tinkering with the alloy to try and get it right. I'd say that coins of 1925 are possibly the worst for showing the pinky colour, so it is possible they tried a one-off alloy mix in that year?

Maybe no control over DIRECTION, but unlike with a photo, the light in a scanner is always evenly consistent and not dependent on quality of daylight or indoor bulbs for which white balance has to be set carefully.