Peckris

Obverse : legend intact but very little detail left on the portrait. So I'd say About Fair. Reverse : legend beginning to wear away in parts, so it is not really even Fair. I'd say it is between Poor and Fair, perhaps nudging nearer to Fair.

I would be happy to suggest it! How do we explain (for example) that, if they are all naturally toned, none of us have one like that in our collections? Or do we? I have a few beautifully toned coins but not like that!! Me neither. Red tones, gold, yellow, grey. But none are blue. Apart from a GF 1745/6 halfcrown but that's a bluish hue on a pewter grey background and I'm sure is genuine toning.

Watched the concert on and off too, and feeling the urge to say something I have felt for a long time ... great lyrics and music, but Sir Elton and Sir Paul can't actually sing very well at all!!!! There, off to the tower with me! Actually, they WERE in tune! But you're probably right, not as rich vocals as they had when younger. Is it just me or did both Grace Jones and the wonderfully rear-ended Kylie Minogue not look a day older than when they were having hits all those years ago?

Same law as in the States - you can't melt coins that are or have been currency (though for pre-1816 it doesn't apply). It's not policed very thoughly though as far as I can tell. Witness the number of dealers advertising to buy pre-47 and pre-20 silver coins. Exactly ~ and in fairness, it would be exceedingly difficult to police. Was I dreaming, or was something posted on here a few months ago about the 1864 penny being rumoured to have gold in it ? Is that "rumoured" as in "there's rumoured to be both a B52 bomber and a red London bus on the moon"? Now watch me look really silly when someone posts that yes, there really was such a rumour

You're lucky, I've not seen one as yet. I'm lucky, I've not seen one as yet. And to quote Catherine Tate...

Me no like. The colours aren't AWFUL, just a tad unnatural. What I really dislike is the artificial reflectiveness off Vicky's hair.

I sat through the whole thing - I must say that for me, the best thing was the amazing projections on the front of Buck House, especially when Madness were playing on the roof.

To be fair, he's got some wonderfully rare coinage. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/A-CHARLES-AND-DIANA-COMMEMORATIVE-WEDDING-COIN-1981-VERY-RARE-/160815806135?pt=UK_Coins_BritishComm_RL&hash=item25715e76b7#ht_500wt_1413 Well, in one sense it's unique

I remember a certain regular dealer at the Midland Coin Fair once having a tray of "BU" bronze which was obviously cleaned EF. I never challenged him about it, but you do have to be on your guard.

It very much depends how much they are asking for it. 1902 is the commonest date for all Edward denominations, by an order of several times over, so there will be plenty of high grade examples out there. It has possibly been dipped lightly once, but there seems to be genuine lustre and it looks a nice EF example. If you like it, go for it - but don't pay over the odds for it (i.e. don't even pay Spink current price). If it's a bargain or at least reasonable then I'm sure it will turn out to be a good buy.

background colour definitely affects scan quality, the inside of my scanner lid is white, scanning toned copper/bronze results in very dark low contrast images - the scanner averages the dark coin/light backgound. Much better results if i put a dark blue behind the coin. For bronze with lustre, i use a yellowish brown background. Also important to crop the actual scan window as close as possible (in the preview mode) , to eliminate as much background as possible before the final scan worth experimenting, but always scan at a high res, you can always reduce the picture size later Yes, I had the same experience. However, like with photographs, detail is preserved in deep shadow, and can be brought out with a decent image editor; contrast and levels can be improved too.

I agree. In fact, I don't see her stepping down at all, unless for health reasons. George III actually died in 1799 but the fact was successfully concealed from the public. It was felt that having George IV that early would have precipitated a revolution so it didn't come to pass until he was too fat and dissolute for anyone to care very much. If you look at the portraits of George III from 1816, it's actually his son, quite clearly.

Direction is good, but it's not absolutely essential, especially in the early days of collecting. Some never find a direction as such, just buying what they like. It's all good - condition is much more important than having a theme. In the old days, I would have said VF was your minimum to get good detail. Unfortunately VF is the grade to have 'slid' the most in recent decades and now doesn't conform to the still quoted description of "slight wear only on the highest parts of the design". So really, it's a sharp GVF or even AEF you're looking at. 1895 and 1898 are the key dates in that series (excluding rare varieties). 1896 shouldn't be difficult at all, nor the commonest 1897.

background colour definitely affects scan quality, the inside of my scanner lid is white, scanning toned copper/bronze results in very dark low contrast images - the scanner averages the dark coin/light backgound. Much better results if i put a dark blue behind the coin. For bronze with lustre, i use a yellowish brown background. Also important to crop the actual scan window as close as possible (in the preview mode) , to eliminate as much background as possible before the final scan worth experimenting, but always scan at a high res, you can always reduce the picture size later Those are very good tips - I will bear them in mind. And I always scan at a high res (though maybe not maximum).

I agree, Peter. It's been a fantastic weekend of celebrations for a diamond queen. Talking about facebook here is a status from a friend of mine in the U.S "Watching the Diamond Jubilee makes me wish we had never made that huge mistake in 1776" ... Not as serious as that huge mistake they made in 2000

ditto, recommend AVG ditto, recommend a Mac

Definitely. There are pros and cons attached to each. Scans : a perfect round depiction with every part in focus and in the same plane; wonderful for seeing the best close-up detail of a coin; the results appear instantaneously on your computer. Sadly, any lustre or loveliness of tone is killed dead, and the result can be tonally flat and uninspiring. Photos : quite difficult to get in true focus and in a parallel plane, unless you have special equipment or some kind of "set up", also it's much more time-consuming as you have to upload the results. However, you get a much more realistic impression of tone, lustre, and general attractiveness. To see typical results of scans, see the pictures on this site's "Coins for Sale" section.

Shhhhhhhh. We don't talk about it.

Thanks copper, I was actually looking at a 1901 UNC penny yesterday, as my potential next purchase Not rare at all, but a great way to get a high grade example of that particular series.

There are some coins that are issued in special packs - GB proof sets and BU specimen sets come to mind - but mostly the way to differntiate real coins from commemoratives is to check 1. Who issued them (only the Royal Mint issues GB coins, though they also issue some commemoratives) 2. How were they described (commems are usually not described as actual coins, due to Trades Descriptions) 3. Were they sold at a premium over the metal content (though the same applies to proofs and specimens too) Summary - if the "coin" was issued in identical design for circulation as money (which would also apply to proofs even though they don't circulate), then it's a coin. Otherwise it isn't. You can check in Spink's Coins of England issued annually - there are some commems in there under Elizabeth II, e.g. Britannias - but until the modern decimal series, everything in there is a coin. If it's not in Spink, then it's definitely not a GB coin.

Very good thing. Can you imagine coins in circulation with the heads of Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown & Cameron on them ? Not a nice thought. Just so. He certainly fits the bill on that score Pity he doesn't have the Opposition Chancellor to keep him company..

Same law as in the States - you can't melt coins that are or have been currency (though for pre-1816 it doesn't apply). It's not policed very thoughly though as far as I can tell. Witness the number of dealers advertising to buy pre-47 and pre-20 silver coins.

22p a grab bag and a couple of roaches (smartie tube size and a picture of Mrs Peter with her 46 & 49 thrupenny bits.I will also throw in my picture of flipper (the original waxed dolphin). I just know Peck will out bid me. How can I possibly compete with Mrs Peter's threepenny bits?

Not a great monarchist, but I'm coming round to the view that a hereditry lottery is a good a way as anyof picking a titular Head of State. definitely wouldn't want a Predident Thatcher or a President Blair. The Irish probably have it about right Still hope those celebrating today have a good time and don't get too cold and wet Is this what they mean when they sing "Long to rain over us"? David That long to rain over us joke is certainly doing the rounds Presumably only women can be titular heads of state? Men - especially Cameron - would just be knobs, I guess.

What makes you think I haven't already "got going"? Way too much info! please start talking about coins again! I'm sure I don't know what you mean Anyway, back to coins. Which of those two do you prefer, the obverse on the left, or the reverse on the right?