Peckris

That's certainly an EF example. So Paulus' coin - just looking at wear alone - is very close to that. Flattening on the upper beard, and hair above the ear. But the reverse shows very little flattening, and Edward's ear is only just beginning to flatten. I'm not happy about the possible cleaning history though.

Err yes that as well... I think that the sexual trend in the younger generation ( so I am told !) is for there not to be much or any hair around the bits!! Well, in porno films, that's certainly true (so I'm told ), but among the general population??

I think the size of bedroom is irrelevant. The bedroom is where all the naughty people go. LOL true - the definition of naughty changing as you get past the age of consent

Little better than Fine to be honest, but as it's the rare 'dot' variety, that doesn't matter too much. It is well worth collecting a rarity like that, in that grade.

More like to be the strike Dave, as the other lions are good. Worn die, quite a common feature in that series, probably due to the number minted.

I'd say GVF or +, but it looks as though it's been polished at some time, unless that's the photo. I'd grab it if it was one of the scarcer years but not a '10.

Because I want more hair? Oh, I know! But irrespective of age, I still don't get why men would want to REMOVE hair? It's not as if there's any underarm pressure on our gender.

Is the small bedroom the equivalent of the naughty stair?

That's an amazing variety for a 1917 halfcrown Typos aside, is it in order to ask how much you paid for it? Nice example, BTW. I don't mind coming clean, I am here to learn as much as anything! If only it was inscribed 1917 and genuine lol!! I paid £90 plus postage, and pending any negative replies am very happy! Unfortunate turn of phrase! Looking at a few dark patches near the rim in a few places, I wonder if it's been cleaned lightly at some point? However, for that money, it's not a bad snaffle at all, and I'd say was a bargain, even if it has been cleaned a bit.

It looks brass in colour and certainly isn't bronze. I don't know whether it's been tested though. My verdict is taken from the TPG label on the slab (by CGS). Shame it's been slabbed - the weight would be a clincher.

Not sure. For wear, definitely I would be happy. But, are those buffing marks I see? Here again my ignorance is exposed, what are buffing marks? If you look closely, you can see faint parallel "rubbing" marks, especially in the fields of obverse and reverse. It may have been cleaned, e.g. to remove toning. As I say, I'm not sure and I'd need to see the coin in hand.

Better, better. That's a nice coin, and I'd say between VF and EF. Double the VF value (or halve the EF value), and you should be around the right ballpark.

Not sure. For wear, definitely I would be happy. But, are those buffing marks I see?

That's an amazing variety for a 1917 halfcrown Typos aside, is it in order to ask how much you paid for it? Nice example, BTW.

Cool - but where did the brass verdict come from? It doesn't look like classic brass, but if it's been tested...

Um, I may be missing something here ... why would men want to REMOVE hair? (Except from ears and nose but I'm assuming you would not put that stuff in either place). I want to ADD hair not remove it!!!

It looks as though you "Attached" the coins (uploaded them) without actually inserting into the post. There's 3 stages : 1. Select the image that is on your computer 2. Upload it 3. Add it to the post

Yeap. but it lives in Portugal I would give that GVF+ money as it is fairly ding free.Very nice Yes, I would agree. Much superior to VF and consequently in the stratospherically rising value spectrum. (VFs are quite common, anything markedly better is rarer and goes up in value faster) I don't like that obverse so much Dave, though it's a very nice reverse. I'm no expert on these SOHO coins but something surprises me about this one. Although the wear is fairly minimal in some areas (the berries and eyes on the obverse, for instance) there is a very marked lack of detail in others (the hair, the leaves, the background in the shield, the SOHO lettering). I presume this must just be due to a very worn die? It certainly doesn't appear to be due to circulation wear. It looks to me like it's been coated at some time in the past. It has an uncharacteristic yellowish hue, as if it's been artificially gilded. If so, and there's a layer of something coating it, that would cause a general 'softening' of detail. You're right about the wear - it's minimal, and the rim quality bears that out.

You should see what some Americans charge UK buyers for postage. $32 isn't cheap either I've just bought a hammered coin from the states, with postage charge $16 - not bad I thought, but in his listing he writes: "USPS International Registered shipping takes 1-2 months to arrive so if this time frame does not work for you do not bid". Not that friendly a statement, so I queried it, thinking he must mean 1-2 weeks...nope, he means 1-2 months! I still bought it anyway...it hasn't arrived, yet! It's arrived, costing me £139 with postage, which I think is superb value! I'd really appreciate opinions on grade, the pictures are an honest view of the coin. I did have some more 'dramatic' pictures (I'm sure you all know the kind), but thought I'd keep it real! So Grade, any thoughts, please? Grrr, files too big...will post them as soon as I can! OK submit, how do you do it? I've zipped the files, which are originally 1.6MB. I tried to upload the zipped files but still too big! When checking the properties of the zips, I discovered they are still 1.6MB...any ideas? JPEG is an efficient format that does not compress well. The only options are to reduce the size/resolution of the pictures or to host them externally on PhotoBucket or the like. Thanks Nick, I presume resolution can't be changed once the pictures have been taken? With respect, you've been misinformed. JPEGs are the ONLY way to compress and reduce the size / resolution of pictures. "Resolution" is a poor term, as it means different things whether you're talking about pictures, or digital displays. As far as pictures are concerned, there are several things you can do (using an image editor like Photoshop, or one of the cheaper / free alternatives): 1. Reduce the resolution in terms of ppi (pixels per inch). You may see that your out-of-camera resolution is 300 or 150 ppi, which is far too high. To display on a computer screen, you can reduce this to 72. This would affect the printed size too, but that doesn't matter for display here. 2. Reduce the overall dimensions (i.e. the number of pixels in absolute terms). If it is - for example - 3000x2000 pixels, that's far too big for a computer screen. To show nicely in this forum without having to scroll, it doesn't need to be any bigger than 800x600 (though Azda likes 'em far bigger ) 3. Increase the compression, and thereby reduce the filesize. In Photoshop, the quality / size scale runs from 1 (crap) up to 12 (full size). If you're only going to compress once, play around with a value between 5 and 7, or equivalent. And don't forget - the average digital camera allows you to reduce the "resolution" even before taking the shot - there should be a range of JPEG options in the menu. If you take all those actions, you will end up with a JPEG that SHOULD fit into the (rather paltry) 150k maximum which this forum allows. That depends on the capability of your monitor and video card. Most modern monitors are now designed to handle HD video which means a minimum of 1920x1080. 800x600 is like being back in the dark ages. I wasn't talking about display size. I was talking about a comfortable size of image of a coin that still lets you see all the finer detail AND see the text that accompanies it, without having to scroll. For the record, my current laptop display is 1440x960, in which an 800x600 image would sit very snugly without causing an eclipse of the sun.

Oh, they'll be in the top 2, make no mistake about that.

I don't know if this is merely a "gentleman's" (or should I say "horseman's") agreement, but as racehorse sales and prize money is still measured in guineas, then the 21s conversion still applies, if in a rather limited field.

You should see what some Americans charge UK buyers for postage. $32 isn't cheap either I've just bought a hammered coin from the states, with postage charge $16 - not bad I thought, but in his listing he writes: "USPS International Registered shipping takes 1-2 months to arrive so if this time frame does not work for you do not bid". Not that friendly a statement, so I queried it, thinking he must mean 1-2 weeks...nope, he means 1-2 months! I still bought it anyway...it hasn't arrived, yet! It's arrived, costing me £139 with postage, which I think is superb value! I'd really appreciate opinions on grade, the pictures are an honest view of the coin. I did have some more 'dramatic' pictures (I'm sure you all know the kind), but thought I'd keep it real! So Grade, any thoughts, please? Grrr, files too big...will post them as soon as I can! OK submit, how do you do it? I've zipped the files, which are originally 1.6MB. I tried to upload the zipped files but still too big! When checking the properties of the zips, I discovered they are still 1.6MB...any ideas? JPEG is an efficient format that does not compress well. The only options are to reduce the size/resolution of the pictures or to host them externally on PhotoBucket or the like. Thanks Nick, I presume resolution can't be changed once the pictures have been taken? With respect, you've been misinformed. JPEGs are the ONLY way to compress and reduce the size / resolution of pictures. "Resolution" is a poor term, as it means different things whether you're talking about pictures, or digital displays. As far as pictures are concerned, there are several things you can do (using an image editor like Photoshop, or one of the cheaper / free alternatives): 1. Reduce the resolution in terms of ppi (pixels per inch). You may see that your out-of-camera resolution is 300 or 150 ppi, which is far too high. To display on a computer screen, you can reduce this to 72. This would affect the printed size too, but that doesn't matter for display here. 2. Reduce the overall dimensions (i.e. the number of pixels in absolute terms). If it is - for example - 3000x2000 pixels, that's far too big for a computer screen. To show nicely in this forum without having to scroll, it doesn't need to be any bigger than 800x600 (though Azda likes 'em far bigger ) 3. Increase the compression, and thereby reduce the filesize. In Photoshop, the quality / size scale runs from 1 (crap) up to 12 (full size). If you're only going to compress once, play around with a value between 5 and 7, or equivalent. And don't forget - the average digital camera allows you to reduce the "resolution" even before taking the shot - there should be a range of JPEG options in the menu. If you take all those actions, you will end up with a JPEG that SHOULD fit into the (rather paltry) 150k maximum which this forum allows.

The weird thing is that I paid the equivalent of £26 for a 1903 halfcrown (GF-AVF) off a New York dealer. Ok, this was 1999 or 2000, but it's still a helluva bargain price. But I guess times change, and UK coins are now more attractive to US dealers.

lol! An on-topic post, and the thread dies! Umm... supposition - perhaps the Y is the the branch mint master, and the y is his helper?! Ok ok. Stay calm. You don't want to hurt anyone, really you don't. Not even this thread. Put the gun down, ok? That's right ... ni-i-i-i-i-i-ce and slow ... Let's hope that bl00dy United don't actually win the League yet again. Is that off topic enough?

...but worth considerably more...