Peckris

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...

Happy birthday Dave

Maybe the engraver had just got married :lol: :lol: :lol: But it's erect? Its on the point of drooping, perhaps he was at the alter then..... It's definitely been altered

Yes, the series is definitely underrated IMO. They are lovely little coins, and ought to appeal to our many farthing specialists. The 20C scarcities are 1904 and 1905, 1917 (EF or better), 1923 (less so than it once was), 1932 & 1934 BU, 1938 BU, 1952 EF or better, and the even-numbered dates of Eliz II in BU, i.e. 1954/56/58/60. It's hard to say why some dates in the 1950s are so elusive in high grades compared to others - it's the same for all denominations. I suspect it may be something to do with some stocks being held back of some dates? Which makes those dates common in BU when collecting fever struck in the mid-60s. The 1959 has a similar mintage to 1958 I believe? yet is very common.

I'm viewing on an iPhone, so not the best view, but that surely isn't normal circulation wear is it? Also, isn't that a few casting bubbles about on the obverse? Maybe mould on its back? Bubbles to top, not all of mould filled???? Apologies if this is just the 2"x2" image I'm seeing that lets this coin down. The wear just doesn't look right. It's hard to say if this is a dodgy coin however - some wreath crowns that have been over-zealously polished in their lifetime can also have suspect wear patterns.

As I don't use Windows you can do a nice little zip file of little jpegs for me

Are we talking coins or teenage girls?

In my defence I would say that the 'window event' happened a good many years ago when I was not actually collecting, so that may itself say that since I've become a coin collector again I am no longer interested in teenage girls sunbathing topless. And this in turn may all be used as evidence that the coin collector is in fact nerdy and whoever posted the original heading to this thread had actually hit the nail on the head by saying we are all in fact anti-social creeps! Remembering my own teenage years, when my coin collecting interests and teenage girl interests were both at their most obsessive, I'd say that thesis isn't necessarily reliable! On the other hand, you could say that coins were a kind of compensation for lack of success in the other arena...

Hopefully you will find the 1914 and 1945 not too difficult. 1944 is ok too unless you want strict UNC. The others are genuinely quite tricky in BU or UNC, but you should be able to find EF examples without too much trouble.

And I'm afraid my equally nice 1911 proof halfcrown ain't for sale! (Just to dash hopes you didn't even have )

It's hard to tell from the photo, but the whole of the right side of the eight appears to have sustained damage. The resulting impact has squashed and spread the metal to give the impression of something more interesting than just a whack. That's all I think it is though. I agree - it looks like circulation damage.

Speak for yourmyself!

Hm , think you're barking up the wrong tree Steve. I'm a member of a Lumix camera forum where there hasn't been a post for several days. I'm also a member of one of the best writing forums, and I've seen in one of their main sections that there have been only three active threads in two days. This forum is usually one where you can rely on a daily contribution level.

Maybe I'm being over-sensitive here, but that seems a tad offensive.

...and the rest!

When you say "My link", do you mean that's your coin you're selling? No 'My Link' was the default name given when I posted the post. To me that crown looks cast....maybe I absolutely agree. I didn't like to say so before, as I thought it might be your listing. It definitely looks dodgy and very much like a casting.

When you say "My link", do you mean that's your coin you're selling?

Thanks Peck, hows this? Yes that's better (for me anyway). There is a suspicious bulge on the right hand side of the 0, but I'm struggling to place it with an underlying 6. I can't see anything of a 4 under the 5, but you never know with some of these overdates - they're flaky to say the least.

Looks like a 50 to me - not 40 or 46. And a straight 50 rather than an overdate. The enlargement seems too big to be particularly useful - it shows an awful lot of rough metal surface which contains too much bobbly inconclusive artefacts, that's my opinion anyway. Any chance of a smaller enlargement?