Peckris

The brass 3d of which Argentum speaks did have a different reverse - a more 'naturalistic looking' thrift plant with the date to either side. Those - though extremely rare - are in fact more common than the proofs with the 'normal' reverse. They are also of a slightly different thickness and possibly weight too? The 6d and 3d actually feature prototypes of the ring pull so often seen on modern tins.

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks There's one factor which overrides - when comparing Edward VII reverses to George V, you must bear in mind that the Edward portrait is quite noticeably shallower than George's, which was notoriously high relief. This had a very definite impact on reverses, which have 'metal sucked away' from them compared to Edward. I would therefore expect most Edward reverses to look better struck and also less ghosted, than George's.

£14:50

Funnily enough I live in the South West - I'll ask the Village Union if they will send some suitably brightly painted bills your way.

More like Henry VIII impersonating Adolf Hitler impersonating Hannibal Lecter

Done!

Bostin' indeed! Thanks for extra pictures Chris - if I had a spare three grand I'd be in for it

I would agree that it's only EF - if you wait I'm sure an even better specimen will come along. That one would be a very nice coin but at a lower price.

Sure, but if understand it, a layout is just a "view" on the data and can be made up of data from many tables, which are necessary to avoid data repetition, which is a big no-no if being strict about relational database design... Sounds sensible, does it allow for many pictures per coin specimen, though? Well, I have Obverse and Reverse defined in the Pictures database, but you could have a third - Variety - or a fourth, or as many as you want. As for data repetition, yes it would be good practice to avoid it, but my own coins database pre-dates FMP becoming relational !! And for - e.g. Location - it's just one field and would be overkill to have a separate table for. I simply choose one of 4 or 5 values from a drop-down value list. Not necessarily - my own interest in how Seaby/Spink prices have changed since the 60s means I need to see them in all quoted grades whichever grade my own coin is in. It also means that when I upgrade, there's no further lookup of price required.

Absolutely they do. I take issue with your 1887 claims - I've seen many (and other 19th Century coins too) where the fields are brightly mirrored, but the raised parts of the design aren't. A clear indication of an undipped coin - dipping would make the whole coin uniformly bright (or flat), i.e. design, legend and fields. Polishing would have the reverse effect - the design and raised portions would be bright, while between the legend and general small areas of field, would be less bright. Impossible to be sold as BU in the 60s when the BU grade only came out in the 80s :ph34r:1684 and undipped ??? Where on earth do you get this idea from ??? I can prove to you that the BU grade was around in the 60s, from any one of my back issues of Coin Monthly. That 1684 looks cleaned, by the way, at least it does from the photos you've supplied.

Very nice! But you must do something about your scans Chris - they are supreme for showing any wear but complete pants for showing the tone / real appearance of a piece.

You're quite right. But I still think she would have gained far more reward from Stars Trek / Wars sites. Rather than the world's oldest hobby.

Believe me - if you found FMPro intimidating, MS Access is no easier, in fact it's more complex to learn. The upside of the learning curve is that once you get some confidence with it, you'll start using it for loads of things. As for the cost, yes if you buy the latest version it is expensive, but I got the previous version from Amazon (new, sealed) for significantly under £100, which for a full-featured relational database is not at all poor value. As a Mac user already there is no downside to being "locked in" to FMP (I've used it since 1994) especially when you consider there are multiple export formats including Excel. Okay, I might give FMPro another go, I downloaded a 30-day demo and still have time remaining on this. BTW does FMPro have visual tools (like MS Access, Open Office, Navicat etc.) for defining the relations between tables etc.? Is the form-buider relatively easy to use? Any other tips? Thanks The form builder has always been easy to use - you just specify which type you want (list, report, full data entry, etc), then just define fields or drag existing fields into place where you want them. You can go into Layout Mode any time and change things around, move fields, add more, delete, etc. And create new layouts (forms) whenever you want. The relationship designer I don't know about - I built mine in the days when it didn't exist. However, whenever I've looked at relationships in FMP 10 I've noticed a nice visual chart showing how everything connects together. Therefore I'd make the assumption that such a thing exists at the design level also. The good thing about FMP is that it's pretty destruct-resistant - you can make changes to most aspects of a database as and when you need or want to. But as with all database managers it helps to plan in advance as far as you can, it makes things a lot easier in the long run. Okay, had another play with FMP this evening, looks better than I originally thought, but will still take a little bit of time to get my head around, but could be worth persevering. Am starting to think about table structures, needs tweaking, but here's where I've got to in terms of tables: Specimen (i.e. individual actual coin and/or perhaps coin set) - information about condition, how acquired/sold, estimated current value, look-up for location etc. Type - one record for each coin type, each coin type could have many specimens. Am not sure whether this means having a type record per date or just per series, though probably the former as mintage and Spink prices (and varieties...) will be specific to a year Series - not sure about this, but could perhaps have many type records with shared data (e.g. same obverse/reverse info., weight, size, composition) per series - most non-year/variety specific coin type data could go here Variety - - not quite sure about this one or whether can account for varieties within the Type table Set (can contain a number of specimens e.g. proof sets). Or could possibly have a proof set as a Type in itself and a Specimen in itself, not sure of best approach here Reign (for kings and queens, names, dates etc.) Mints - location and details of mints Location (for storage locations) Dealer/Customer - dealers I've bought from/customers I've sold to Reference - i.e. reference book details - Spink, Davies, ESC, coincraft etc. Bullion - table with current bullion values per oz/gramme so can automatically calculate coin Series bullion values Obviously some of these would be combined in the layout views. What do you think? Overkill? Or have I missed something out? Will start in the fields next... Missed one... Also was going to have a table for: Denomination (including fields like common name, short name, value, value unit e.g. "Half Crown", "2/6", 30, "d" Interesting - most of those fields iI've included in my main data entry layout. Then I have other layouts for Spink values in several grades. And separate list-style layouts for location, buying details, selling details, etc. Not to mention a print layout for taking to the library to look up Spink values. And so on. I have related files for auction lots, and for the history of Seaby/Spink values since the 1960s, and for coins in sets. But really, how you set it all up is entirely on what you want to see. My main external file is for pictures, as I want to keep the main database fairly small aa manageable. I have a relationship (Coin ID number) that ties each coin to its picture, and the picture appears in any layout I've defined that relationship in (only one, in practice).

The picture could be better but it doesn't look fake to me. There's a lot of fake 1818 and (more rarely) 1819 on ebay from time to time. Strangely I've yet to see 1817 and 1820. That is; of the type known to me - There may be other kinds of fakes around! Nor to me. It may have been cleaned or dipped but it looks ok. Went for a good price!

I'd say that it is far from unknown post-1816, but much rarer before that. I do have an UNC 1708 shilling with only very light toning but I'd say most early milled tones for some reason. after then, It may be the way planchets were prepared for steam minting, or another reason, I don't know - but there are many full lustre silver coins of the 19th Century that shouldn't be suspected of dipping. Of course some WILL have been dipped, but if there's bags of lustre present I'd say it was unlikely. I have a George III shilling and sixpence, a George IV halfcrown, William IV shilling, and all Victoria denominations, that appear to be both untoned and undipped.

In my day that was a LOT of hair!!

Believe me - if you found FMPro intimidating, MS Access is no easier, in fact it's more complex to learn. The upside of the learning curve is that once you get some confidence with it, you'll start using it for loads of things. As for the cost, yes if you buy the latest version it is expensive, but I got the previous version from Amazon (new, sealed) for significantly under £100, which for a full-featured relational database is not at all poor value. As a Mac user already there is no downside to being "locked in" to FMP (I've used it since 1994) especially when you consider there are multiple export formats including Excel. Okay, I might give FMPro another go, I downloaded a 30-day demo and still have time remaining on this. BTW does FMPro have visual tools (like MS Access, Open Office, Navicat etc.) for defining the relations between tables etc.? Is the form-buider relatively easy to use? Any other tips? Thanks The form builder has always been easy to use - you just specify which type you want (list, report, full data entry, etc), then just define fields or drag existing fields into place where you want them. You can go into Layout Mode any time and change things around, move fields, add more, delete, etc. And create new layouts (forms) whenever you want. The relationship designer I don't know about - I built mine in the days when it didn't exist. However, whenever I've looked at relationships in FMP 10 I've noticed a nice visual chart showing how everything connects together. Therefore I'd make the assumption that such a thing exists at the design level also. The good thing about FMP is that it's pretty destruct-resistant - you can make changes to most aspects of a database as and when you need or want to. But as with all database managers it helps to plan in advance as far as you can, it makes things a lot easier in the long run.

She must think we all have Aspersgers! (Grumbles off to rearrange his complete Star Trek videos into colour-coded sequence...)

Believe me - if you found FMPro intimidating, MS Access is no easier, in fact it's more complex to learn. The upside of the learning curve is that once you get some confidence with it, you'll start using it for loads of things. As for the cost, yes if you buy the latest version it is expensive, but I got the previous version from Amazon (new, sealed) for significantly under £100, which for a full-featured relational database is not at all poor value. As a Mac user already there is no downside to being "locked in" to FMP (I've used it since 1994) especially when you consider there are multiple export formats including Excel.

I take it you mean things like this lustred dipped coin? Yes, just like that. His pictures also briefly show an Edward VII obverse (florin?) that has clearly had the same treatment.

I know they do! But as I only use Word regularly (2001), eXcel once in a blue moon, and Powerpoint never, I guess it's wasted on me! I do use databases a lot, but it's FileMaker Pro.

Don't take this the wrong way, but your shots are awful. Except for the 'with flash' one. I'd suggest you use the flash in future, it seems to come out pretty well?

Sorry, I thought the Crown was part of the proof set? It's a 6-coin silver set.

Susan B Anthony's twin!

Sorry, my mind reading abilities have gone a bit rusty. Perhaps Derren Brown might help?