Peckris

Worry not. Although olive oil contains oleic acid, any acidic properties are neutralised by the other ingredients. You can see this when mixing olive oil with vinegar (very much an acid) - the two will not combine at all, and separate out into layers as does oil on water. On the other hand you can mix vinegar and lemon juice with no difficulty : acetic acid and citric acid.

Totally agree! Facebook makes Twitter seem like an academics symposium by comparison.

Welcome to the forums Mr T - I'm still getting over the irony of your name coupled with your enquiry. Thought about changing it to Mr_no_T? Seriously, there are many coins being produced by the Mint now that are really sub-standard. Whether it's poor mass minting, or a cutback in inspection staff, who's to say? I suspect that with the ever-dwindling value to the economy of circulating coins, it's the latter. When all's said and done, singleton misstrikes like this have not much more than curiosity value; ironically, if other examples showed up of the same flaw, collectors would start getting interested.

Yes - just what *was* the US Mint thinking when they tried to foist the Susan B. Anthony dollar on the American public?!? They were facing a hard job anyway trying to convince people to use a dollar coin instead of a note in the first place, so what do they do, put a coin out with a portrait so ugly no one wants it in their purse/wallet (though of course there were other reasons that people didn't like the coin, such as its similarity in size to a quarter). Okay, I know she did much for civil rights for woman in the US, but she doesn't look great on a coin. BTW have you seen what the other proposed design for that coin actually was? It was actually a rather nice Flowing Hair rendition of Liberty, proposed by United States Mint Engraver, Frank Gasparro, see: http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/1977LibertyHeadDollar.htm I can't help thinking the coin would've had more success if they'd gone with that design! The reverse is better too... Yes, the pattern coin was so much better. The entire coin was a disaster, an ugly reverse and the same reverse used on the Eisenhower dollar! I must say though, I do like the reverse of the Sacajawea dollar (at least before the US mint decided to make yet another meaningless politically correct "commemorative" series), though the obverse is bland and the edge lettering is poorly executed. I find it rather sad that the US mint has gone from producing amazing coinage in the form of the Morgan Dollar, Peace Dollar, Indian Head Cent, Standing Liberty Quarter, Buffalo Nickel, Mercury Dime and Walking Liberty half dollar to the Eisenhower Dollar, Susan B. Anthony Dollar, Washington Quarter, the far too numerous state/territory/national park quarters, the ugly and terrible presidential dollars, the Franklin half dollar (which, I suppose I don't mind so much since they are all 90% silver...) and the Lincoln cent. There has been such a backsliding when it comes to coins since about the 1940s. Despite the fact that technology has advanced, the US mint instead decides to make low relief coins out of worthless, nearly unusable metal on the dollar coins with poorly designed edge lettering. On a thicker coin it wouldn't be a problem (like on the 1 and 2 pound coins) or if they made it raised (like the old Victorian crowns) but carved edge lettering in such a thin coin is worse than useless. Of course, I don't think things will get any better if the modern commemoratives are anything to go by and with the possibility of changing to even worse metal (steel)... I don't have much hope. Its really sad, as the much of the early to mid 20th Century US coinage had great designs (although my favourite US silver coin, the Walking Liberty Half Dollar, wore badly in use), though I actually think the Washington quarter isn't too bad, and unlike in the UK, US coins were 90% silver right up to 1964 (which makes the Franklin half more acceptable, as you say)! Mind you much the same could be said about the worsening designs of the UK coinage since decimalisation, I guess! I think the UK designs were on a slippery slope long before that. The George VI and Lizzy pre-decimal stuff is pretty un-inspiring in my opinion. I'm not entirely convinced (though it's highly subjective of course). Certainly George VI CuNi is uninspiring, though it got better under Liz. I actually like Chris Ironside's designs for the decimal coins. I also think the £1 coins have by and large been very good, and many of the commem £2 coins too. But I think the 25p £5 and 50p designs stink to high heaven with the honourable exception of the 1977 crown.

I think that the most useful description is exactly as you describe: "small edge knock, otherwise UNC". Okay, so it would still be considered to be a UNC coin then, albeit with an edge knock I have no problem with that.Although the above would most likely be less than VF money. I vow never to buy another coin with a noticeable edge knock.I don't mind good honest wear. A coin may also have a marked scratch and be Unc.The same will apply. However with hammered I will suffer a bit of clipping.Of course everyone wants a nice full round flan. I have a few hammered shillings (esp CH 1) which are ragged flans but unclipped. That is VERY harsh. I'd suggest a coin with a small EK, UNC, should fetch at least EF money especially given the vast gulf between EF and UNC values these days.

Copies are usually made from tin or tin alloy. It has a ring which is not out of sorts. Some casts give a dull clunk when you tap them, but others sound more realistic. Even within genuine coins you get a variation in the ring. Just out of interest, have you ever come across genuine coins that have a very flat uninspiring no-ring, for want of a better word, before? Obviously it starts other bells ringing, but I've come across some which weigh right, test positive for silver, pass every other test I can apply to rule out joined halves, casts, etc. but just sound terrible. I guess my question is does a genuine coin always have a 'right' ring, or can one sound 'flat'? Sorry, Rob! Just to clarify...I know you've mentioned variation, but I mean 'NO ring', most definitely a flat nothing! A flan crack can sometime cause that effect I have the world's rarest coin - a 1967 penny that doesn't 'ring' Having said that, there is no evidence whatever of any cracking to the flan. That is actually a great comfort Monsieur le Peckris, because I have certainly had some good coins in every respect, as discussed, except they sound bloody awful! I really am wondering how often a genuine coins goes 'thuck' when you 'drop' it onto a hard surface, instead of 'brring'. The descriptive sounds are purely for entertainment value only, no brain cells were harmed in the creation of this post...I hope you know what I mean? :-) If it's an internal air bubble that might account for it I guess. But, if the air bubble is large enough to affect the 'ring', that would surely affect the weight too?

Copies are usually made from tin or tin alloy. It has a ring which is not out of sorts. Some casts give a dull clunk when you tap them, but others sound more realistic. Even within genuine coins you get a variation in the ring. Just out of interest, have you ever come across genuine coins that have a very flat uninspiring no-ring, for want of a better word, before? Obviously it starts other bells ringing, but I've come across some which weigh right, test positive for silver, pass every other test I can apply to rule out joined halves, casts, etc. but just sound terrible. I guess my question is does a genuine coin always have a 'right' ring, or can one sound 'flat'? Sorry, Rob! Just to clarify...I know you've mentioned variation, but I mean 'NO ring', most definitely a flat nothing! A flan crack can sometime cause that effect I have the world's rarest coin - a 1967 penny that doesn't 'ring' Having said that, there is no evidence whatever of any cracking to the flan.

And here's mine.

I seem to have stumbled on some kind of a solution, albeit accidentally. I have two cabinets - one with felt lined punched inserts, the other with felt lined trays unpunched. For coins that need some written ticket (e.g. varieties) a home in the unpunched tray would in order, with the ticket by the coin.

In a world of "we hate giving receipts", those details are good enough ffor most insurance companies. Most of us don't collect coins where provenance is even remotely an issue. However Rob's your man for that subject.

It's probably a 1799 farthing or halfpenny of George III. If it's smaller than a 10 pence then it's the farthing, but it it's about the size of a 50p it's the halfpenny. It could even be a token dated 1793 but no official UK coins were minted with that date.

. . . . .

I've maybe seen that before, but what a gem! Is that yours Derek? No, it was sold on e-bay a few years back, I did bid for it but unsurprisingly it went out of reach. Another one which got away was a 1940 penny re-cut with a swastika instead of the union jack. Someone with a time viewer that could look 70 years ahead. I believe the swastika was a good luck symbol before it was adopted by the Nazis. I seem to remember it being used by the National Savings Bank pre war. I have a worcester salt token with a swastika for good luck Interesting that the Nazis reversed the design, but I guess they had to as it doesn't read "NZ" the original way round.

Depends how you define "very nice" - if you mean EF or better (and few Geo V dates are worth collecting any lower) then none of them fall into BV.

I'm sure they do, but I would not like to be the onwer who's item they might be gambling on! Or do they only gamble sell their own items for sale!? An estimate means nothing. No coin sells at auction on estimate alone.

Right foot, best thing for cats. Ive seen this on A coin some were. Father Christmas!

That's possibly the most dangerous sentence I've ever read on these forums. If you want to buy with bullion futures in mind there are two things to say : 1) get yourself a good crystal ball and remember what happened in 1980-81 ... 2) stay away from coins - there are enough 'x times face' traders about already. If you want to invest in coins, then two further pieces of advice : 1) get the highest grades you can afford and 2) avoid the commonest items (doesn't mean you have to go for rarities, which is the opposite extreme). As far as crowns are concerned, steer clear of 1887 and 1889, and go for EF or better of other dates, except the rarer types.

Only tin coin I have is this one 16th century Portugal or Portuguese Malacca I think Ugly but interesting Looks like the Calm Sea variety. David It is a portuguese ceitil I believe, but those things are very hard to sort because they were struck in different reigns and there is almost an infinity of varieties. But the material is not tin its copper and I believe it´s not a calm sea. Thanks!, this one's been sitting on a ticket with a big question mark on it for some time! My portugese catalogue only goes back to 1799, I had it as a dhinero Any idea what date range we're looking at? and where these silver washed? The "calm sea" reference is an "in joke" referring to two varieties of the 1956 UK halfpenny David Tsk - 1957 dear boy

Yes, I remember the Scarisbrick in the early 1960's - is it still the same? Yes it's still there. Not sure whether it has changed much since being a local I don't go there much but I'll be walking past it today. I love Southport for its seaside feel. Much nicer shopping there than in Liverpool, but obviously Liverpool has more shops, and the new Liverpool One is great. Just need a coin dealer in Southport for me to browse in. Ack - on a nostalgic visit back in 2010 I wasn't that impressed, though I'm sure it fills a need. I felt much more comfortable back in Hope St, Church St and Mathew St. I love what they've done with the Ally Dock though.

My "plan" - if you can call it that - was originally to get one of each year and major variety for pennies (back to 1895), then halfcrowns (back to 1911). This done, and a good few brass 3ds and farthings and sixpences later, plus a few shillings, florins and halfpennies, and early milled, I looked around and decided to be a milled type collector instead. This is a harder project! When it all boils down, we collect what we like, when we can afford, when opportunities arise, perhaps in fits and spurts. We're all different and long may it remain so!

your not nick griffin by any chance?

You're quite right. Spink classify by TYPE not by DATE. Each reference number relates to a particular type, and minor varieties come within that reference. Major or more distinct varieties get their own reference number. However, Spink list values for all dates. Spink's catalogue is probably regarded as the definitive book by dealers and collectors alike, but there are many other specialised books (e.g. Peck, Freeman, ESC, Davies) which go into much more detail than Spink.

Ditto. I emailed him several times and spoke to him on the phone at least twice, at length. You're right, he could get irritable! I also returned a few coins to him over the years, but to his great credit he was always prepared to replace or refund.

You're all wrong - it's a modern commemorative featuring scenes from "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers". Those figures are so obviously from a galaxy far far away.

It needs updating. A reprint for each denomination including the latest resources would sell well..I really don't think price is an issue. Pre-bronze? I'm not sure there have been that many updates identified as necessary (I'm not counting the micro-varieties of over stamping on Vicky copper - they are too minor and too numerous to be worth a major study). You could also argue that bronze pennies are more than well dealt with by Freeman, Gouby, Satin, et al. Bronze halfpennies and farthings could use an update perhaps? It would be useful to have all bronze denominations in a new version of Peck, though I feel he would still be the natural "go to" for copper and tin. Plus the Soho Mint output and Taylor restrikes, patterns, proofs, etc.