Peckris

ESC is ok but I think a little dated now. The rarity scale is a fair reflection, though milled is not my thing now, but like the Spink price guide the ESC is only a guide too with regard to rarity, for example a few years back I owned a 1825 shillig with the roman I in date which is classed as an R7 in ESC...hmm R7 states one or two examples but I have seen probably at least a dozen the amount of these in the last decade...so worth thinking on!! Okay, will probably just stick with the Spink 2012 and Coincraft 1999 that I've ordered for now, and will try to "digest" these first. BTW I found the Introduction section of Davies very educational, especially the Historical outline, hope there's more useful background material in Coincraft and Spink, not just coin lists (though they're useful too, of course). Whatever else you think of Coincraft or their catalogue, there is a phenomenal amount of useful background information in there. Not just good articles as appendices, but in the introduction to each denomination and reign. It has the added bonus of recommending what grades are best collected in each series. It's a mineshaft of information. But which copy of coincraft is best, the latest ( 2000 ) or previous ones, not all newer versions of something are better than the past ones. They're all good. More varieties got added after the first, and people corrected a few things they got wrong, so I'd say any issue from 1998 onwards would be good. It's a shame but I had both the 1997 and 1998 issues and gave the 1997 edition to a jumble sale a few years back, before I even joined this forum.

Ah, the good old Rolleiflex - staple camera of wedding and portrait studio photographers for many decades Somewhere I still have a Lubitel, the Russian imitation. Very plastic, very cheap, very inferior, but great fun.

ESC is ok but I think a little dated now. The rarity scale is a fair reflection, though milled is not my thing now, but like the Spink price guide the ESC is only a guide too with regard to rarity, for example a few years back I owned a 1825 shillig with the roman I in date which is classed as an R7 in ESC...hmm R7 states one or two examples but I have seen probably at least a dozen the amount of these in the last decade...so worth thinking on!! Okay, will probably just stick with the Spink 2012 and Coincraft 1999 that I've ordered for now, and will try to "digest" these first. BTW I found the Introduction section of Davies very educational, especially the Historical outline, hope there's more useful background material in Coincraft and Spink, not just coin lists (though they're useful too, of course). Whatever else you think of Coincraft or their catalogue, there is a phenomenal amount of useful background information in there. Not just good articles as appendices, but in the introduction to each denomination and reign. It has the added bonus of recommending what grades are best collected in each series. It's a mineshaft of information.

Interesting that there should be an overdate at this late stage in the bronze series, when - if you study Freeman - there was a great stability from the early 1880s onwards. The 1893 farthing also has a few variations. It makes me wonder, was the original plan to bring the OH in for bronze at the same time as gold and silver? It would make more sense, as having a 'staggered' introduction of the bronze redesign is a bit odd to say the least, especially when you think it perpetuated the young bun head to an absurd degree. Perhaps the OH bronze design was postponed through pressure of timescales, then they would have had to bring in proper dies for 1893 and 1894.

No, the Traveller USB camera is just used as a digital microscope for large magnifications of small areas of a coin ie examining overdates. As far as a digital camera setup goes, you'll probably want either: a digital compact with a macro mode; or a DSLR and a prime (fixed focal length) macro lens. In general, the more megapixels the better - it's easy to crop away those you haven't used. Obviously, the DSLR route is a lot more expensive, but prime macro lenses usually contain high quality optics and also allow you to position the camera further away from the coin - which makes lighting the coin easier. If you do go for a prime macro lens, one that will do 1:1 reproduction will be the dog's doodahs. This means that at 1:1 the object will be the same size on the sensor as it is in reality ie a shilling would only just fit into the frame. Thanks, Nick, very much appreciated, a great starting place. I think DSLR will be the way forward then. As you've obviously got your head around these things, would you mind if I came back to you for a little more advice on the matter when I've narrowed down a couple of set-up's? No, that's going from one extreme to another. A DSLR is a total waste of a lot of money if you only intend to use it to photograph coins. There are a great many compact cameras that have good macro facilities, then there are good quality mirrorless system cameras like the Panasonic G series for which you could get a decent macro lens for a fraction of the DSLR system cost, and I have a superzoom camera that takes good macro pictures but costs around 1/3 or less of a DSLR basic system, i.e. without even factoring the cost of a macro lens. Basically what I'm saying is - DSLRs are for serious photographers who factor in the cost of an entire system, which amounts to a body, a few lenses, a good tripod, a separate flash, etc etc. They are total overkill UNLESS you are interested in developing a photographic hobby alongside coins. Just to give you an instance : a decent superzoom with macro built in, plus a tripod, will set you back not much more than £300. To get the same kind of DSLR kit would set you back more than double, maybe 3 times as much. You need to think very carefully about this.

Looks like another totally crappy ebay decision! I guess we'll be seeing more 'patterns' or 'I don't know anything about coins' on ebay in the future - after a possible replica stamp has been removed to comply with ebay rules. And sad news for collectors of US contemporary counterfeits and for the genuine collectors of replica coins! What counts as a 'replica', I wonder? A 1933 penny is obviously a replica, but no-one is going to be fooled by a listing claiming it to be genuine. I'd mourn the loss of those good fakes, as Peter says. I can only assume that an 18th Century evasion halfpenny won't count, as they are 1) collected in their own right (as are seuk's favourite series from 1816) and 2) who will rule that a genuinely 250-year-old forged or evasion coin is a "replica"? If the ruling is that items marked COPY aren't allowed, will we then see such items listed as genuine?? I come back to the crucial question - who will rule?

Just make sure your mint doesn't get lost in the wrinkles. Now now. The Blessed Felicity is one of our better preserved lovelies - I think she must visit the same 'therapist' as Lulu!

Kendal Mint Cake = that's the prince of mints :-) ooh only if I can eat them of Naked Felicity herself Now you're talking

Kendal Mint Cake = that's the prince of mints :-)

Bento (i.e. a database) will give you a lot more flexibility of views than a spreadsheet, plus it will be easier to incorporate pictures. So that sounds like a good way to go.

LOL I did a reply with the URL to Rowntree's site, but I withdrew it - I thought it shouldn't be the first reply.

Yes, that looks cupro-nickel. Whereas your original post looks definitely silver.

It looks as though the coin was sliced into two, so that wonderful engraving on the backside of the obverse could be done.

While I acknowledge the concerns, what the archaeologist says about disturbed material is disingenuous nonsense. I used to go on a lot of archaeological digs, and I remember well that we 'coinies' were allowed to raid the 'spoil tip' (i.e. excavated and dumped soil) for any coins, as they would no longer be 'in situ' and therefore of no value to the archaeologist. I found a good silver denarius of Julia Domna in this way, and after cleaning it came up between VF and EF. The fact of the matter is this : if the place where the detectorist made a find wasn't a known archaeological site, then it wouldn't have been on their radar in the first place. Therefore the museums should be grateful that someone has pinpointed an area for fruitful further excavation. If the find was Roman, there's almost too many unexcavated sites to worry about. The only time a detectorist would be an absolute menace is if they haunted an actual ongoing dig, e.g. at night.

These don't tend to vary greatly over the years, as token collecting is a minority interest field, like Maundy, island coinages, medallions, etc. The standard work was by Dalton & Hamer, though quite a long time ago. Someone in this forum did a pdf download of D&H very recently, though I can't remember precisely which thread it was in. You could try a search or alternatively the person who uploaded it might drop by and remind us. The other way is to try a Google search and see if you can find any online dealer selling examples of the tokens you have. Having got the price for one or two, a comparative check in an old reference book would allow you to work out prices for the remainder. Then there's the prices you paid yourself - if not too long ago (within the last 15 years perhaps), they wouldn't be out of date hardly. Condition is everything. If yours are worn or no better than Fine, they wouldn't fetch a great deal unless rare. If in VF or better the price goes up considerably. Do you have any pictures you can show us?

As a Mac user myself, I spent a few years in the 90s building a very customised series of interlinked and related FileMaker apps which have served me well over the years. However, you may not use FM yourself, and since the apps were to accommodate my own collection, my dealing (For Sale, Sold, Customers, Invoices, etc), and sundry other uses, you'd find them far too esoteric for your own uses. However, just to give an indication from the database(s) used for my own collection, and ignoring the comparative values since the 1960s which is a sideline interest of mine, this is the main layouts and data fields I've set up : LAYOUTS : Data entry (single page, all fields) Pictures Values Calculator (to calculate new values from Spink using different algorithms) Spink input Sets Locations Buying Print list Print for Spink data entry Database log (history of changes I've made over time) Tutorial (reminder to myself of how to operate the database) FIELDS : Denomination Reign Date Variety Condition 1/2/3 (1 = A, N, G 2 = BU, UNC, EF, VF, F, VG 3 = /BU, /UNC, /EF ... etc) Price paid Date acquired Where acquired Date sold Comments Composition Proof Latest value Further (additional to Condition - e.g. colouration, dents, nicks, scratches, patina, toning) Location Values (repeating field) Seaby Unc Seaby EF Seaby VF Seaby F Coin ID (the reason you can't see a field for Picture is that each record on the database links via Coin ID to its corresponding picture on a separate database, to keep the size of the main database modest. You could of course add pictures to your main spreadsheet / database, but remember it will become pretty damn big!) I hope that gives you some guidance as to the range of data and data views you might find useful. I'm pretty sure the above is replicable in Bento, which has become more sophisticated over time. Alternatively, if you have an iPhone or iPad, there are versions of FileMaker for them which are much cheaper than the full Mac versions (e.g. £20 instead of £200, though there is less functionality).

A few cents then - it looks like the value has been rubbed off in order to create a blank area for the engraving. Nice coin with an interesting story :-)

It's S456 - a Julius Caesar denarius, elephant obverse, and reverse priestly emblems. Spinks also give a RRC number 443/1. This refers to Crawford's Roman Republican Coinage. The value in F would be between £75 and £100. Here's mine (different design): Thanks Peck, I will be selling all my Roman coins I think, need to fund some very expensive purchases! Any reason to think my coin is not genuine? Were these forged a lot do you know? I can't see anything 'wrong' about it, but I'm not an expert on Roman forgeries. The colour is a little odd (yellowish) for silver but that may simply be the photo. It should be ok, but a wider opinion would be useful.

Do you have the size? All I can say is it's French, Louis XVIII, possibly a franc? And for its date, probably solid silver. More than that I can't say.

Note also that Ron Stafford has identified the earlier obverse on 1923 florins even before Davies does.

I would definitely say - as a recent owner - that Davies is the defining work from 1816. You can ignore the prices but still use them to judge relative rarity. Dave Groom's book is very good for the 20th Century, but you'd have a big gap before that. ESC is best for early milled - from 1816 it is completely superseded. If your period is 1816 - 1936 then I'd start with Davies. And add Groom for 1902 to 1936. You need not really bother with ESC after 1816 if you have the others. Rotographic is pretty good for prices. Spink isn't bad but a bit optimistic for certain modern issues (a better guide to prices is their Numismatic Circular but what's in there is only a tiny selection). Tony Clayton is out of date, isn't he? The Coin Yearbook is absolutely hopeless for varieties, but not too bad on prices. BCMV I've always found is very unrealistically low on prices, even more in the eBay era - but it's a few years since I've seen a copy (it's also hopeless for varieties). You pays your money ... (All guides are just that - a guide to prices, an average.)

Which is still not BU as the seller is stating, even if i'm being harsh at EF,we could go AUNC and its still not BU, so again, i rest My case that its not BU If you'd originally said "AUNC" instead of "EF" I would never have bothered to argue the point. There's a big big difference.

It's S456 - a Julius Caesar denarius, elephant obverse, and reverse priestly emblems. Spinks also give a RRC number 443/1. This refers to Crawford's Roman Republican Coinage. The value in F would be between £75 and £100. Here's mine (different design):