Peckris

I still have my Zorki 4 from penniless student days "Ohhhh, those RRRRRussians..." When I was a student I had an Instamatic. Now that really is 'penniless'. Some awesome crap cameras, let's admit it - though having said that, those Eastern bloc cameras had nifty lenses. It's just that the Zenit was one hefty SLR when you also had to carry around a separate meter, a flashgun, and a jeep to chase after the rhino that got bored waiting for you to set the exposure! Solid metal though. It's said Black Sabbath wouldn't use anything else...

Yes, that's the whole point. Even AUNC is much easier than fully UNC. Those 50s CuNi's just had to plop out of the press and they began to wear...

I still have my Zorki 4 from penniless student days "Ohhhh, those RRRRRussians..."

There's probably more than one reason. 1) People were generally less than thrilled about the change from silver to cupro-nickel - it was only imminent decimalisation that changed that. 2) The first decade of Liz II is often poorly struck, with shallow designs that wore quickly 3) By the time that people were pulling stuff from change (late 60s), those earlier coins had already had a good deal of circulation The big question is : why are some 50s dates so much harder than others? My own theory is that some years were minted but not fully issued, so Mint bags got distributed to banks significantly after the date on the coins. You also spoke of the 1958 and 1959 halfcrowns - it's worth pointing out that the 1960 is criminally underrated; in fact, only 1966 and 1967 are common in genuine BU.

Sony bought Konica Minolta which is how they got their camera making expertise. Yes, they did. But they haven't persisted very far down the line with what they inherited - they've kind of ploughed their own furrow for some years now, and have used Zeiss rather than Rokkor (or equivalent) for the same time. Though I believe Rokkor lenses may be usable on earlier Sony cameras?

Yes, I so agree. The newest 'arrivals' are Sony and Panasonic, neither with a long tradition of camera-making stretching back over decades - yet between them they supply lenses from the two best lens manufacturers / designers : Sony with Zeiss and Panasonic with Leica. I guess not. However, I do remember how the best SLRs - e.g. my good old Minolta XD7 - always left you with a single mechanical shutter speed (usually 1/60) in case of battery failure. Sadly modern cameras can't function non-electronically.

Oh, [he said, backtracking fast ] I've nothing against DSLRs! They are capable of the best quality, I'd say, though mirrorless systems are their equal now. If you are able to heft a DSLR and its lenses (I'm not) then why not? Having said that, I'm amazed at the number of DSLR owners who now have a very capable 'second' camera, usually pocketable, that they carry around at all times. The latest iPhone is dam' good, but also the trend begun by the Lumix LX5 (compact, fixed zoom lens, 'enthusiast' cameras - the Fuji X100 also comes to mind, though as it's a fixed focal length lens only, I struggle to see how it would be as flexible as most other cameras). Horses for courses. I still maintain that DSLRs will be replaced by mirrorless systems, but there are photographers out there who still use SLRs and film! And why not...?

I know this isn't a photography forum (ithough I do belong to one) - but shutter slap (aka mirror slap) just isn't a feature on mirrorless system cameras. They have the advantage of being that much smaller, and that includes lenses as well as sensors, because the lens (sans mirror) can be that much closer to the sensor reducing the size of both with no detriment to resolution. This is why I predict that DSLRs are in their dog days now, and it's only the likes of Canon and Nikon - with decades invested in their systems - that will delay the inevitable. I'm not even sure if Panasonic have a DSLR anymore, and also Fuji and Olympus are working hard to make the mirrorless systems the de facto standard. There, I've said my piece!

Much more important than the camera, is the type of lighting used - there was another thread which showed the best set up, but if I remember right, it involved two lights on opposite sides, angled downwards (I think the consensus was that you needed to experiment, in order to find the best angles?) I think our friend Brandon had quite a big input to this. There's a lot of nonsense talked about cameras : one thing's for absolute certain, you don't need a DSLR just for coins! For the following reasons: 1. DSLRs will (arguably) become redundant within a few years, replaced by the 'mirrorless' system cameras now doing as good a job as DSLRs 2. You're capturing images for the web (or insurance man) not for printing, so you don't need huge sensors and massive resolution 3. Any decent compact will do, the trick is to get close enough, and for that: if it's an interchangable lens system, a macro lens is very useful, but VERY expensivefor any system, the 'close up' Raynox lens attachments are very high quality and effectivea camera with a macro setting (many do - but none are as good as a dedicated macro lens, but probably good enough for our needs)But to repeat : the bottom line is that lighting is more important than camera for getting good results.

Well, the active ingredient in Goddards is uric acid, so...

That was my thought exactly.

Truffle hound?

Seconded (Life's too short...)

Mine is genuinely BU unlike that one - £1900 worth?

Minimum EF but probably markedly better.

Yes

Interesting phenomenon and insight into the production methods of the time.

Don't forget the Indian mint Ah yes - wasn't polo invented in India?

It wasn't Edward's reference apparently - the Challis article says it was a 'marginal note written by ... William Cecil'. It's beyond doubt though, that the Edward VI coins of 1551 are the first dated coins in Britain. I have seen a rare form of playing card where the spade symbol is upper left with a quite large 3 to its right. Then on the bulk of the surface there are a number of spade symbols all connected and overlaid by a large 3. Whether this type was used in Edward's time, I have no idea. What's certain is that medieval playing cards had a different form than what we now have.

depends whether it's incuse or raised - to my eyes it looked incuse at first but I admit it could be seen either way. I don't have the coin to hand but I'm fairly sure, from memory, that the 'Arabic' 1 is raised. No, I was talking to scott about the die crack/scratch!!!

depends whether it's incuse or raised - to my eyes it looked incuse at first but I admit it could be seen either way.

I don't remember the Mini being mocked? It was lauded on first appearance and after winning a few serious rallies, it never looked back.

Good to know your interests extend back to the pre-Dec-imal era (see what I did there? )

Happy birthday Declan - I won't say "break a leg" for your jump, but "good luck" instead.

Yay, happy birthday old bean