Peckris

Transnistria?? Surely a novelist's invention!

No, not as scarce, but then I don't think the 1958 and 1959 halfcrowns are anything like as rare in AUNC+ than the equivalent florins. It's all relative, but I think the steady price hike for the 1960 over the years proves it's elusive (CCGB has it 2x the value of 1961 and 1964 in BU which seems possibly about right). I think the late 60s is 'the exception that proves the rule' - some modern coins went from 'uncollectable' to hyped-up 'super rare in BU' almost overnight. Now the market has got a truer perspective and prices are more realistic. For example, Liz II 50s florins are much more difficult than halfcrowns and this has been recognised for quite some time now.

It's not the camera so much, it's the eyes and brain behind it... I belong to a photography forum where one of the most talented members produces awesome shots with his iPhone.

Those 5p and 10p pieces lasted until 1990 and 1992 respectively. Before then, it was still possible to find the occasional pre-47 silver coin in your change. This explanation doesn't explain why some halfcrown dates - demonetised in 1969 - are also so hard? Yer 1954 halfcrown had a maximum 15 years in circulation; compare that with up to 38 years for the equivalent florin. I think ozjohn makes a good point about how quick they wore. Add to that the abysmally shallow designs of the larger denominations.

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?

A lot of Elizabeth cupro-nickel is surprisingly difficult. And has been since the late 60s. By the time we were looking in our change, those dates were already 5 or 6 years in circulation and no better than GVF in most cases, less than VF for the 50s.

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.