Peckris

Picture please.

, maybe they did, but none escaped or any that did were not noticed. When you and I were checking 5/- bags of copper in the late 60's, most GV halfpennies were reduced to washers. God, weren't they! The reverses, anyway. You could make out the date usually, and the figure of Britannia gave a whole new meaning to 'ghosting'. 1. The Mint realised a lot earlier about the ghosting, hence a) the 1913 redesigns c) the recessed ear of 1915-16. 2. - 11. Does make a lot of sense! But the strange thing is, there isn't any ghosting on the few 1922/27-reverses that exist, which indicates that the revised obverse of 1921 plus the experimental reverse of 1922 DID fix it? As for point 7., the strange thing is that the ME was first used for the halfpennies not the pennies (but perhaps that's explained by the fact that halfpennies were in a parlous state even compared to pennies?)

OMG. You mean... you're... you've... Oh well, none of my business after all.

Now that IS interesting. It shows, despite my earlier misgivings, that the experiment was actually begun in 1922,,which raises a whole bucket of further questions: • Did the Mint already know they weren't producing pennies for the next 3 years, and thus it was a good time to start experimenting? • How come the penny reverses were deemed more of a priority than the 'modified effigy' (3 years later) - was it another attempt to eliminate ghosting? • Why were halfpennies - which had even worse ghosting - never included in the experiment?

I know they are not the same coin, but somehow I much prefer the scanned example here.

Excellent list! One small criticism of the Gouby classifications : the 'recessed ear' variety of 1915 and 1916 is a properly issued experimental obverse that was abandoned after 2 years' use. It's more distinctive than the differences between Obverse 1 1911-13 and Obverse 2 1913-21. It had as much proper exposure as the first ME obverse of 1926-27. It should have its own obverse.

I'm not sure if Numismatic Photography has much of a following of interested persons outside the USA, but Mark Goodman's book that you linked to is superb. I know of about two dozen or so of us semi-professional and professional numismatic photographers here in the USA, none of whom use scanners. There's a reason for that. Will you PLEASE stop with all that. Some of us have no choice. Yes, I'd be happy if things were toned down a little, or at least sensitive to the forum masses as a whole!I think in the 'excitement' of the thread, we have become a little channelled and have forgotten, in this instance, at least, that not everyone can afford a decent set-up, or even have the privilege of photographing their collection even if they did! This forum is made up of individuals who can afford 10's of thousands for a coin and, equally, just £10, we need to avoid becoming too elitist in our excitement! I'm only griping coz I'm skint myself! Com'on Scott bring us all down to earth! Thanks. It's not only an equipment issue though...

Cool logic

Without knowledge and experience, it can be quite tricky. However, proofs - provided they haven't circulated - generally have a sharply defined finish with no weak spots on the design (which UNC coins might have due to wearing dies). Also, a proof tends to have very sharp edges to the rim and, if relevant, perfectly even teeth or beads. A scruffy coin COULD be a proof, but you would probably need expert opinion. A picture here would help greatly.

Awesome. Is there a system behind it, e.g. chronology, or possible engravers, or something like that? You really ought to be writing a book on this if you're not already! You will be the Freeman of Forgeries.

I'm not sure if Numismatic Photography has much of a following of interested persons outside the USA, but Mark Goodman's book that you linked to is superb. I know of about two dozen or so of us semi-professional and professional numismatic photographers here in the USA, none of whom use scanners. There's a reason for that. Will you PLEASE stop with all that. Some of us have no choice. Peckris, no harm or foul was intended in my message. I was merely replying to Paulus' link to the Goodman book. The book has good tips for all coin photography and imaging. There is no reason to read into my post a personal attack -- none was intended. I didn't take it as such. But you were unintentionally tactless, so I'd just ask you to accept that if someone says they can only use a scanner, then leave it at that rather than implying that photography is the only worthwhile medium for reproducing coins.

Yes, but not the same as the 1922 reverse, which would be experimental only. Yes, that is a bit weird, given his enthusiasm for minutiae in the bun bronzes. I can only think that his passion was waning a bit by the time he wrote that up, or else it was only a provisional write-up. Yet I would say - purely from observation - that the 1922 reverse is more distinct than any differences between the 1911-26 reverse and 1927-36 reverse. It's instantly recognisable.

Is that your own numbering system? When I looked at them side by side I could see a lot of differences on the reverses, from slight to quite glaring.

Apologies for the cruddy nature of this item, and it may be too worn to identify any useful die indicators, but here's an 1816 shilling for your attention :

I'm not sure if Numismatic Photography has much of a following of interested persons outside the USA, but Mark Goodman's book that you linked to is superb. I know of about two dozen or so of us semi-professional and professional numismatic photographers here in the USA, none of whom use scanners. There's a reason for that. Will you PLEASE stop with all that. Some of us have no choice.

I've just looked at Accumulator's pictures on his site - I can't see any pointing differences but no way his 1922 is the same die as his 1927 on the right - look at Brittania's hand and the ball atop the trident shaft. Bob's coin looks to be the same die as Accumulator's [url=http://s593.photobucket.com/user/microtome/media/hands.jpg.html][ /URL] So the question remains - which die was used for F192B and F196A? The other massive difference which is instantly noticeable, is the width of the rim - it's nearly twice as wide on the 1922 as on the 1927.

That's a great posting - thanks! However, I think Freeman is wrong in asserting "it was a surprise to learn..." etc. There's absolutely no evidence as to when exactly those mules were created or even struck. They could have used a 1922 date punch, for example, to test out new reverses in - say- 1925. There would presumably have been no intention to release any of them, and they are extremely rare.

FYI - we ALWAYS go 'off topic', it's one of the endearing features of this site. However, I see someone has created a new topic..

How on earth did you manage to scan the edge?

An hour???!!!!! Heavens to Betsy! I have never scanned a coin so I have no idea ... does 2,400 dpi take 1/5th of that time then - 10-12 minutes?? ChKy, what settings do you apply in Elements 5? I have Elements 6 and Photoshop CS2 so I should be able to reproduce what you do post-scan. Paulus, my 1200 dpi scan takes about 5 minutes, but then it's using USB1 so no wonder. Unfortunately, the results are always rather flat despite going for the 'Colour Photo' setting. One reason my pictures here are so bad is that often I'm using the old scans I did for my database, which were @ 300 dpi (about life size or a bit bigger). When they are doubled in size in Photoshop, it really does them no favours at all.

Now that's a case where I prefer the scan! That's tonally very nice, but you've got blown highlights below the parting and on the forehead, and on the wren's back. That could be avoided by underexposing, then bring up the shadow details. Even so, one advantage of scans is that the 'flatness' of tone also gives evenness of detail which can be lacking on a photo. I suppose the bottom line is that scans bring out that predictable evenness of detail you want to show up, where a photo gives the beauty of tone often at the expense of that evenness. You pays your money...

Never mind PM - I think this information would be valuable to all of us. Ok, what scanner and Photoshop settings do you use? (I use an old Canon N670U at full 1200 dpi resolution, and Photoshop CS2, but I seem to not get very good scans out of that combination )

The one advantage of scans is that the coin is in the correct plane relative to the 'camera', and in perfect focus. In fact, the only disadvantage - though it's a biggie, as I said above - is the poor tone. Taking photos of my coins is just not an option. When I take images, the coin is perfectly parallel to the camera sensor. And, I shoot with a lens that has a corner to corner flat field. If you decide to tilt the coin to show color, then you can either bump up your f-stop a little to increase depth of field, or you can use focus stacking (of multiple images) to get the full coin in needle sharp focus. I'd say that scans are massively limited in imaging coins. To say that the "only disadvantage" is that the final product basically doesn't look like the coin in hand is sort of an understatement. I could add to that list that scans 1) don't show luster, 2) they don't show color, 3) they don't show depth/shadows of a relief or incuse design, and 4) they don't optimize the use of the tool (a coin sized object on a very large scanner bed). Even with a $25 lens I can take images of a coin that are superior to a scan at more than 2000dpi, but I can also show all of the things that a scan cannot. So, in my opinion, scans are good for documenting coins, but are pretty bad at taking images for selling a coin or posting on websites. The biggest (and maybe only) advantage of a scanner is that it's easy...the advantages end there. Nevertheless, scanning is my only option so I'm stuck with it.

I think this is the one you are referring to. That's the one! Thanks Nick (and rpeddie too). My Lanarkshire token has the same blue iridescence when viewed at the right angle. Sadly, scans miss this with a spectacular Fail. All the more reason to learn how to photograph your coins instead of "scanning" them. Scanning coins is good for documentation/insurance purposes, but doesn't show most coins in their true form. The one advantage of scans is that the coin is in the correct plane relative to the 'camera', and in perfect focus. In fact, the only disadvantage - though it's a biggie, as I said above - is the poor tone. Taking photos of my coins is just not an option.

You lost me there, Peter! StuartI thought the thread was started by Richard (TG) (your avatars are similar) PS I've just sold your boat to an American so please advise me your bank details to enable funds transfer. how much have we made?There's a Nigerian knows the answer to that one