Nick

Have you got a consistent lighting set-up? Also, I don't know what the function's called, but their was an F setting on my camera that needed fine-tuning to stop the camera from focusing on the background instead of the coin (something to do with depth of field, I think? Maybe this is what's giving you some blurred shots? Nick would probably know more! The F-stop is a measure of aperture size. Large apertures give small F-numbers and vice-versa. The larger F-numbers give greater depth of field, which dictates how much of the detail nearer than and further away than the focus point appears in focus. In the case of Rob's obverse picture, adjusting the depth of field won't help because none of it is in perfect focus. It means that the "auto" focus hasn't. Autofocus works by adjusting the focus until maximum contrast is obtained within the focus region, which means that if the focus region contains a monotone colour and no features then AF can struggle. In cases such as these, I usually move the coin off-centre so that either the legend or the rim are in the focus region, so that the AF system can see some contrast. Having said that, I don't believe that the Nikon AF system is particularly good. Unsurprisingly, I concur. But I can also see an advantage in having a background with detail such as Stuart uses. If your Nikon has a LiveView mode, try using that as you can move the focus rectangle to any part of the view. This might be difficult to ascertain. I lost the manual ages ago. I think it did a runner courtesy of Lord Lucan riding Shergar along with my copy of Murdoch part 1. You might be surprised what you can find on the Internet...

Have you got a consistent lighting set-up? Also, I don't know what the function's called, but their was an F setting on my camera that needed fine-tuning to stop the camera from focusing on the background instead of the coin (something to do with depth of field, I think? Maybe this is what's giving you some blurred shots? Nick would probably know more! The F-stop is a measure of aperture size. Large apertures give small F-numbers and vice-versa. The larger F-numbers give greater depth of field, which dictates how much of the detail nearer than and further away than the focus point appears in focus. In the case of Rob's obverse picture, adjusting the depth of field won't help because none of it is in perfect focus. It means that the "auto" focus hasn't. Autofocus works by adjusting the focus until maximum contrast is obtained within the focus region, which means that if the focus region contains a monotone colour and no features then AF can struggle. In cases such as these, I usually move the coin off-centre so that either the legend or the rim are in the focus region, so that the AF system can see some contrast. Having said that, I don't believe that the Nikon AF system is particularly good. Unsurprisingly, I concur. But I can also see an advantage in having a background with detail such as Stuart uses. If your Nikon has a LiveView mode, try using that as you can move the focus rectangle to any part of the view.

Can we look at the obverse again? Photobucket is kaput, so just an ordinary size piccy You just can't beat a nice bit of peripheral toning on silver. Lovely jubbly.

Have you got a consistent lighting set-up? Also, I don't know what the function's called, but their was an F setting on my camera that needed fine-tuning to stop the camera from focusing on the background instead of the coin (something to do with depth of field, I think? Maybe this is what's giving you some blurred shots? Nick would probably know more! The F-stop is a measure of aperture size. Large apertures give small F-numbers and vice-versa. The larger F-numbers give greater depth of field, which dictates how much of the detail nearer than and further away than the focus point appears in focus. In the case of Rob's obverse picture, adjusting the depth of field won't help because none of it is in perfect focus. It means that the "auto" focus hasn't. Autofocus works by adjusting the focus until maximum contrast is obtained within the focus region, which means that if the focus region contains a monotone colour and no features then AF can struggle. In cases such as these, I usually move the coin off-centre so that either the legend or the rim are in the focus region, so that the AF system can see some contrast. Having said that, I don't believe that the Nikon AF system is particularly good.

Indeed. I have a kind of blurry policy towards unconfirmed Davies numbers. I let myself off the hook actively looking for them when I couldn't be doing with checking every 1937 silver threepence, but then I found D.751, an unconfirmed 1870 florin. So at least some of them do exist. I've never found a D.751, but I thought it sure to be out there somewhere given that 1868, 1869, 1871 & 1872 florins all exist with both A and B reverses.

Hypervarietals: I love 'em. I just secured the last and trickiest of the 4 different 1889 threepences: 1+B D.1335 2+A D.1336 <<<this one! 2+B D.1337 3+B D.1339 Hard to avoid hypervarietals in the Vicky Silver series... Assuming that the 1+A and the 3+A don't exist. A 2+A is a nice find. I only have the more common 1+B and 2+B.

Would I be correct in thinking this is only the second one to come to market, the other being the CGS 85. I like the idea that it's still in it's set and would perhaps increase it's desirability if not it's value. I shall be looking on with interest. Yes - that's why I've kept my proof 2+A farthing in the set it came in. I would have preferred to have bought the set containing my 1+A proof halfcrown, but it was only offered as a singleton. Was it identified as a 1+A when you bought it. Freeman rates the 2+A farthing as R9 and 2+B as R6 so out of 40,000 sets that's 30,000 2+B and 10,000 2+A. In my opinion he should perhaps put the 2+A up a notch or two to R11 at least which would make them about 10:1, even then they don't come up very often. Could the Half Crown be as common as the 2+A Farthing and has any of the other denominations ever come to light. I thought I had the Obv 1 Scottish Shilling but I now think it's more likely to be a very early strike akin to the proof-like Crowns you occasionally see. No. It would have been way out of my budget if it had.

I use a monopod from Opticron which has a bench clamp so that you can attach it to the edge of a table or shelf. It works pretty well, eliminating most of the vibration, but not as much as a proper tripod would. A word of caution though: if you tilt the panhead so that the camera is pointing straight down at the table, ensure that the handle is pointing downwards or you'll have someone's eye out. Universal II

1901 shillings aren't easy to find in high grade, nor are 1898.

Would I be correct in thinking this is only the second one to come to market, the other being the CGS 85. I like the idea that it's still in it's set and would perhaps increase it's desirability if not it's value. I shall be looking on with interest. Yes - that's why I've kept my proof 2+A farthing in the set it came in. I would have preferred to have bought the set containing my 1+A proof halfcrown, but it was only offered as a singleton.

Would I be correct in thinking this is only the second one to come to market, the other being the CGS 85. I like the idea that it's still in it's set and would perhaps increase it's desirability if not it's value. I shall be looking on with interest. It's only the second that I've seen being sold as a 1+A proof variety. Based upon the picture in the Baldwins auction catalogue, it's a good looking set with matching tone.

I know of another three for certain, so the population will eventually turn out to be in double figures (if not three figures). I've got two, one of which I've had for several years without realizing they were that scarce. Hi Nick - two of what? The Halfcrown, Crown or the mule penny? Or two proof sets? There are (now I believe) three different proof sets - the standard set issued for general population (40,000 made); the VIP Set (as names implies) for special gifts and I suspect less than 100 made but could be as low as 20 and the (as far as I have been able to find) pre-production proof set that was given to advisers to the Bank of England. For the latter it is estimated that there are no more than six produced (but finding out details is quite difficult). Hi Bill, I highlighted in bold the relevant part of the reply, but in case it isn't that clear on some displays - I know of three (in addition to those known to CGS) of the 1+A proof halfcrowns. Gary D has two of them and I have another one. I find it hard to believe that there are so few of them. I found one within a few weeks of starting to look. Baldwins have a 1953 proof set containing a 1+A proof halfcrown in their forthcoming May auction. Estimate £1500-£2000.

You simply click on the 'Insert Image' icon on the toolbar and fill in the URL to point to the image (of unlimited size) you want to include. This does mean that your image will have to be externally hosted somewhere, so you would need to use PhotoBucket, Flickr, or any other of the myriad of possibilities.

Worth bullion? Which means it's value is based solely upon the melt value of the amount of silver contained.

The assets are definitely there, but not their's.

Wow. You don't see many 1854 florins, in any grade. A bit weak on the reverse, but not a great deal of wear. I suspect CGS might grade in the 55-60 range. That one must be worth more than all of mine put together.

What planet have you been living on scott? It's been steel since the early 1990s! I didn't know that! Not that I should, of course! Really? Yep, copper plated steel since 1992.

Think it's already in-hand, Nick! I really should learn to read what has already been written

I think he's bought it, Nick! I can't remember what now, but I've definitely bought from this seller before, and I can't recall phil's bits particularly standing out for me, one way or the other? Stand down, ladies! Oh well, it will be interesting to hear what 'sound' thinks when it arrives.

I think I would err on the side of caution and assume that it has had a clean. Simply because, if it was genuinely that good, then the price would be nearer £150.

Hello John and welcome. Any type of capsule will I'm sure be adequate to protect the current condition of your coins. I have used capsules for a number of years and haven't seen any degradation.

I don't think you can tell by looks alone. One way of obtaining a definitive answer is by doing a specific gravity experiment. Ringing them is one way, but will need one of each to be able to tell which is which. The 925 will have a duller ring. As I think I have mentioned before, my hearing is impaired in such a way that the .500 sound duller to me than the .925, but if you have a known specimen of each type it is easy to compare.

I don't think you can tell by looks alone. One way of obtaining a definitive answer is by doing a specific gravity experiment.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion! I don't know why they bother with the grade prefixes at all. Why not just stick with the percentages as a measure. Then those who think that a 70 is an EF and those who think it is an AU can both be happy. That's another excellent idea. Isn't that what the Sheldon scale does? Looks like CGS were listening This is what they are going to do.

Thanks Nick - a whole new knowledge chasm has just opened up for me! Better get swotting ... The WB thing frightens me to death! I think that's why I've kept putting it off and stuck to tweaking with the editing software instead! I used to do that too, but I'm glad that I got to grips with it eventually.