Coinery

Any tips on how to get rid of verdigris? Also does the crown look fine to you, as in not showing any signs of cleaning etc? (I worry too much) thanks for all the advice people My apologies as always, but I'm viewing your coin on the iPhone! I think it's a good example of the grade, and you may be able to tease away some of that verd with a cocktail stick (with spike stubbed) and some olive oil as a lube? The only other DIY approach would be sticking the whole thing in vinegar and work away at the green every 5-10-20 or so mins until you're satisfied it's either removed, or you begin to notice the general appearance of the entire coin is suffering, stop with whichever comes first! Whatever you do, don't add salt to the vinegar! I personally wouldn't recommend the vinegar approach for this coin, I'd go with the first option. What you can't remove, I'd keep stippled with a little olive oil for the next few years (not saturated, just a light wipe, and keep an eye on things), you might get it all eventually, leaving maybe a pit or two, depending on how advanced it is? You may be REALLY lucky! Good luck!

It is OK to use olive oil, but I don't think you'll see a significant difference if you left it in the stuff for another 200 years. I think what Rob very kindly fell short of, is cleaning may make it a little more pleasing on the eye, but it's not going to dramatically alter its value. As an example, you might have a George VI 1945 halfpenny with a lustrous surface, worth only a few £'s, but cleaning that would spoil it, and reduce its value by 90% probably? However, your coin already has its value set on account of its damaged surface, so cleaning it, if it was only to make it easier on the eye (And I think it's fine as it is, maybe a wash, possibly) would not significantly reduce the value of it. Just don't use a Brillo pad!

I don't think so. Just very elaborate lettering giving it an odd appearance. I'm going to have to remember to take a better look on the laptop tomorrow, it looks really N like on my phone screen! Bloody thing! Well, if you will use an eye phone when most people apply them to the mouth and ear, don't be too disappointed when Ls look like Ns and the world is square. As regards the blood, I suggest you check yourself rather than the phone. Regards Peregrine R Clyde-Brown you crack me up, Rob!

I don't think so. Just very elaborate lettering giving it an odd appearance. I'm going to have to remember to take a better look on the laptop tomorrow, it looks really N like on my phone screen! Bloody thing!

I dunno, Scott, it looks like the entire coin has been overlaid with itself, a kind of semi-transparent image over the same image, maybe a reflection or something? ALL the numerals look displaced by the same amount? I hope I'm wrong, and you've got yourself a goodun! EDIT: It looks like it's been taken through glass (you can see the photographer), maybe it's a double reflection? The bicep and helmet of Britannia all show the same kind of displacement?????????

In view of what you've said, the upright does seem far enough left to allow an F...also there does appear to be a small triangle that could represent the end serif of the top bar of an F, plus a faint crease where the lower crossbar might be? Maybe another block, as in the 1700 NO STOP after DEI?? This doesn't mean that it 'isn't' the IRA for FRA that's described in Spink's, of course, just that Spink's may not yet have resolved for themselves the issue of the genuine existence of the variety or not, or whether it is instead a block that produced a run of I for F looking coins! It's a great period, and great looking coins, especially the halfcrowns!

To be perfectly honest, I cannot see that this isn't the IRA for FRA, as understood to be by Spink, I'm only probing because I got caught out with the NO stop after DEI 1700 Shilling, which Spink's subsiquently agreed did not exist, based on the images I sent them (still in the 2013 cat. though).

On the face of it, it would be hard to say it's an F based on that image, would've been good to see the I of HIB for a quick comparison?

I don't know how I've managed to get 'Price: highest first' by default in Chrome, but I'm quite glad that I have. That and 'newly listed' are the options I use most. BTW Stuart your PM box is full. He obviously talks to much

Nice buy, you old scoundrel! Really blurry image on the pea-pod, but is that an L in London error?

It's a nice error find, but I don't think it would make anything over £25-£30 in that grade.

It's just a straight 68, probably a blocked die, though may have been a damaged punch. The missing Z is a known error, of which there are various misspellings of Elizabeth, for obverse BCW CN-2 How often? I wouldn't say hen's teeth, but certainly not common. The reverse looks to be CN-h7, which would make it an unrecorded pairing but, again, unrecorded pairings turn up quite regularly, and the punch details are not conclusive. Nice spot, though, and great to have BCW CN-2:h7 in your armoury!

Not me. It doesn't say 'organic'. Brings back memories of a house we bought as a repo. The owner had (apparently) a short haired dog (possibly Staffy) that the neighbours told us had had pups. They also told us she left them in all day. Had to clean everywhere, including taking up the floorboards, to get rid of the smell. So I think I'll pass, thanks. I really didn't think this was commonplace, my sister had to do exactly the same thing with the house she moved into around ten years ago. Every floorboard of an upstairs bedroom had to go, and the ceiling below replaced...unbelievable, I just don't get it!!!

Thanks Rob. Here is a histogram of the results. Neat work, Nick!

I don't know how I've managed to get 'Price: highest first' by default in Chrome, but I'm quite glad that I have. That and 'newly listed' are the options I use most. BTW Stuart your PM box is full. Thanks, Nick! It's one of those things you never notice until someone mentions it, or you start getting the feeling that nobody loves you!

They do it to try and make sure that their listing appears first in the list because the default sort criterion is price. Are you sure? If I don't set anything, the default they select is "Soonest ending" Yes. If I type eg "1965 sixpence" into the "Search..." field at the top of the "My eBay" page - it returns a list of items sorted by "Price:highest first" How odd, I always get 'Best Match'! Just tried the same in different browsers: in Firefox I get Best Match; in Chrome I get Price:highest first. Weird. I always assumed it was "Best match". I use firefox. I get best match with Firefox AND Chrome! My preference is always 'ending soonest'!

They do it to try and make sure that their listing appears first in the list because the default sort criterion is price. Are you sure? If I don't set anything, the default they select is "Soonest ending" Yes. If I type eg "1965 sixpence" into the "Search..." field at the top of the "My eBay" page - it returns a list of items sorted by "Price:highest first" How odd, I always get 'Best Match'!

Which is undoubtably the hardest thing to replicate with images of coins...especially silver...and particularly proofs! It's o so easy to love toned coins when you are photographing them!

THE KING of SNIPES, the MASTER of COIN-PASSION! Always here to humble us all in our vanity for perfection! Edit :

Really? The sin of it is, if I had 155 of them in my pocket, I'd feel really embarrassed buying a pint with them! I'd get over it though if I didn't have any pound coins available!

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each. Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely? I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but there is a weighty tome explaining the entire working of the Royal Mint (c. 1870) in excruciating detail (and I really do mean that) which may contain some useful information. If not, it's a handy cure for insomnia. The publication is "The Royal Mint by George Frederick Ansell" and you can download a PDF free from Google books. The pages relating to matrices, punches and dies are 63-67. Brilliant! That sounds absolutely perfect, and a likely cure for my lame knowledge of matrixes! I'll just need to fill in the years between 1870 and the computer age to be home and dry! Any references for that anyone? Thanks, Nick! There's also a fairly comprehensive article on production of proof coins in the 1985 edition of Coins and Market Values. I'm in the throes of moving home, so don't expect a scan anytime soon, but briefly: 1. artist prepares a large plaster model 2. from this is produced a rubber mould which is electroplated with copper and nickel 3. the electrotype is reduced by special machinery 4. the resulting steel punch is in relief 5. the 'reduction punch' is used to sink a matrix (incuse) at which stage beading is added BY HAND and any blemishes removed 6. from the finished matrix working punches are produced (relief) 7. the working punches are used to sink working dies (incuse) as many times as needed There's much much more about the production of blanks, but I thought this might be helpful. And as you can see, when the beading is added manually, it would be easy enough (though delicate and small scale) to add a 'broken tooth'. Thanks, Peck, much appreciated! I hope the move's a positive thing, and goes well!

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each. Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely? I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but there is a weighty tome explaining the entire working of the Royal Mint (c. 1870) in excruciating detail (and I really do mean that) which may contain some useful information. If not, it's a handy cure for insomnia. The publication is "The Royal Mint by George Frederick Ansell" and you can download a PDF free from Google books. The pages relating to matrices, punches and dies are 63-67. Brilliant! That sounds absolutely perfect, and a likely cure for my lame knowledge of matrixes! I'll just need to fill in the years between 1870 and the computer age to be home and dry! Any references for that anyone? Thanks, Nick!

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each. Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely?

I don't know the first thing about stamps, but would like to learn about Victorian stamps in particular! Can anyone advise a good book to read on the subject in general, but one that maybe focuses on 19thC stamps in particular?

I don't know why they've recently added that URL tag nonsense. The easiest way to add a PhotoBucket picture now is to copy the 'direct link' and use the 'Insert Image' icon. Ah, right, thanks for that, will do that in future! There's got to be something in it for them, so wrong that it overrides your privacy settings. It doesn't! (See my post above). There is no way to 'share' a picture without making it non-private - but it won't interfere with your Photobucket privacy except for those you've given permission to view an image via another forum. Sorry, didn't catch your above post! The main difference between my usual posting of pictures, and today's aborted efforts (using the same process), were that, ordinarily, you couldn't click on the image and be redirected to the contents of my private album on photobucket. Today I posted images which contained a URL allowing just that. So, I basically had to manually remove the URL extension to arrive at the images as you now see them, WITHOUT the capacity to click on them and view my private album on photobucket! I confess to knowing very little about the whole thing, but enough to know I didn't want the whole world wading through my photographing trials and tribulations on photobucket! Incidentally, I wonder why Davies opted to define reverse A & B with the indicators he did (letter bases), when Nick's tooth ID separates even the most worn examples in an instant? Oh I see. Either Photobucket have changed their policy - in which case, shame on them - or there are a variety of html formats presented (as in Image Shack for example) and you unwittingly picked the wrong one. There are a selection of formats, but I definitely used the usual one, the one I've used for all my other posted images on here. Photobucket have made some massive changes recently, that don't seem to be in the best interests of the user. I had to go into my account settings, and each individual album, to double check everything was ticked private, but it made no difference, still the images clicked for a free-for-all in my account!