Coinery

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!

I was just sifting through a box of Victorian bullion, and was wondering what you think the Davies reverse of this 1897 coin is? Comparing it to all the other worn reverse B's in the same lot, this one looks much more 'A' like? The bottom crop is a rev B from a worn '96 for comparison. Any thoughts? sorry, having a photobucket privacy crisis just now, will post the images asap

Dad was the stamp enthusiast. I collected mint issues for a while but never really got into anything else. His main interest was Polish/Ukrainian/German occupation issues. Sadly I can't read Polish as I have four very comprehensive volumes about the things. But he picked up some Victorian stamps and covers as part of his British series. Let me know if you might be interested and I'll take a look and see what there is, if you like. No use to me. Now. Who'd like some First Day Covers? Will definitely take you up on that! I want to frame up some Victorian things for our corridor, and just take an interest in it generally! Did anyone see that VR postbox front on the bay? Sold for £135, I was SO close to buying it to make a framed wall sculpture!

Your information sounds similar to what I have found whilst scouring the web, except that my understanding is that 'master die' is another name for a matrix not a hub/punch, but I may be wrong. There is much conflicting terminology out there. I spent the best part of an hour scouring the net, but only finding modern methods (mostly current US), involving computer programming, which only served to confuse matters further...definitely lots of conflicting info! When you've pulled the whole thing together, Colin, I'd very much benefit from and pleaure in the read, because I can't get my head around it at all! Someone give me a later medieval broken punch and an over-mark anytime!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/130888330623?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_sacat%3D0%26_from%3DR40%26_nkw%3D130888330623%26_rdc%3D1 Gosh. Is it time to get out my Dad's Victorian stamps then? I could do with the dosh ... Ha, ha! Let me read the book, I'll get back to you! Have you ever bothered yourself? It's all linked to our boat full of Victoriana! Victorian taps, plates, wood, cutlery, tiles, etc. You may have picked up that my head's all over the place at the minute! I'm a tad diluted right now!

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?

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.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/130888330623?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_sacat%3D0%26_from%3DR40%26_nkw%3D130888330623%26_rdc%3D1

Reverse B. Reverse A has much longer border teeth. Thanks, Nick, I can see that in Davies now!

For those who use photobucket...despite the fact my account and all albums are set to private, the image links when posted up here would click directly into my account/album. I had to manually remove the URL surrounding the image code to prevent that happening!

Can you explain the thinking behind this statement? How can you have design differences produced from the same matrix? Quite simply...I'm still confused between the matrix and the oversized original it's made from. I've got brain overload, trying to draw comparisons between the hammered die process and the modern equivilent! So, help me out here...is the original oversized artwork, the item that's used to refashion dates, for example? Sorry, chaps, having a bit of a mare with this one!

??????????????????! Surely accepted wisdom is that the broken tooth is diagnostic for the recessed ears. do we know of a contradictory example?? I hold my hands up here, I've got myself into a twist. For some reason I was getting Declan's two photos mixed up in my head with Accumulator's two posted images of recessed and non-recessed ear types! Sorry! I think in part I've also twisted myself with Dave G's statement that not all the 1915 recesseds have the broken tooth!

I've just realised we are not seeing the wood for the trees here. The progressive broken tooth are shown across the normal and recessed ear varieties, so they CAN'T be the same die with a progressive block. They would be from the same matrix, no doubt, but totally different working dies. Of interest would be to know the number of matrixes created from the master-design (presuming that to be the process, for any given date...maybe it's just one?

Talk of a small world! I was just looking over the Victorian stamps on eBay, and look who I found with a high-priced rarity...130888330623 (sorry, peck )

I'm not sure that there are many, this is the most well known catalogue for that era but I expect you already know of it! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stanley-Gibbons-Britain-Specialised-Catalogues/dp/0852598165/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366580592&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=Collectors%27+Stamps%3A+Queen+Victoria+and+Edward+VII+1837-1910+by+R.J.+Marles Never heard of it, or of any other stamp book for that matter! However, I've just bought it, and the 2013 price guide, so thanks for the link, Paulus! Much appreciated!

I'm assuming that you're the winning bidder, Stuart? Cripes, no! I couldn't see for a moment where he'd got the 1 or the 7 from...it would need a very complex overlay of PM's to get a 7 in there! The LIS and lion punches say straight forward '62...I didn't 'mail him! I did email someone about a threefarthings that wasn't, and got a really decent response...he's even going to go for a BCW book! I reckon I've sold 4 or 5 of those now...should be on commission!

You're quite right, Gary: 1915 top, 1916 below.... So how did one die make so many coins? You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices. This is what we're trying to determine. For me personally, I'm saying they're likely not the same dies at all, but rather an error (or deliberate marking) further back in the production proccess, at matrix level, though I don't fully understand the matrix story myself. If the two coins are different dies, then that would rule out a blocked die, except by an amazing coincidence, suggesting damaged matrix (or original cast, whatever that's called - anyone got any decent educational links for the matrix proccess?), whether deliberate or not? I'm a bit hazy on the physics, but I seem to remember that the original design is a massive piece of sculpture that gets reduced in a complex piece of engineering that scales down the original EXACTLY. From there, I assume that a master matrix is produced and is used to create the punches automatically. So I would hazard a guess that the tooth - if it was broken deliberately - was possibly done on the matrix which would explain the slightly haphazrd success with the operation. Is the matrix not the opposite of a coin (like a die)? If so, you'd have to add something to it, rather than remove something to effect the missing point of a tooth. Which takes us back full-circle to my first point about a clog, which is an unlikely choice for a mint ID. Equally, that would suggest it's either a coincidental clog on two different dies (which Declan's looks to be) or one die produced a hell of a lot of coins! Can a matrix be clogged/blocked, as this too would explain it?

UNRECORDED 1561/7 threepence http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/400449321792?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

You're quite right, Gary: 1915 top, 1916 below.... So how did one die make so many coins? You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices. This is what we're trying to determine. For me personally, I'm saying they're likely not the same dies at all, but rather an error (or deliberate marking) further back in the production proccess, at matrix level, though I don't fully understand the matrix story myself. If the two coins are different dies, then that would rule out a blocked die, except by an amazing coincidence, suggesting damaged matrix (or original cast, whatever that's called - anyone got any decent educational links for the matrix proccess?), whether deliberate or not?

A great move, obviously, looking forward to more of that! Are you an Australian and living there? Always amazed at the breadth of this forum! Incidentely, presuming you are an Australian, is that a common and happy pastime down under, to collect the older English coins, or do most there stay G3 and younger? Or do most just stick with the homegrown material? I know I've sent nearly as many to Aus, as US and Canada, so there's obviously a healthy base of collectors out there!

Mmmmm. Blinkin' blimey, Nicholas, is that yours? Very nice!

I don't think they ARE the same die, which might explain it...the spacings and shapes of the lettering are all very different. I did think the idea of the punch itself being altered (or broken) was possible, if there was indeed a ring of beads used as a punch?

So, is it the same die? Or maybe they really were playing with the beads (or was it a matrix issue, of which I don't fully understand that proccess), which still does surprise me, as it would be more of a challenge to block a die, than engrave it? If I understand the process correctly, the matrix is the master die and is used to create the punches which are in turn used to create the die(s). Therefore any damage to the matrix or punches will perpetuate through to the dies, so it may be possible for many dies to exhibit the same issues. For instance, the sixpence issue from 1868 through to early 1873 all show the same flaw in the uppermost olive leaf at 10 o'clock on the reverse. So, that kind of rules out a matrix issue, as a matrix error would unlikely be progressive? But it could easily be a punch issue. If a piece of one of the teeth breaks off, it's because there is a weakness. If you continue making dies with a weakened punch then it is easily possible that more and more of that tooth will break off. If the teeth were represented by just a single 'ring' punch, used on multiple dies, then that would seem the most plausible explanation?

Have you got a spare one, Rob? Edit: if Nicholas didn't want any spares first, that is! No, but might have soon. Waiting for a list of books and catalogues off someone and it's the sort of thing he would have. You've got my email!

So, is it the same die? Or maybe they really were playing with the beads (or was it a matrix issue, of which I don't fully understand that proccess), which still does surprise me, as it would be more of a challenge to block a die, than engrave it? If I understand the process correctly, the matrix is the master die and is used to create the punches which are in turn used to create the die(s). Therefore any damage to the matrix or punches will perpetuate through to the dies, so it may be possible for many dies to exhibit the same issues. For instance, the sixpence issue from 1868 through to early 1873 all show the same flaw in the uppermost olive leaf at 10 o'clock on the reverse. So, that kind of rules out a matrix issue, as a matrix error would unlikely be progressive?