Coinery

That's so weird, I knew a girl who thought Keanu was the dogs! You are only the second person i have ever heard confess as much! I never got it myself, though the JD thing makes sense!

Following on from my proposed 3 differing grade images of each punch, can I ask what would be your own preference if you were viewing the said images in a book or webpage? Using the following lower-grade image as an example, would you think it better to 'keep it real,' namely scratches on the bust, or removal with software for a more aesthetically pleasing picture?

The seller said he spent just under 5k that day, and couldn't pinpoint the lot? I had already emailed him a few times regarding it, and didn't feel I could hassle him any more! I do feel relatively satisfied it's from the Hoard, however, I'll not be able to prove it, sadly.

That is super impressive. Much appreciated, thank-you! I'm going to try and get all the silver punches covered! I've even thought of having, say 3 images of the same bust, but at deteriorating grades, just to make it even easier for others to compare their own coins, and perhaps get just a little bit excited to find they have Groat CC-1M:CC-b5 rather than just a Bust 1F Cross-Crosslet Groat. I was really surprised to find so many different die pairings in the Elizabeth series (26 different Bust 1F Cross-Crosslet Groats for example), all so easily identifiable by the combination of different punches used to make up the dies. Surprisingly grotty coins can be attributed by using a process of illimination, breathing new life into a stagnating collection I think. It's certainly rekindled my own interest in planchet Blanchet, if only Elizabeth looked like that!

have you ever played the part of a policeman in "allo allo"...????............... That just made me laugh out loud in bed, my wife is now thinking I'm losing it! :-)

Whilst my coin wasn't in any of the suggested lots (I checked through all the online triangle images from the sale, and none matched the shape of my coin), and I'm unable to follow the journey any further with the buyer, I do feel pretty confident seeing your coin, that mine is also from the Bedale Hoard. The even colour and ?lustre patches (viewing images on an iPhone) looks to be very much the same, thanks for putting it up!

Exactly. Hammered coins are rarely precisely described by the grading, partly because unlike milled coins percentage wear and weak strike can be confused. But mainly because even if deeply and well struck, if the design is off centre, the flan small, the strike uneven or just the toning unattractive the coin can lose 'eye appeal'. Plus there's an element of personal choice to it too. Here's my G1/2 triangle shilling. You'll note that there are areas where the flan is thinner and so the design hasn't taken so well. The die is also starting to break up showing some cracks and there are a couple of folds where the silver is bent back on itself. And finally there's some double striking where it jumped slightly between strikes! However it's (unusually) round and full with the majority of the outer edge beading there. And it has a pretty tone. That's the thing about hammered, particularly the later, larger pieces. It's generally a compromise because every single coin is unique and in the end you have to decide what you like or can live with. As for this shilling, while it might not appeal to everyone, it's still one of my favourite coins. I can absolutely see why! The thing for me, as you have pointed out, is the outer beading, which runs hand in hand with my favourite aspect of your coin, the perfect central strike, which gives the coin such a pleasing balance! A very pleasing coin! :-)

There is no point increasing the resolution (despite what you see in the movies), you can't just invent something that wasn't there in the first place. Sure you can average neighbouring pixels or interpolate or some other clever algorithm, but what ever you do it won't be an accurate representation. I wouldn't worry, your pictures look better than most do at that zoom level. Many thanks, Nick. when I converted the cut-out image to jpeg, the program asked me how many pixels I wanted to save it at and, never having played with this stuff before, I wasn't sure what to save it at, I plucked 600 out of thin air. The other point that is worth saying is that JPEG isn't the best choice for preserving fine detail. It's mainly used to produce a good quality image with a reasonable amount of compression - which unsurprisingly is popular on the Internet. However, if you want to preserve the finest detail, then TIFF or PNG would be better choices - although the file sizes will be huge in comparison. I did get those file options, I'll try them out! :-)

There is no point increasing the resolution (despite what you see in the movies), you can't just invent something that wasn't there in the first place. Sure you can average neighbouring pixels or interpolate or some other clever algorithm, but what ever you do it won't be an accurate representation. I wouldn't worry, your pictures look better than most do at that zoom level. Many thanks, Nick. when I converted the cut-out image to jpeg, the program asked me how many pixels I wanted to save it at and, never having played with this stuff before, I wasn't sure what to save it at, I plucked 600 out of thin air. The number of pixels you choose is pretty much irrelevant (unless you choose a small number). How it looks depends on the input DPI, ie a low-resolution blocky input will look the same (just bigger) in high resolution, whereas a high-resolution input will still look reasonable even at low-resolution. The moral is: scan/photograph at the highest DPI you can - you can always throw away some detail later. The opposite is not true. OK, I think I'm on the wavelength now, just! :-) Thanks again, Nick!

There is no point increasing the resolution (despite what you see in the movies), you can't just invent something that wasn't there in the first place. Sure you can average neighbouring pixels or interpolate or some other clever algorithm, but what ever you do it won't be an accurate representation. I wouldn't worry, your pictures look better than most do at that zoom level. Many thanks, Nick. when I converted the cut-out image to jpeg, the program asked me how many pixels I wanted to save it at and, never having played with this stuff before, I wasn't sure what to save it at, I plucked 600 out of thin air.

Rose 18 Does anybody know if you save an image with a greater dpi whether the image is clearer, as the above picture explodes with greater detail in the original. I saved this at 600dpi...any ideas? What would be a maximum dpi to save at?

Here's mine, taken through the plastic of a lighthouse coin flip, so excuse reflections, smokiness, and dust!

You know what, though? I love coins that have good compositional balance, I think this is one of the key aspects of hammered aesthetics ( not forgetting tonal balance, of course), I just wish there was a pinch more of the beading present at 2 O'Clock on the reverse. I'm not asking for full plump beads here, just enough of a 'raise' to pull the reverse design together a bit! Then I would really, REALLY, like it!

Thanks very much for your additions. I did feel something was different about this coin in hand, it had that cleaned appearance, without looking cleaned, if you know what I mean? I was phased by the presence of lustre, not really considering this coin was possibly, as near as damn it, as-struck (it was barely in circulation before the PAS's proposed burial in the 1640's), and looking in my hand as it likely did to the Stuart that buried it along with the rest of his fortune! I rather like it for all that!

That would be very kind. Apparently this coin is from a 2009 auction, would that seem right to you? I'd be really interested to know whether the coin is described as 'bright' or not? Also, do you know whether the coins actually came from the hoard 'bright,' or are these just the ones that were so cruddy they were cleaned? The date is wrong for the sale. The hoard was found in 2009, the first part was auctioned on 14/09/11, part 2 18/01/12 and the final part this Wednesday. Lot 14 or 18 from January looks like it could be the one? Both lots mention multiples of CI shillings with mm triangle in each. "good portrait detail and most with lustre" forms part of the description. Lot 14 had 5 shillinga and 15 sixpences, hammered at £540. Lot 18 had 10 shillings and hammered at £750. Thanks for all the effort, I have managed to find the online photos for the lots you mentioned and, whilst the images are poor, I was able to see that mine wasn't amongst them by assessing the shapes. Hopefully something will turn up, I've sent out a couple of emails, so maybe something will come of them?

That'll be great, the more images to work from the better. I've had a coin-related 'unpublished' domain for some years now, that I've been itching to get out there! Roll on June, then! Thanks Historic Coinage, very much appreciated!

Checking on the Portable Antiquities Scheme, it seems there were 23 Triangle Shillings in the hoard, around 6 fit the weight range, mine's 6.11g!

It seems to share quite a lot of the same characteristics as the fakes that were discussed last time. With this sort of suspicion associated with them, I would only consider buying one from a top auction house or reputable dealer. Or a verifiable provenance which pre-dates the appearance of these copies. There were few copies around prior to 2003 2004ish, and those there were tended to be quite recognisable, and crucially, documented. You see, provenance CAN actually add a decent premium to a coin! ;-)

That would be very kind. Apparently this coin is from a 2009 auction, would that seem right to you? I'd be really interested to know whether the coin is described as 'bright' or not? Also, do you know whether the coins actually came from the hoard 'bright,' or are these just the ones that were so cruddy they were cleaned?

Thanks very much for the information. Re the 'clean,' you see this is the thing I can 't quite put my finger on! It looks new, rather than polished, the weirdest thing, I really got a sense it was straight from the mint when I saw it. Do you know how the Bedale coins came to have a 'fresh' look? I'm thinking that if this is a Bedale coin, it will have been recently bought from auction by someone who presumeably realised that cleaning a coin is not condusive to a good investment! I'm thinking it may have come from the hoard this way, if it is indeed FROM the hoard. Any thoughts?

I really don't know, can't hoards be really well sealed in old pottery sometimes? Maybe even waxed closed, who knows? I'd be really interested however!

I agree - it's preferable to ugly toning, and it is possible to dip LIGHTLY without destroying all lustre. what silver dip do you use?

Let's hope not for the buyer's sake! Would anyone care to post a pic of their 1905 HC, I would like to see a high grade one! (It wont be me, mine is gF) Here's mine, any good? If you're after a fake, that'll do nicely. If I was in the market for one of these (I'd love one, one day), I'd certainly do my research well in advance. But, if this is indeed a fake, I have to say that upon first impressions i wouldn't be able to spot it from the pictures alone, not without being pre-armed with any pre-purchase research, that is! Yes it is a fake, I wish someone would point out any clear indicators though as I can't tell the difference Absolutely, anybody out there already done the legwork on this one and holds information that would help in the identification of a genuine 1905 halfcrown?

That's a One Penny, Gary! ah! What a plonker....... ok here's my 1902LT Halfpenny That's really rather nice, I have to say. You'll be pleased with that, then? :-)

Thanks, Peter, It's a shame about the small spot in the right field of the reverse, though!