Coinery

Thanks Colin, good filing is a must, that's for certain! I have learnt that even today, with a 6-part picture! Disciplined disciplined, disciplined...then wine! ;-) many thanks!

:-) the background coin was meant to be the 'arty' bit, it was only to give a bit of context to the rose, it's totally uneccesary really! That particular rose is present on lots of other very different varieties! I think i've definitely got carried away with a new piece of software:-) If you know anyone who wants a coin-themed wedding, I could always do the invites???? :-) Thanks Azda, will keep adding compositions, hoping to get it right! Keep the comments coming for me, I'd really appreciate it!

Wow, that site of your's is developing fast; amazing resource, and something to aspire to! The only thing I'd say is the BCW line drawings are presently the major resource for all the variations, and I thought a cut-out photograph to be far more representative, and much simpler for identification purposes, without losing valuable information. The BCW book ignores legend variations, other than to state the numerical composition of the letters (FR/FRA 2/3 etc) and their placements before or after the leaves. There really are many hundreds of variations, but most types being able to be identified by pretty much anyone armed with a pictures of the rose, lions, LIS, shield, leaves, and bust...that pretty much does it! We wouldn't 't be dealing with anything like the details you're looking at...no serifs, letters, flaws, scratches, etc. just a simple collection of just: The busts 19 roses 69 LIS 97 'cats' 28 leaves 63 shields AND 2 sceptres Just these few 'course' identifiers are all that's required to pinpoint any one of around 1050 different recorded die-pairings, so I thought it would be possible to replicate the line drawings in photos? And 'neutral' background, I think you're right there too (maybe simpler, at least)! Thanks, Seuk!

Cool, but I think ovelapping the images confuses things a bit. I think the James I shilling you have on ebay (is that you?) makes a good striking image to start a section, but when discussing the marks themselves, I'd rather have them apart, though I like the idea of having the coin the image comes from there too. And the 'plaque' with text doesn't do it for me. I think I'd stick to text alone .. and not italics. That way the text more closely resembles the legend lettering. But I wouldn't worry too much about that aspect. Stick to one font, similar to the one you have. Brilliant feedback, I definitely need to make it look a little more academic, far too frilly! Weird how you can get sidetracked by software, I'm surprised now that I didn't put a bow on it. I think the second image gives context, but maybe make it more transparent. Keep it coming please, I'll put up some different variants as soon as...

Just the kind of feedback I'm after, Debbie! The more I look at it, the more I see 'wedding invite'!

Don't look at any early-milled until you've got it sorted! ;-)

BA-1D:BA-a (Large-Flan) 3d Bust3F...Nice clear example of the broken lis punch 8 (3), and of the broken shield (bottom joint).

Hi, Does anyone have any quality images of Elizabeth I coins that are not protected by copyright? I am so impressed with the book, Elizabeth I, by Brown, Comber & Wilkinson, that I'd like to catalogue as many of the key 'variety identifiers' in photographic form as is humanly possible (busts, roses, shields, leaves, lions, lis, etc.), and create a webpage as a resouirce for any that are interested. I always used to find the line drawings a tad difficult to apply, the penny always dropped when seeing an image of an actual coin. I've chopped out a 4D Bust this evening (below), which needs tweaking, feathering, maybe a little editing, etc. but it's enough to give you an idea of what I'm after. If any images are from coins in your own personal collections, I would happily reference them accordingly. I would be gratefil for anything, even if it's just a rose that is well struck-up, or one single lis on the reverse, even if the rest is an absolute 'dog,' it would still be welcome! If anyone PM's me, I'll surrender my email address for any image files. Many thanks in advance to any who can help and, of course, to any who might be interested.

That would be very kind, thank-you, I was just beginning to feel a little lonely on this thread!:-) Would you mind if I had the original full-resolution images to work from, could I see if there's a Lis, lion, or privy mark, on the reverse I might be able to use? I'll PM my email address if you're happy! That's great, very much appreciated! Yes feel free and I will send the pics. The reverse is 1561 dated and grades around VF as well. Excellent! I couldn't PM you, perhaps your inbox is full, so I've contacted you via your website. Thanks, again!

That would be very kind, thank-you, I was just beginning to feel a little lonely on this thread!:-) Would you mind if I had the original full-resolution images to work from, could I see if there's a Lis, lion, or privy mark, on the reverse I might be able to use? I'll PM my email address if you're happy! That's great, very much appreciated!

Can anybody help with a better reference than N2231 for this shilling? Can this be pigeon-holed a little better, I don't yet have any indepth reference books covering this. Also, this is reportedly a coin from the 2009 Bedale Hoard, does anyone know anything about this hoard, and whether this might be a coin from that hoard. This coin is bright (looks cleaned), but without any cleaning swirls, and also has what appears to be small traces of lustre. I can't quite put my finger on this coin's condition, any thoughts?

And THANK God, I'd be reading my coin books alone in my caravan otherwise! Well, I guess if you need to capture people's attention, you have to lead the thread appropriately, but sufficiently catchy, so...'BUST' of Elizabeth I, do you think it better to leave the scratches in and 'keep it real?' Or is it more aesthetically pleasing to photoshop them out? ;-)

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. John Newman by any chance? Terry, was the gentleman's name, not the Terry on here by any chance? Was it you, Terry? You can come out if you want, I'm really pleased with it! :-)

One for the cabinet! Actually, better make that two, showing the obverse AND the reverse, as I can't imagine you'd ever see the other side again!

Wouldn't it be useful if there was a facility on eBay to report that an item was fake? Oh wait... I told them it was fake on five occasions but they insisted I send it back to the person who sold it to me. I think the seller had to promise ebay that they would destroy it ... I just saw a pig fly !!! I was talking about reporting fakes before the auction has ended, but unfortunately eBay ignores all such reports. I still think multiple emails, asking probing questions would do it! ;-)

He's quite an expensive little monarch to collect is our Edward! It's no shrinking violet that can pull together a couple of nice trays from this reign!

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!