Paulus

Well done Mick, you're firmly on the right track now Glad you got hold of a 1951 proof set

See what you've done @PWA 1967

I have 2011 if you would like it? PM me if so

Dirty great boulder between the O and the N

Really Awful Numismatic Goods No, it's just Pete's abbreviation of his favourite phrase for crap, 'Rang Tang' !

More chances of bargains with BINs, because if you spot them the moment they are listed you can grab them there and then of course ... but Scott's right, if you can be bothered putting in the time you will still find good coins at low prices in auctions too, maybe through listing errors, poor pics, mis-attribution, and so on I can't be bothered trawling though them all any more, I look at newly listed early milled and hammered once or twice a week, knowing I will miss some and occasionally get lucky

I agree with both of those points, although the photography may still be thwarting an entirely valid comparison

Yes, I didn't mean clean in that sense!

A very clean example, unusually with no toning - maybe taken out of the box soon after purchase?

Way out of my comfort zone, but in the course of re-photographing my collection I am reminded that I have this I know what I think it is, but can someone properly ID it for me? Not a great rarity I'm fairly sure, but thanks for any help

Pattern Halfpenny, 1799 (early Soho), by C.H. Küchler, in bronzed-copper Touch of potential verd at 10 o/c obv being monitored

Way out of my comfort zone, but in the course of re-photographing my collection I am reminded that I have this I know what I think it is, but can someone properly ID it for me? Not a great rarity I'm fairly sure, but thanks for any help

For duplicitous read fraudulent, yes, name and shame!

Hmmm yes, that does kind of disprove my theory a little! Still, I had been led to believe that it's the same setup and people for both ...

Very common 1754 farthing, just photographed and recently acquired ... VF+? Better?

I have a strong feeling you have made the right decision Deccers! Don't need that sort of stress, I'll take a look at your latest offerings

Thanks, I'll see if I can pinpoint when the setup changed

My take on this is that the LC and CGS pictures are taken by the same staff using the same equipment and set-up available to the at the time of capturing the images(a mounted high-end Olympus compact using artificial light, when I visited their offices about 2 1/2 years ago). However, a while back the quality of their pictures improved significantly (I don't know what they changed). The background in Sword's LC pictures suggests the inferior setup was used for these, while the (obviously more recent) CGS pics were taken using their improved setup. My theory is therefore that the time lag between the LC and CGS pics spanned the period during which they improved their setup/equipment/technique (although I would not say the recent improvements have brought them up to a professional standard). Here are 2 examples of CGS pics of coppers (both graded CGS 80) using an earlier photographic setup, and a very recent one: UIN 19254 circa 2011 UIN 39472 May 2016 Sword, can you lend any credence to this theory? When were the LC auctions for your examples, and when were they slabbed roughly, do you know?

Blimey, how much is admission then?

Another with mottled toning

Nor I

Good point!

Eddard Stark half groat

Boooo! Down with the Shuttle!! Up with the Fleece!! This is a Suffolk one ( PAYABLE AT P. DECKS POST OFFICE BURY .XX. )

Doesn't it work on the inside of the window?