DrLarry

Did you expect to get a better result form your interview with the antipodean trader?

I always seem to have the best luck collecting good images during a full run of Beethoven's Symphonies ....the third is always particularly useful LOL

I have never seen those for sale before now so it has been good to see something different .....I always feel sorry for farthings

There is an interesting aspect of coins that also helps in many ways to see this pattern. Many examples of coins exist which appear to show "finger prints" on the surface I assume the reasoning is that if a coin is handled fresh the acids from hands quickly react with the surface. This may or may not be the case what is does do in my experience is highlight the underlying pattern which radiates in a similar way to the wavy lines of the finger print but what usually happens is that the "fingerprint" cuts across and hence giving a speckled effect. I am not certain they are always fingerprints though.

So madness were the SOHO coins destined to be sent to the colonies? if so why is it that not that many of them seem to come up on the Australian market. ( I suppose even as I say that I answer it) it was to be used not to be collected, and when you have an ounce of copper it also at some point will be melted down. Reading the SOHO book I didn't catch that connection so thanks for that.

yes they are lovely I have a beautiful half Dollar one with the oval stamp and a number of contemporary fakes (counterfeits) which in themselves are also pretty rare (other than the fact of course that china is now making them they are a poor alternative to the original fakes which are quite nice

As I have researched this phenomena for a long time now I have to realise that a "scratch is not always a scratch! " across the many hundreds if not thousands of coins I have found this in I have noticed that there is a repeat of elements of the design which become more and more apparent as the coin wears. I shall try to explain what I mean and the significance it might well play in our appreciation of what constitutes a scratch or chop mark. but if correct I am saying that coins leave the mint with an underlying series of scratches, porosity, dots and chops hence they are an integral part of the coin. Only during circulation do they begin to appear. This fact may then have a profound implication for grading a coin (which is why I thought this would be of more interest to the coin forum ) it essentially means that you must know the pattern and disregard its effect before you can grade a coin because surface hairlines, pitting , and chops might be "part of the design" . AS I see it this "watermark" on the coins (a security property I believe) is imposed on the coin prior to die pressing. I believe that it is an additional process in minting. Consider the planck planchets arriving from having been cut they stockpile and are then loaded onto a belt flat in large numbers and sent through an inking press which randomly imprints a part of the overall design which is held on the face of the roller under which they pass the coins are simultaneously rolled through the inking drum. The design is imposed on both sides the coins (there is always part of the sequence on both sides) The inking drum puts a thin variably thick image made up of dots, lines, pictograms and then the coins are sent along to a chemical bath which chemically etches through the ink. This is the exact same process used in preparing copper plate prints and has been known for hundreds of years. Once coining becomes mechanised this process is much easier I think that prior to the mechanisation the image is printed on in ink and then sent to the chemical bath. Once the die pressing is complete I am not 100% sure but I believe that coins even since early mechanisation are washed with various chemicals and cleaned off. The cleaning will have removed a lost of the acid but from this point on the process still continues. By creating these variation in the porosity of the surface of the coins (etched) and the dots and incised lines which now sit below the lustre of the coin they will in circulation be acted upon in a haphazard way as they are passed from hand to hand and sit in the organically rich pockets or purses of the owners. this will act in a random way to corrode the surface of the coin. However luckily for us coins get lost and buried. Ground water and organic and carbonic acids percolate over the coins surface and acts upon the surface of the coin in a more specific environment concentrated along the less ristent (etched) areas. It was then the advent of metal detecting coins that gave me the first opportunity to observe this phenomena. It was clear from the onset that this showed a repeat of the pattern but that the position of the various units varied from coin to coin, hence the need for randomness into the concept provided I think by rolling the coins through the inking rollers prior to etching. Some coins do show the phenomena better than others; why is this? I believe that two factors are at work here. The first is which part of this motif is printed onto the coins: let me explain. The eye can pick out pattern very easily is the pattern is a certain size it is for example much easier to see the images that are smaller and more discreet and also if there is any part of the design of the image that might approximate to the imprinted device. So the shield has the cross bars and oval shape that can approximate to the head of the large lion in the shield. Interestingly these filamentous lines and dots that appear to be unrelated to the coin design cuit across the die pressed design as they meander and are scattered across the coins face (these are etching marks a little like trace fossils in sedimentary rocks (the tracks and traces of an animals activity like walking, gliding over muddy substrates ) you have to find and interpret them to get back to the animal to which they belong. Or in the drapes within the penny part of the design has a lion reaching down and licking the lambs head. The fact that the design on portraits, in reverses sometimes match up with the "lion Lamb/rider image) seems more than a coincidence. If this is the case then I think it might be safe to assume that the engravers of coins (often employees of the mint) might well hold knowledge of the device and the images it creates and must create an image that incorporates elements of it. Until 1850s when the job is made redundant. The second variable might be the amount of time coins sit in the chemical bath. If during mechanised coining a stream of coins leaves the rollers two possible routes might alter the image. either they sit in the air with the etching ink on them (I have not investigated if this ink in itself has corrosive properties) but the environment of the minting process must be a pretty toxic one steams oils, humidity, acidity and heat all contributing to surface alterations no matter how small. the other alternative is that coins are sent straight to the bath this of course would mean that some sat in the bath longer than others and hence may have deeper corrosion by the etching fluids. In fact there are so many variables and this in part can be as important as any other to the process. So what is the purpose of this convoluted process? That in itself is a more complex issue. We have to consider the very nature of the themes of the two motifs found in later coins : The Lion Lamb and the rider with dragon. the symbolism of these two motifs is simple but at the same time complicated and is perhaps best considered separately. All of this is pure supposition and speculation of the worst type. I have little or no references to the methods employed by the mint and neither really does anyone else. There are parts of the minting process that have , as far as I understand it , that have always been kept secret from the public for the security and integrity of the Royal Mints licence to print money. However something should be said here about the reasoning behind this device for as many have mentioned if it cannot be seen how is it a security. Well even if something is seen that does not negate the fact that most of us could not produce it (the holographic or design elements of notes attest to this) but I think security in coinage is a little more complicated paper is easier to copy maybe but in the times of Newton's involvement the coinage problems were a matter of state significance. It is my belief that to "de-code" this motif is an important requirement of a security device. If not what's the point. But most state systems rely on a limited number of people knowing state secrets and also making sure that each person knows only part of a secret. The rise of the banks took over from the moneyers (part of the goldsmiths guild) in collecting money and depositing it. I surmise again with absolutely no evidence that this motif could easily be decoded if you know it is there. If you are directed to a part of the coin a drop of oil or a gentle rub will disclose it. Each collecting house might know some part of the whole but never the whole, the objective is to locally identify forged coins so that a task force can investigate the passing of money within a region and so crack down on forgeries. I have mentioned before that money circulating in the lower levels of an economy that is faked is of less importance to the governments until such money reaches a certain level and the treasury ends up with junk. Thus we have a situation common even today or recently that allows for forgery to an extent. That extent is decided upon at a macro level not always at the microeconomic level. Oh dear is this the worst kind of fake history? if so I am sorry I do not have the access to the kind of research or information which might render it real. As Jerry says it is a wild speculation convoluted and constructed. But as it stands this is part of the best I can thus far imagine to be the case. (the fear I feel in submitting this you can only imagine.....please just consider the implication if I am correct before attacking me) Also this is a WORKING HYPOTHESIS it is the basis from which something can grow.

yes exactly Please note that this image is taken from the pictures that Jerry provided and they are low resolution I would generally need about a 2-3 MG Pixel image to get reasonable results and well done for using photoshop. I think the best way to edit the images I have discovered is simply to print them and draw around the said LIONS HEAD I admit this one in the coins Jerry has is actually quite a clear example but then again these coins are high quality as you would expect of Jerry I sadly have to find my creatures in less well endowed metal discs The issue is that I having studied this for a long time can pick out the myriad of lions and Lambs that cover the coins from the 17th C onwards. Although even in saying that I believe that it exists before this time I think it simply becomes more complex in coins onwards from this time. The motif is often always the same and as I say I am close to unpicking the whole story but I am happy you have seen this quickly attained image. I simply took it using my phone and pointing it at Jerry's coin....you can do the same in fact anyone can but I would like the title of "Leo-arnakism" (Lion Lamb in Greek ) to stick please LOL PS there is one small error in your drawing the edges of the left side are NOT bound by the die clash lips

Well done and thank you I have not yet had the opportunity to visit our Southern Colonies but I now have a conviction in me to board that ship sailing from blighty along with 200 barrels of apples (pommies) and will expect no less than the expected welcome when I arrive ......I hope you will enjoy my sentence. Guvner

And the second not so defined but still filling most of the field the eye on the left directly over from the clash nose

The intriguing thing however Jerry is that you first coin shows a rather remarkable example of a large lions head in the field above the ship to the left of the N second N of penny. The second one also shows a nice example and this validates my view that the forms are unaffected by the die clash as the pale colouration of the left side of this lion form sits inside the dark line of the clash. In this one the left eye looking at the coin being over from the lips of the clash in line with the N lower I am sorry I cannot get this image that clear it is taken from your lower resolution images of the first coin. YOu can e mail me a larger one to larry@madaboutart.org and I will get a clearer image although even with low resolution the whole head of the lion at 3/4 looking to the right seems pretty clear to me , The lambs are to the side of the ship just above and outlined in white faint ghost lines. one looking out at 3/4 to the left although that I agree is less easy to see if you are not used to looking for them

Could I be so cheeky to ask you if you would be willing to post a thread in the beginners section on these "proclamation Coins" I would be very interested to learn a little about the topic and as you are doing a lot of reading. I would much rather get the viewpoint of someone starting out than have to read through reams and reams of paper. I am sure most of the accomplished members know a great deal but I have to admit I know "nada", apart from the fact that there was a change in the the Georgy Bluebloods (and yes I know it was porphyria which is purple not blue ) portrait, I had not even recognised this proclamation coinage title. I am not sure if you like writing? if you don't then don't bother , but it is useful to teach others I find, to help make sense of things myself. For example there is this other date of 1827, 1927 commemoratives which I thought were the historic dates with respect to Australia; hence the need to hurry and get the 1827 penny loaded and the destruction in the shipment. I like GIII but I could do with a 101 in proclamation. If you do, don't worry about making mistakes we all do and usually are advised by gentle souls LOL and errors are part of learning. Much appreciate that you have already raised the topic in your own way already. best wishes Larry

I totally agree with you. It is often far less than confrontation it is healthy difference of opinion. I am novice in so many ways and like you have mental health issue now I would not give up though it has skilled me in so many ways and helped me come through some of the darkest mental health issues post chemo I think it is a perfect hobby all considering your situation allowing concentration and attention to detail which provides a beautiful calmness even in the darkest moments. They are as I often get told off for saying "just shiny bits of metal stamped with pretty pictograms " but they have the capacity to allow us to reach into history and in doing that they hold an almost magical property.

A coin has history always and no matter which one your choose this will be the case. As you can see I have no concern about clasps on my coins it is part of their history but think of yourself having made a contract on some other purchase in your life if something is faulty I am sure you would take it back to the shop. Most opinions of others are just that and it is hard to identify fast rules on what constitutes as "fawlty" faulty the description, the grade, whether polished or cleaned, or mount removed and tooled. I tend to er on the side of people making honest mistakes I think I made one buying that little farthing as I now believe it to have been tooled...if this is the case I have to approach the dealer and ask them to accept it back £60 is a lot of money for a dud farthing if an 1856 in that condition I would expect to pay £3. If an E over R then £60 is fine. If the dealer has purposefully altered the coin or asked others to do it then that is fraud.

If you are happy with that then that is a resolution. I would however write to the seller if it was on e bay and say without expectation of a result (non confrontational) a summary of the thoughts of us all. You might at the very least get a partial refund I would think if mounted it is worth around £280 - 250. Confrontation is hard I would feel it more if the person was an independent seller if the purchase was from a dealer I would have not the slightest hesitation of telling them directly. If the mount is there or was for your £140 refund you could buy yourself a lot of books and other coins. In my experience most dealers know full well that a clasp has been removed, the tell tale sign is the reeding around the edge which is often missing or you can tell it has been redone with a tool. It is a sad reflection of things that I am afraid confrontation seems to be a large part of this strange new hobby you have decided upon, perhaps see it as a skill development, assertion of fact is not confrontation merely a direct statement of the circumstances. If you can prove the clasp removal with good pictures you should open a return case in my opinion E BAY are excellent at forcing a statement by the seller even if it takes the full period of resolution 30 days you will get all your money back and he /she will have to pay the return costs. With £420 you could achieve a lot .

I also only have limited gold I do have a couple of guineas of similar age and a half guinea to go on both with the same obverse. I also think it is a bit too much for what you have there in those pictures and it does look as if it has been cleaned. Did the seller say it looked polished or cleaned? I may be wrong but it also may have been mounted and removed at some point take a very close look at the area above the shield and the same place on the obverse see if there is any evidence in your hand. I think when buying a lot of these gold GIII's many show mount removed scars I have one mounted on a neat little clasp which I keep for grading. I also would think it fine But I think you should look carefully at the "top" of the coin. If it were mine I would return it on the basis of either I don't like it or as I think may well be the case I would get a return based on it having been polished and possible mount removed. They can often be skillfully removed

another few more months I think I will get there at least I can see the relationships now between the design motifs the key to understanding how it fits together ios the Ribbon like structure that often runs across between the two N's on the penny. It makes up a thread like sequence and whilst they stand alone as a motif with their own specific design they add to or are part of the larger pattern. There appears to be a repeated mathematical arrangement and in the images of just one example the units are Green and pink in reverse light and top of the lion in BLack below the lower line and the lambs to the side (pink or white depending if they are in reverse light or not) is usually integrated in into the lower section of the two ribbons luckily this ribbon is on almost all the examples I assume it's small size makes it an important building block it is a little like a rubik's cube once the pieces are understood I should be able to lock them in on each other

yes I know they do the clash is also present on the reverse when I first started looking I began collecting the die clashes that seem common in the 1860's pennies and half pennies and also in a few of the 61's and 88 (half penny to see it there was any correlation I have about 10 and whilst I can see that some of the shape may be emphasised by the lips and nose I discounted it by shear weight of numbers. The only things it helps in my experience is to help direct my eye to the area. What I am doing now Jerry is trying this oil immersion method the images do come out a lot clearer and I will just use this to go through all my 60s to 63's but I am glad you noticed that I remember in a conversation we had you had mentioned it and this made me look carefully. I even could find examples using the obverse if the profile could not easily be seen on the rev 's I wish it were that simple my life would be easier LOL Thanks

I think it is pointless trying to show an interpretation of these strange patterns and lines so I think I will begin to show you in the same way I began to see it in a repeated pattern. Perhaps then if I can show that the pattern is constant we can look at what it means and why.

yes well it must be but still it is a prohibited item it must state that in the listing title .....I feel sorry for anyone starting out it would take a few months of getting to know coins before realising. And then there are those who will set out to deceive with craft and some skill

this one

yes sorry , It was just the coin that the seller is selling it was off the top of my head having seen it yesterday. the same seller who has been on the last few replies also sold me this E over R 1856 farthing and I am now thinking it is not right

did you report it ? I have sent a message asking him to relist it as a modern fake

have a look at this E over R 1856 for me I am thinking it is wrong