Ian

Brilliant. Copy to your hearts content as far as i'm concerned. Ian

Any positive ID of this coin would be appreciated. It's copper, roughly half crown sized and i'm led to believe it is of Urtuk Arslan of Mardin (1200 - 1239 AD). Mediaeval Islamic coins are not exactly my hottest area of expertise so i'm lost on this. I had thopught that a portrait on an islamic coin was a no-no though (?) So i'm even more lost.....

A few years back I won a competition on r.c.c. The prize was a 1986 proof set which this coin is from. The competition went along the lines of `there's an Australian coin that provides positive evidence that there are aliens hiding right here on earth. Which coin is it?' Well, this is the coin. if you look very closely at Mrs Echidna's nose you'll see the alien in hiding.

Here's the `blue' one.

I was lucky. I managed to get hold of two of the first issue. I kept this up with the second and third, but decided to call a halt on my Austrian niobium collection when I saw the khaki coloured one. To me it looks like it has an alu/bronze centre. Mimicing a base metal doesn't exactly show off the potential of niobium to its best advantage IMHO. Ian

Very nice `potins' indeed. Fascinating subject area, and one which I have avoided (to date) because I can't afford to have any more `interest areas'. While I still have a goodly few coins on my `hammered's' list to acquire I can see that it is going to be a struggle for me to stay away from these little bitties for much longer...... Bill, not all that many people will know what a `potin' is, let alone where they come from. If you could say a few words concerning same it would (IMHO) add to the `backdrop' for these particular ancient pieces. Ian

Nice coins Jorge. I keep looking into the flames now on your Sassanians...... Out of interest how does the weight of the top decadrachm compare with the real McCoy? It looks to me that the word `copy' could be easily obliterated. It looks a lot more realistic than the one someone tried to foist off on me as the real McCoy a couple of years back.

Thanks for the info Art. That would explain. I would probably have leaned more towards brass than bronze, although it looks `bronzy' in places much the way you would imagine it showing through a thin coating. Hence my assumption that it was gilt bronze. Probably a combination of the metal mix and some natural toning. The effect is quite pleasant in any event. :-)

I know what you mean about `demand'. Even though the original issue number was low, if there ain't that many people actively interested in collecting them their value is pretty insignificant. I wonder how many out of that original 1,000 have survived through to present time though, given that this one has somehow managed to find its way across the Atlantic. :-) Through sheer co-incidence, my favourite US coin is the Oregon Trail $1/2. I also love the history of the Oregon Trail. Of course the gold coin depicted on this medallion fits very well indeed with these interests. Just on a point of clarity though, shouldn't your database read `gilt bronze' ? I wouldn't have thought that there would have been any of these issued in just plain bronze given that it is supposedly representative of a gold coin (?). Ian

A timely post since it reminded me of something i've had in my collection for a few years now. :-) It seems to have been issued for the 68th Annual Convention of the ANA at Portland, Oregon in 1959. Also commemorates 100th Anniversary of the State of Oregon. A rather posh kind of ID tag is it not? Presumably issued to officers (?). :-)

Absolutely brilliant! Couldn't ask for more info as to its origins and purpose. Many thanks indeed for taking the trouble ! I'm just slightly puzzled though, as this one certainly doesn't strike me as being gilt over a base metal, but yet it does not have any hallmarking either on the edge or per the location noted in your friends comments. No doubt i'll come across a reason for that particular anomaly at some point. Probably my perceptions at fault. I'll go dig it out again and have a closer look now cheers,

Thanks for the reference. I'm astonished to learn that it is noted as `rare'. I'd be interested to learn if your friends book has anything to add. Ian

This medal (auspiciously dated 1830) ended up in my possession about ten years ago as part of a job lot. I always intended to find out more about it, but that intention must have dropped off the edge of a cliff somewhere. If anyone knows anything concerning it that is likely to be of interest, please chirp in. Ian

when you want to add an image into your message just click on the box marked IMG You are then prompted to type in the web address where the image is located, then click `ok'. The board's software does the necessary for you. It is as simple as that. Of course, that is presuming that you have the image on a web page in the first place. Most ISP's provide you with webspace, but there are many image hosting services you can use. Omnicoin being one of them. Ian

The key difference is noticeable when you have the two types in hand. The mirror finish on the proof is in the fields and the devices are frosted. The `proof likes' are frosted fields but the devices have a polished look to them rather than the deep mirror effect produced with the proof strike. Different die finishes.

They are probably best described as `proof like'. The frosted surfaces achieved are amazing though, and produce some amazing colourations when they tone. Ian

That 1995 flying kook of mine is very definitely a proof coin. Heavily frosted devices in very deep mirror finished fields. Don't be put off by the occasional flecks. They are marks on the glass of the scanner. Ian

I dug out my 1999 copy of KM . In it the $1 series `Australian Kookaburra' (An Aussie Kook?) starts with KM 164 in 1992, but there's also KM209 `Kookaburra Feeding Nestling' (Kooky Times?) dated 1992. In 1993 we have THREE different designs. The same two from the previous year and a new one, 212.1 `Pair of Kookaburras' (Just a Couple of Kooks?). In 1994 we have two designs. KM212.1 again and a new design KM260 `Kookaburra on Branch' (Kook on a Stick to Go?) In 1995 we have two designs. KM260 again and a new design KM289.1 `Kookaburra in Flight' (as used in the aboriginal game of darts?). In 1996 the KM289.1 design was issued again.....and there my KM's referencing ends. Presumably there being at least two different designs each year, this trend has been maintained to present time (?). Can anyone with a more up to date KM than me confirm? Ah well, nothing untowards with the two different types I have for 1995 then. At least, my 1995 flying Kook is noted as a `proof' with a mintage of only 4,900. Maybe one day it'll be worth more than the $2 over the 1996 that KM notes . Then again maybe not. Maybe KM will issue a correction that the figure was really 4,900,000. Now THAT would be more in keeping with my luck of late. Ian

Here's the two different 1995's I have, and the 1999.

I've got a few dates for these. They are really really beautiful coins. Tiff.....I don't have an up to date KM (modern coins aren't really my thing), so I don't know what is what with these issues. However, I noticed that your coin dated 1996 is the same as one I have...excepting that my one is dated 1995 (?). I also have another for 1995 although different design. Always did mean to get to the bottom of that but never did. Were there two different issues for 1995 ? Is there a static design for each year as well as a unique design for each year? I figured there was perhaps a bullion coin running alongside the collectors coin or something like that . PS I also have a 1999 which you might not have. Want a scan? Ian

Hi Rod. Although I might not be quite as enthusiastic as you are in relation to collecting these items, I certainly have an appreciation for the quality of artistry and strike achieved. I look forward to learning more from you and seeing some more of your collection. That's a real beauty you posted! You also mentioned my favourite collecting area...jetons Do you also collect french jetons or did you mean Swiss? Ian

another nice medal in your growing collection..... Ian

Looks to me from the coin that Ben has told them to go fly a kite, especially with the prices they are looking to achieve from collectors. Ian

Fascinating. The thinking in France is (I believe) that a secret society would not be as overt with their jetons, nor would a King be associated so directly as having his image on the obverse. This contradicts earlier thinking. There is an earlier jeton same reverse but bearing the bust of Louis XV, probably circa 1740 -50. So if Marvin missed the Louis XVI one, he probably missed a couple of Louis XV too . Gadoury's 1991 catalogue lists three different busts with that same reverse under the category `Master Masons' and unfortunately `and masonic interests', giving the impression that it is connected to free masonery. I am of the view that the jeton lies more properly alongside such series as Experts des Batiments (du Roi). I need to dig out my CGB catalogues as I recall Michel Prieur commenting along the lines that these items are not actually (free) masonic and that values of them had dropped off due to this. I haven't come across one with that reverse AND a Minerva bust. However, i've just posted a masonic piece with Minerva on it in the`Minerva' thread :-).