Ætheling

It's funny cos it didn't actually start out that dark! lol. Originally where the two phoenixes are on the reverse were some pictures (very bright, very vibrant), hence the darker areas were added to bring in a contrast and it worked very well too I might add. Sadly I was aware that I didn't hold the copyright to the pictures so I didn't use them and dropped them, pity cos a lot was lost with their removal, and hence why the background is now on the dark side shall we say. I'm gonna play round with the colours anyhow so i'll try some of your suggestions and see how they go.

Now that would be cool! Sorry I haven't fathomed holograms yet. Actually I'm working on an alternative to the above, a pictoral series... but i'm still drawing the pictures at the moment, so dunno how they'll come out! I'll post one up when i'm done.

Well it's been a while since I designed any new notes for Coinpeople, but here is a potential design that's in the pipeline. The first series of 'Imperial Bank of Coinpeople' Notes were distinctly British in flavour, the second series paid homage to Rome, the third series (a favourite of mine) was the recent American series of denarii notes (many of which were kindly posted out by Art at Christmas), with themes of liberty, eagle, buffalos etc. For this new series however, i've decided it was time to branch out from Brit and American things and go East, it was either going to be a Chinese or Indian theme, well this time the Indian theme won out but future series might include Chinese or even Egyptian style notes (i'm really liking the though of Egyptian). But for now here's a sneak preview of a potential design that I was working on back in August. The reverse I am fairly satisfied with, the obverse needs some work I think, comments/suggestions welcome; Obverse Reverse

There's a Coinpeople facebook? Wow! That i'd didn't know.

It's a valid point banivechi, although following your argument maybe 1901-1950, 1951-2010 would be better? However, on the other hand having co-ordinated this competition in the past I can totally understand Art's choices. I always used to strive to make it as simple for myself as possible. The problem when you start breaking categories down into ever smaller chunks is two fold; Firstly the competition becomes more of nightmare to run with more categories etc. and secondly (and perhaps more importantly in my opinion) there becomes a greater bias towards coins issued in the twentieth century. Now when I ran it I confess I did sometimes split the twentieth century down the middle, but as consequence there was always twice as much twentieth century stuff than there was any other for any other century. Simply put this isn't really fair, from a personal point of view I always considered the 19th century to be the richest century in numismatics (even though I own nothing from that century). Then of course another reason behind the whole competition is to try and highlight some of the less well known areas of the numismatic world. There are many rich and wonderful pieces from earlier centuries, and several collectors on this forum are well equipped with earlier offerings such as the 18th, 17th and 16th centuries, surely these deserve as much air space as the 20th century? Just a thought.

Only positive comments from me. Feel free to violate the 'rule of 8' , afterall you're the guy running it so it's up to you how you approach it, everyone has their different ways of working. Sounds great and count me in. Let me know when you want the entries so I don't miss it!

Looks like we are! Sorry i've nothing from 1607 either. Anyone?

Had to bring this thread back, a new acquisition heading my way (my first this year now i'm a semi-retired collector). Anyhow, I've always wanted one of these and I've finally found one in a grade that's high enough to see any detail but low enough to be anywhere near affordable! And without all the usual abuse; holes, plugging, mounting etc. I kinda regret selling off all my few Early Milled gold coins back in 2004, missing them so I finally decided to push the boat out and buy another. I love half guineas. Not the best picture but hey.

I used to have these coins, all sixpences; 1676/5 1675 1674

I thought for a minute that i might have had a 1784, but alas it's 1783.

Because it was posted on August 26th! These pinned posts are here for a few reasons. Notably much like say sports listings, say wrestling/boxing/football etc. they are a list of who's going against who, who they're going to be against next, and also results of each show off. If there's ever a dispute or some posts get accidentally deleted there's a record here of who won what and against who. It also helps to keep me organised so that i don't end up with an odd one out due to lack of fore planning or any missed out for any reason. Plus it also has the added advantage of letting me just copy and paste the links and descriptions from one easily accessible location, and really helps to reduce the time spent on setting up the competitions. The proper final is up and running now, it was supposed to go up yesterday but i ran out of time.

Each coin entered must follow the following specifications; 1) The coin must have a short title following the following formula exactly; Member’s Username; Country/Denomination/Date Examples; Bob’s; USA/Lincoln Cent/1942-D Fred’s; France/Ten Francs/1903 Mary’s; Scotland/Groat/c.1430 John’s; Roman/Domitian Denarius/AD90-96 2) A direct link to a picture of the coin hosted upon a website that will host the picture indefinitely. WARNING; Coins hosted on sites that only host images for a limited period (say two or three weeks), will probably ‘disappear’ mid way through the competition when the hosting expires. 3) The link can either be one single link to a picture where the obverse and the reverse of the coin are pictured together, (such as on omnicoin, this type of link is preferred), or they can be two separate links; one for the obverse and one for the reverse. 4) The link itself must comply with the following rules; I) It must be no longer than 60 characters in length, anything over that causes problems. II) The link must be direct, i.e I must be able to see the http://www in the post and not an underlined short link. e.g; It should be; http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?showtopic=11783 and definately not; Link (Entries with links like this will be ignored) III) It must end in .jpg, if it doesn’t then it won’t work. (This is how you know if you've got the right link or not) 5) The description must be placed BEFORE the link and not after. Thus once your entry is completed it will look something like; Gxseries'; Russia/200 Rubles/1992 http://www.banknotebank.com/notes/900371A.jpg http://www.banknotebank.com/notes/900371B.jpg The organisers of PCI reserve the right to exclude any entries that do not meet the above specifications. If in doubt don't hesitate to ask for clarification.

100% raw here. I have bought coins slabbed but i cracked them all out. I like touching my coins, if i can't touch them it might as well be like looking at them through the glass in a museum. There's no historical connection.

First British monarch was James I (aka James VI of Scotland). First English monarch, then Egbert's your man. Although there are other contender's for this, Offa of Mercia had much of the important part of England under his power just prior to Egbert's reign. Other contenders are Egbert's decendents; Alfred the Great, Æthelstan and Edgar. Needless to say England was definately a unified country when Edgar died, which was long before William the Conqueror's father was even a twinkle in his father's eye. First Scottish monarch, then i'd be thinking Kenneth McAlpin.

I like that! Looks like pearls on a crown... what is it with me and the royalist imagery?

Did Count Stephen Henry or Count Theobald IV of Blois have any coinage? I definately need to get some coinage of that era especially for such a distingushed family. I also need to get down to Winchester Cathedral to pay a visit to a certain someone.

If you can get the dies and some round silver blanks then all you really need is a hammer. I have seen reconstructionist using that method for issuing their own hammered coins and they look fairly good to me.

Liberty head, the rest were rubbish.

Well i've actually orddered it from Amazon.co.uk so it's not even coming that far. I've ordered a copy of K. R. Potter's, Gesta Stephani (Oxford, 1976) It's not like it's even a big book, but it's been out of print since the mid-80s i think. Original issue price was £10 and that was a fair bit of money in 1976! I don't think it's quite like £75 is now though... I do have a copy from the Uni library sat here next to me at the moment... in fact i checked it out of the library for nearly a year at one point when i was doing my project at University. I'm thinking of extending this project and perhaps seeing if i can get it published. And University is really gonna want their copy back, unfortunately i leave at Christmas and thus the only copy i've been able to source anywhere i'll not longer have access to. The cheaper option would have been to 'lose' the Uni's copy, declare it lost and then they would have charged me £10 for the book (which was the issue price), however i'm a] honest and b] someone else might need this in future. So i've had no choice but to cough up another £65. Of course i could have photocopied the whole thing but that's illegal, so i won't.

I've just ordered my first book from Amazon and having read that i'm hoping like hell they don't lose it! £75 is alot to go missing... only another six weeks to wait before they can get hold of it and send it.

Never failed to get a reaction that one. If you ever get the urge you might want it, it's quite likely still in the hands of Rendel Ingram.

That would be the Madge Kitchener pattern threepence. I actually really like that design much nicer than the one they adopted for the George VI coinage. Also be aware that Edward VIII brass threepences also exist with the George VI reverse. Presumably the George VI reverse was the winning design of the two. I can't help wondering what would have happened if George V had lived longer. Would they have introduced the brass threepence in his reign or would they have waited for the new monarch anyhow?

Correct it has a reverse featuring six interlinked rings. Due to Edward's abdication however, it was never released. Very few were minted anyhow. I think there is at least one in existance, probably only a dozen of them at the most. You will also notice James II is missing and a George IV type too.

Hmm i could live with that!

There's only one thing i want more than anything else either a 1796 or a 1797 dime in GVF.