Ætheling

I bought this at the London coin fair last month. I think it was about £25, i think. the 'h' is Lombardic style lettering.

I wonder... If the alloy is too pure could that happen? Failing that the only thing i can think of that would cause such a thing would be crystallisation of the metal. With ancient coins i've come across this; Cue to Reid again... But with such modern coins is it possible?

Another one bites the dust!

Excellent! Glad it all arrived well, i'm always a bit nervous shipping stuff over. But i'm glad you like it.

Number 3) ! How could i have been so stupid? Slabbed...

What Art would give to be counting those cents right now! Pretty cool, it actually reminds me of some pictures in a certain UK Price guide which are pretty much showing the same kind of things. Although i think those might have been from the 1910s.

These days it's all about profit...

Ah right i get it now! So i take it the coinage must have had a fairly big change in 1957? It also explains why most Juan Carlos coins i have are dated 1975! I must say i do like the date/stars business because as a date collector it would save me alot of money, because i could just go on the big date and not one the star dates, which i could ignore almost as if they were die numbers on UK coins...

I think either 1989 or 1990 would be a good guess, i don't think i saw any large coins either when i was there. It was a long time ago though! I've just found a few more coins, a Cien Pta which i presumed to be the 100pta (1988 and a bit bigger than a pound), got a 200pta as well, the portrait on that one is pretty awful. Line drawn or what! And i found two of the larger 1pta coins from 1987 (now you tell me about the stars, i was looking all over on the 1987 1ptas to see if i could find them to no avail!) I've got some of the brass looking 1ptas as well, including a few Franco ones.I do have a 1980 world cup series 5pta though. Whilst we're on the dates in stars thing, take a 1957 Franco coin (here we're talking about the date on the coin, not the date of issue), now if that was actually one of the 1957 issues would it have the stars saying 57, or would there be no stars since they'd not be required since for once the date on the coin would actually be the date of issue? Not having a loupe dating these things plays havoc with my eyes, and i'm short-sighted so seeing things up close really shouldn't be a problem. Not a series for the long-sighted me thinks.

Well Al cents are a new one on me... Why the metal change? Was it to see if they could produce them more cheaply? But they figured Zincolns were better? I never used to like Al coins but i've got to say i've warmed up to them alot recently ever since i branched out into German coins, with a hint of lustre they look kinda alright and they seem to wear alright. The weight of the coins seems to be their downside though. Although they deal with corrosion better than Cu based coins, which have a habit of turning nasty shades of furry green in the wrong conditions.

Yet again i fail to be impressed. There is a real lack of imagination or anything new here. Same old designs been regurgitated again and again. That's in reference to the gold fluffalo... well they do look fluffy. With regards to the Linc cent 2009, i'm even more unimpressed. What i hope they would do for that would be to issue it with the original wheat reverse in the original alloy to mark it's 100th, then ceased producing the denomination altogether. Or come up with something totally different. But yet again we've got to have about four different types. This is on top of the god knows how many nickels they've just released and all those State Quarters. Can't they just go totally miles off the wall pick a completely new design for every denomination going that's never been done before ever and then stick with the new designs for say 20 years without a change. I dunno what's worse having a batch of designs that last 50 years unchanged or ones that seem to change every six months and all look like cliparts... With coins you have to have enough change to keep it diverse design wise but not too much to lose all sense of stability. I figure a design change every 15-20 years is healthy, perhaps every 10 years if they can come up with good enough designs to warrant it. Changes more often than 10 years seems to be just changing for the sake of it, usually to cash in.

Well the work is really McDoo's. I just thought up the idea of having CP notes and how awesome it would be. McDoo went one stage further and thought up the whole CP economy and is setting everything up. So it's to him that the credit really should go.

Just been looking through the minute remnants of the coins i'd had in my foreign junk box that i sorted out months ago. The vast majority went to Labmom. The small bagful that remains are mostly Spanish, alot i got from my father are dated in the 1960s and 1970s upto 1980. Then there's a gap until 1989 and these later coins are the ones i brought back with me after my last trip abroad in the summer of 1993. Now i remember clearly spending these smaller coins, the 25pta with the hole through the middle and the 5ptas and the 1pta. The coins upto 1980 though are bigger. The question is when did the shrink the coins and when were the larger coins of each denomination demonetised?

Ah that would make sense. Thanks!

1934 is my choice as first year of modern with US coins. Although 1965 and the one i'd forgotten about 1974 are equally feesible.

Well i sent it off on either Thursday or friday last, i forget which exactly. I've posted almost everything, except one for Kuhli which i need his address and another one for Trantor. I will remember to send the bicentenial quarter... i will remember!

One of us got it.

I had a feeling you'd be lurking somewhere! Yeah on the holes, the dealers had about three of the Owls for sale and all three had these round drilled holes going half-way into the depth of the coin. The holes were on the reverse side with the Owl. I said "nice coins but i'm not keen on the drilled bits", the reply i got from the dealer there was that they were done to test the coin. Now forgive me if i'm wrong here Mike and Reid, but surely doing so would have removed quite alot of silver from the coin and i presume ancient coins like medievals after them would have been traded on their respective weights rather than size? So drilling a hole like that would be less of a test cut and more of either putting the coin out of circulation for good or devaluing it to circulate as a lower denomination? All mere speculation on my part since it's not within my field of expertise, you guys know your ancients so i defer to you. I am thinking that they were probably used as jewelry or something?

Welcome back GD always nice to see you round these parts. Like i said the terms quite fluid, but i'd generally agree in a European context that modern is 1500, or to be pedantic 1501... Mind you 1500 is only approximate anyhow. Some countries the change begins in the 1470s, others 1520s/30s and others still plod along merrily in the medieval period for a while longer.

Oh i know... I'm waiting for Mike's reply on that one. Something like "well that's half the reason why the discussion keeps going round and round" RCC versus Reid? Actually i get on alright with Reid, i think we've only disagreed the once which for me and him is very good going, and i can't even remember what that was about.

Having come across that debate before on RCC that's why i stated i thought it was a test cut. I went and had a look on Reid's site thinking he might have an explanation for it, but alas none to be found.

No idea, my knowledge of computers is you switch them on and they just about work. If they don't work that's when you call someone in to take a look.

To be honest that doesn't surprise me. Think of the years 1971 (or maybe 68?) to present, with about 50 or 60 different denominations in that time right from ½p to £1.

Red X's for me too! I do have a very nice 1996 £1 coin in a First Day Cover. And i think i had a 1997? £5 coin somewhere, the one with Philip and the Queen on. That's also in a First Day cover but not undamaged, it got like that when trying to get into the envelope that the FDC was in... god knows how they packaged that one. But for what it's worth the coin will sell for as much in it or out of it.

Thanks Terry but i'll have to pass on it. Firstly because i'm only interested in France and Britain in this period and my Coincraft takes care of the latter better than anything going. The former i've now just got. So i really don't need the rest.