Hi all,
I am new to this forum. My son found this coin yesterday. Looks pretty interesting to me...
Here (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO9XEOJ-vHRPXNuZVbj-URgv24NBtDF_OHG-xkMjhRuH3wXcJWbZZIXebTG7SoIOw?key=dWRUZ2hpc01jRS1xb0FGemxuOXB6VEQ2SGF6MDh3) is a link to the pics.
(https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO9XEOJ-vHRPXNuZVbj-URgv24NBtDF_OHG-xkMjhRuH3wXcJWbZZIXebTG7SoIOw/photo/AF1QipOVF6xf5qo-GFdyiWsZ07h0dArRzLWnGiTXDjbW?key=dWRUZ2hpc01jRS1xb0FGemxuOXB6VEQ2SGF6MDh3)
As soon as we see reverse lettering, it raises a red flag. It's usually caused by 2 coins being smashed together, commonly known as a 'shed job'.
I have no idea what has happened to the reverse though.
I hope some of our more experienced members will be able to explain it.
Any chance of getting an accurate weight of the coin?
BTW, :welcome: to the forum! :good:
I don't see anything when I click the link?
I just weighed it on electronic kitchen scales and got 9g, but I don't suppose that is much use to you. I will see if I can get it weighed somewhere.
Just had another look at the Rev and to me it looks like someone has removed a semi-circular layer (about 70%) of the outer surface by some means, again most likely a 'shed' job.
Others may have other opinions though.
Here (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO9XEOJ-vHRPXNuZVbj-URgv24NBtDF_OHG-xkMjhRuH3wXcJWbZZIXebTG7SoIOw?key=dWRUZ2hpc01jRS1xb0FGemxuOXB6VEQ2SGF6MDh3) is the link again.
Does this work? I am also posting the link address here...
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO9XEOJ-vHRPXNuZVbj-URgv24NBtDF_OHG-xkMjhRuH3wXcJWbZZIXebTG7SoIOw?key=dWRUZ2hpc01jRS1xb0FGemxuOXB6VEQ2SGF6MDh3
Hi Nevol,
It looks to me like the outer layer has not been removed, but rather that the centre has been pushed out a bit. To my eye, the coin is slightly deformed with the reverse being slightly convex and the obverse slightly convex. I may be wrong on that.
Quote from: 'Nevol' pid='83073' dateline='1450827736'Just had another look at the Rev and to me it looks like someone has removed a semi-circular layer (about 70%) of the outer surface by some means, again most likely a 'shed' job.
Others may have other opinions though.
Quote from: 'Ned Kelly' pid='83074' dateline='1450827751'Does this work?
Worked out the problem (had to be logged into a google account, so used the daughter's gmail account) and can see them all now.
My first thoughts are shed job as well, but the legend on the reverse that is partially in the raised and partially in the "missing" section has me wondering.
I'll have to think on this one for a while.
btw: Welcome to the forum Ned!
Quote from: 'Unicorn' pid='83070' dateline='1450827546'I don't see anything when I click the link?
uni , please click on the word here in blue
On the rev and using your fingernail, run it across the section (from the inside to the outside) between the Dancing Mans outstretched hand and the end of Peace.
There will be a noticeable difference in the height and you should feel either a little 'click' or it should feel as you've hit a slight obstruction. Note what happens exactly at that point as that would indicate to you if the outside is lower or higher than the rest of the coin.
My guess is it will be lower.
It is definitely lower, but looks like it has happened by force not by abrasion.
Thanks.
Hi Ned and welcome mate, I think it's a shed job and they sat it on a socket or something like that and then looks like it might have been an 86 cent cent on the obverse and either used a press or hit it really hard with a sledge hammer :winkextra:
Quote from: 'Ned Kelly' pid='83074' dateline='1450827751'Does this work? I am also posting the link address here...
Nope, not even after logging in.
Hint: Use imgur.com or the forum's Gallery in the menu above. Imgur's great cos you have lots of control over sharing anywhere, and they dont' try to be too clever, like Google lately.
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO9XEOJ-vHRPXNuZVbj-URgv24NBtDF_OHG-xkMjhRuH3wXcJWbZZIXebTG7SoIOw?key=dWRUZ2hpc01jRS1xb0FGemxuOXB6VEQ2SGF6MDh3
The forum gallery works perfectly and even I can work it out :good:
A lot of the other sites require a log in and are frankly just a pain in the arse to use :ok:
Quote from: 'trout' pid='83154' dateline='1450988524'A lot of the other sites require a log in
Of course they do. So does the Forum. Otherwise anybody could fiddle with your junk. :P
And the determining factor in selecting providers are whether it costs, either in time, money or inconvenience, and whether the content is universally accessible.
As we've just seen, Google now fails the latter test, even though it used to be an awesome service back when G+ started. A lot of image sites are a total pain in the arse to use, either because you can't link an image directly or because the display page is filled with crap.
As you can see from this sample image (don't ask), you can post a link to the page, like so: http://i.imgur.com/My7iQrE which brings up the title, some stats (2,679 views? WOW!), comments and the like, or you can just post the pic directly, like so: http://i.imgur.com/My7iQrE.jpg
It even offers half a dozen different link formats, such as HTML and BBCode, like so:
(http://i.imgur.com/My7iQrE.jpg)
And, of course, you can store an effectively unlimited number of images, sort them into albums, manage them individually or by album, etc etc etc.
So why on earth would you want to use anything else?
Of course, like so many services, its always possible it might turn to shyte sometime down the track. But given that it was started by a guy on Reddit who was sick of all the BS from other sites, I think that's highly unlikely.
Hey Fulvio mate, don't scare off the newbies.
Quote from: 'purplepennyhunter' pid='83156' dateline='1450990685'Hey Fulvio mate, don't scare off the newbies.
LOL! Well, I picked that in a hurry, cos I knew what reaction I'd get to Dogecoin pics. That's about all I've got up there, since I tend to host my own pics mostly.
And before anyone asks, I didn't suggest that cos I know the (non-)technical skills of this mob. ;)
Reckon I should spend $145 to turn that into a mini-me? :dodgy: