1826 Proof Farthings

[1826 Proof Farthings]

2 hours ago, Kipster said:

Yep. I saw an NGC MS64 BN graded 1825 halfpenny for sale the other day, but it was clearly an 1825 farthing. I let the dealer know it was misattributed and they pulled it. But that said, that's a pretty basic thing to get wrong.

 

Interesting. Would it be easy to spot the difference between the two?

To me the best way to tell is to look at the brown colouration in incidental light, not reflected light. This removes most of any colourful aspects like blues, greens etc. If it is chocolatey brown, milk to plain, then it's bronzed, if a paler sort of "wan" brown then it's toned copper.

There are examples that could be either, sometimes it's very hard or impossible to tell. I'm talking about the traditional bronzed colouration of the official issues, Soho or Royal mint, not the often golden brown of Taylor's restrikes.

[Ah, Heavy Eyes Lost Me My Coin at Noonan's Today]

1 hour ago, VickySilver said:

Yes, maybe I can generalise to the "we". I confess I am addicted as I already have TWO mint state (at least by TPG standards) 1904s but this coin looked superior and somehow I missed it at Colin Cooke 20+ years ago when it was sold despite having a good customer relationship with CC. Ah well, you win some and lose others... I miss out on minor lots on ebay all the time, LOL.

I have been the beneficiary in the past of well healed buyers being caught off-footed and me getting coins I simply should not have been able to compete for.

Talking of 1839 halfcrowns, I presume you got the Heritage Auctions 1839 proof halfcrown PF66+ at a very reasonable $38,400 and perhaps also the "pure silver" 1847 Gothic crown at $186,000. Maybe not!

That was a nice result for the halfcrown vendor as it sold 10 years ago for $10,500 at HA, so a nearly 300% increase. I hate to think what the Gothic crown vendor made. And telling the difference between pure silver and sterling silver might be difficult - the specific gravities of both would be close, and for that price increment you'd hope some test would be pretty clear-cut! Otherwise it's only a PF64 1847 Gothic crown, of which there must be loads around. Perhaps there's some spectroscopic method.

[Coin prices continue to rise]

1 hour ago, Old Money said:

The Copper bronzed currency penny is not the Baldwins coin, had it several years before, if I find the record I will pass it on.

I have had several over the years, but none from Auction or notable collections.

A few years since I last looked at notes, memory fades, you are right it is the IOM CHP1839.

 

Thinking about it, the Baldwins coin might have been 1857.

[Coin prices continue to rise]

18 minutes ago, Old Money said:

Is that top one ex-Baldwins (which they sold as a proof) then ex-Roland Harris, but looked artificially bronzed? Nice looking coin.

And presume you mean that the 1839 IOM halfpenny shares the same obverse, as there was no 1839 Jersey halfpenny and they have an ornamented fillet in the headband?

[More Pennies]

19 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

But presumably Ian, not one of your 76 OT 1856 finds was in high grade? 

There have been a few 56 OT's in high grade over the last 2 decades - Pywell-Phillips SCA 2018 (ex somewhere else but I've forgotten where), Baldwins 47 (Gregory II) - later sold London Coins, fantastic coin, nearly full lustre, Mark Rasmussen list 15 ( Old British Collection) - ditto almost BU, Dave Craddock also had a nice one in his tray several years ago.

[Coin prices continue to rise]

4 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

So what was it about the obverse that rendered it "impaired"? (as compared to the reverse)

Heritage say there's a graze on her cheek. Might be that. Baldwin's did list it as the proof, just strange they implied the obverse was less certain to be from a proof die than the reverse, and gave it a low estimate of £3-400. Perhaps the graze, if it was that, put them off. If anything I'd have thought the obverse would be easier to tell proof-wise based on the sharpness of the hair. 

[Coin prices continue to rise]

Just now, DrLarry said:

How did it turn from a pink to a brown?  it is the same coin same blemishes at least 

I saw it at the LCA auction where it was brown, it went to pink pre-slabbing, a great process whatever their secret recipe, as it turned a nothing special coin (still sold at ~£1K though) into a $6.4K one a few years later. 

[Coin prices continue to rise]

30 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I don't think I'd trust an 1841 without colons, which has been touted as a proof. Although I can't find anything definitive in writing on whether they exist, the only 1841 proofs I've seen (three), which I'd personally accept as being proofs, have had the colons in place. Possibly from the same dies which later were used to produce the much less common, with colon 1841 currency strike. 

Too strong a possibility that somebody is bumping a nice currency strike as a proof. Plus let's be honest, it wouldn't be difficult to get past the checkers at NGC. 

Having seen a few coins proofed up, I wouldn't go for one either. Peck didn't know of one, that's not definitive as he did miss things, but it's evidence that in his 30 plus years of researching he never saw one that jumped out at him as a proof.

One example I would like to look at was sold as "full lustre" in a very early 2000's SNC. It was listed as the colon proof, but I couldn't make out the usually bold colon from the photo, in black and white back then. Perhaps it just didn't show up on the photo, though whether colon or no colon, a "full lustre" one would be quite something to behold

[Coin prices continue to rise]

I saw the 1841 "proof" penny at DNW just out of interest of course as I was there. Better than their recent "Dr Reddy's patented 1859 facsimile proof penny", but not by much! There was no way it was a proof from the worn dies on either side from the photograph for starters. It must be artificially bronzed.

There's an 1859 proof coming up at HA which came from BA 44 in 2006 - where they put "impaired obverse, but reverse definitely struck from a proof die." Estimate at the Gregory sale £3-400, but two people must have thought it a bona fide proof as it went for £1200. Baldwins didn't say why the obverse was impaired or why they weren't certain that side was a proof. Interesting to see it in the hand but i'm not going to risk several thousand for that privilege!

[Coin prices continue to rise]

Wow! HA PR64 no colon 1841 with gorgeous pink toning - went for nearly $6.5K in 2017.

Oh wait, it's the same coin!

[Coin prices continue to rise]

On 4/5/2023 at 7:19 PM, secret santa said:

The 1841 "proof" could start an interesting discussion between the buyer and Noonan's. I'm pretty sure from the photos that it's not a proof but where does a buyer stand when it's been graded by a reputable TPG as a Proof ? 

Ummmm...not convincing: London coins 1841 no colon "proof" Roland Harris collection 2009, before that I think Baldwins.

[More Pennies]

3 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

NGC get plenty wrong ,some more so than others.

The coin label has now been changed and the coin not mine ,imagine getting this back 😂

 

it would be worth even more than a copper one if it really was 60/59!

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

 

Just been watching Dr John Campbell on his you tube channel showing another speech on the same issue, this time by Sir Christopher Chope, with only three other members (including Bridgen and the Minister) on the Tory benches and the Labour benches having once again emptied. Chope made reference to a rather dismissive statement given by the PM when told about one of Chope's constituents who had suffered vaccine damage.

Vaccine damage payments are being made, so logically, there is a factual acknowledgement that this does occasionally happen.  

So I'm not quite sure what the issue with MP's is here? What point are they making by walking out? If it's a denial that the vaccine cannot cause damage then that's patently absurd as vaccine damage payments as a result of the covid jab, are being made - that is hard fact. From the POV of some consituents it may be perceived that their MP has some sort of weird problem with their physical predicament. 

I think I will write to my MP and ask for an explanation as I think the public are entitled to know. 

 

 

That's the thing - if a government person explained to Parliament why the information given by Bridgen, Chope was wrong, or put out some official rebuttal with stronger counter-evidence, that would be that. Yet their approach, followed slavishly by the media, is to pretend that this subject does not exist. It's as if they think - if we ignore it, it'll go away.

To many of us it seems the politicians have backed themselves into a corner, which is why they're now in full la-la land, as of course they can't admit what a humungous cock-up they've made of it all. I can see them doing the same with Net Zero in years to come. Are they under instruction or have nearly all of them completely lost their marbles?

 

[Coin prices continue to rise]

11 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Not done any exact analysis, but purely from observation, and ball park estimate, I'd say that even in the last 2 or 3 years, prices have increased at all levels of the market. For example, what was £180 in 2020, is now about £240. Quite ordinary, or not desperately uncommon pennies are now routinely being offered at £200 plus. Although there are still bargains to be had.

One exact price I did notice was when looking at the change in prices for 1839 proof pennies last night, on Noonans site. I noticed that over the years three separate complete 1839 proof sets had been offered (with the Una and the Lion £5 piece included). In 2004, one went for £16,000. A year or two later, another went for £23,000. Then in 2011, yet another went for £60,000. But at the Noble auction last July - in the Verene Collection of proofs - just the Una and the Lion £5 coin itself went for £421,000 (converted from Australian dollar exchange rate). That is a staggering increase which is way beyond inflation. 

How long will this continue? Maybe - very probably in fact - coins are seen as a safe haven in these economically turbulent times. Especially rare gold maybe.

Yes, back in 2004 DNW had nice examples of all 3 main early proof sets in one catalogue, and all went for £11-20/25K'ish. Where's that time machine!!

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

14 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

I doubt it is even worth meriting that somewhat offensive  statement with a reasoned answer.  But I will.  Like science the purpose of charity is to enable the group you are setting out to empower to run and support themselves.  I relocated for 12 years to simply support one small community with a large issue.  At the time I was doing international development work so i did not need payment.  I did my job and did an additional 30 hours a week.  I returned to my birth place because the young people now have a social enterprise which  funds the work we do with kids who have been raped or abused, who are HIV positive , or have lost both parents.  A unpaid chief executive is a honorary role like a  chancellor and  because that is what the beneficiaries wanted my title to be.  I travel back every two years or so and run workshops for others looking to start small enterprises and donate money from selling a few coins.  But if that offends you I could always edit my profile , I just felt that this is part of who I am and hence happy to share it this is supposed to be a friendly forum where we can feel free to express an opinion.  

It has been my choice to live in the way I do.  I returned because I wanted to use my health insurance to get treatment for cancer so yes I suppose I do live in a predominantly white society not for any other reason that there are not so many people of other nations around me, although we have many Malaysian and Chinese students.  I have a home here so whilst not in the nicest part of the UK (others born here love it)  it is a roof and as you say we all find groups with whom we share interests and this I have done.  Sure I would rather be home in London, but working away for 25 years it was cheaper to return to the house I bought 35 years ago at University.  

 

I hope that allows you to understand me a little clearer.   I made an investment at the right time and so have no need to work for money so I don't and so spent the last 22 years supporting the charity..( for free)  that is my choice.  

Interesting, but calm down. As you advertise it, it's open to enquiry, and my questions are perfectly sensible. I find it strange that the unpaid Chief Executive Officer of a charity lives half a world away, not a normal arrangement, but you've explained it so there we go - questions answered. No problem!

 

 

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

35 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

I agree it is a useful "mechanism" to cohere and I am sure it offers a great sense of comfort for many people for as long as it remains a nice comfort , however is=t does get weaponized so often in history that I personally feel it somewhat disagreeable in particular when it is used by politicians to stoke reactions that lead to humane approaches  being side lined.  I have never really felt its comforting support personally no more than any other group identity.  When something feels as if it is being used or abusing others then I will happily become an activist again .  Activism does not leave me personally with a sense of belonging any more than the other groups.  Science I suppose provides a good framework simply because it is built of experience and observation yet is founded on the principle of seeking to nullify observations until such a time we reach the limits of what we can disprove.....which at that time then opens a possible explanation for some situation....science is never about fact and I quite like that sense of chaos.  But of course all positions provide an potential for isolation from one part of society or another.  

I respect the choices people make to find a sense of togetherness so long as that is not used to harm those who perhaps cannot advocate for themselves.  

Everyone's tribal to a certain extent, it's part of human nature, the professed exception being certain left-wing white people. I say "professed" because when you see their actions they almost invariably live in other majority white communities. But as an internationalist who says he isn't keen on England, why didn't you choose to stay in the rainbow nation of South Africa as you'd been there for 10 years already? 

And being an unpaid Chief Executive of a SA charity, wouldn't you have been better to have stayed where you would be most needed, as who is going to pay for your flights over there and back - not a cheap option and hopefully not the charity.

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

38 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

The irony being that less than 50 years ago, the BBC were discussing whether a new ice age was on the way. I hope they will not be allowed to forget that, along with the long term succour they gave to sex abusers like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, then sacking John Lydon (Johnny Rotten as his punk name went) for exposing Savile - meaning (shock horror), that the BBC do get it badly wrong, and most certainly can't be relied upon as a font of all knowledge and information.  

With regard to climate change "deniers" or "denialists", whatever, I think the term is open to abuse, since an increase in global temperature is a hard fact. The point at discussion is precisely why, and here the narrative is entirely one way, with all other possibilities deliberately squeezed out of the conversation. Commentators with alternative theories being disallowed any platform. That's not just the BBC, it's virtually everywhere. Although GB News did have a fascinating hour long debate between two opposing sides on the matter, last Summer. That was so refreshing. 

The vaccine issue is another matter entirely. I agree that at the start of the pandemic, a vaccine was essential, and that the benefits then outweighed the risks. Moreover, given the sheer mass scale of vaccinations, and the speed of development, inevitably there would be many people who were damaged and killed by it. Although the vast majority (probably > 99%), suffered no serious and/or long term side effects. But again, the term "anti vaxxer" is being badly abused and does not reflect reality, since those who are now questioning the efficacy of the vaccine, are not against ALL vaccines. Just the covid one. Personally I can't see the point in suppressing debate on the issue, especially now that covid has turned largely from tiger to pussycat. Just let people have their say. OFCOM/you tube don't need to exclude programmes discussing the vaccine. 

As far as "net zero", I believe the UK are virtually the only place on Earth pursuing it with such messianic zeal and imposing absurdly tight arbitrary deadlines on its introduction.

If the advocates of climate change being 100% due to Co2 emissions, are so convinced of the scientific accuracy of their arguments, why are they seemingly so worried about other elements to the debate being allowed into the official narrative? I don't get it.     

 

 

  

 

Considering the average age of death from Covid is and always was 82, and the victims almost invariably had various co-morbidities such as obesity, the authorities initial idea of vaccinating the at risk elderly seemed reasonable.

The rolling it out to other age groups is incomprehensible though, based on spurious transmission/infection theories for which there has never been any evidence. Pfizer for one never claimed their vaccine had any effect on either transmission or infection, it just mitigated the symptoms. But you wouldn't go and see your granny if you had flu-like symptoms anyway. 

It's worth seeing Andrew Bridgen (available on his YT channel) empty the Commons last Friday before making some damning observations from the government's own data about the current risk/benefit of continuing the booster programme. An eye opener, but no one debates or debunks what he is saying, which tells the story really. 

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

27 minutes ago, Menger said:

Hmmm. Didn’t infection rates increase after the jab roll out?  Most people I know (except myself) got it only after being vaccinated. 

Personally I know nobody who had any major issue with Covid, but I do know half a dozen people who developed problems after the vaccine - including POTS, Mast Cell Activation Syndrome, hypotension, hearing loss, palpitations, placental abruption.  So my sense is the roll out to everyone (not just the vulnerable, like my mum) was reckless. More politics than science.

However, temporal correlation is not causation, and anecdote is statistically irrelevant, so please take my observations with a pinch of salt. Perhaps it was all safe and effective just as planned … 
 

The weekly Public Health Agency reports were shelved about a year ago, but they were showing the increasing trend that vaccinated people were becoming far more likely to be infected than unvaccinated. The PHA authors were at pains to suggest this might be down to behavioural differences between the two groups, but that was pure speculation, as they couldn't of course admit the other explanation. Perhaps the shelving and the observed trend were connected?

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

I am sorry that it hit your mother hard but it is a simple reality that any medical intervention involving a vaccine against any pathogen will , considering the millions if not billions inoculated, have a negative impact on a few percent.  The human immune system is too varied to create something that is 100% perfect.  Covid took many millions and likely many more if we had not developed the herd immunity which the vaccines provided.  There will always be a small number who choose not to be given vaccine and for those they have to face their own conscience to themselves and other for whom they represent a vector of potential infection. If you are a climate change denialist or at least do not believe it to be anthropocentric again there are millions who can sit alongside you and I am sure you all can debate on global platforms talking to each other , perhaps in the 90's you would have all had a greater platform.  But I think it best considering the overwhelming scientific opinion that we have significantly contributed to it that the platforms are reduced for that globally marginal group.  As a Geologist I have observed eons of climate changes and would rather we take cautious approaches to our destructive habits, but if humans are reduced in total number that is fine (by me)  but there is a whole world full of other species I'd rather not see reduced further by insane human activity.  

 

the debate on these issues I agree can enable people to make changes and perhaps the BBC have tried to enable the madness of the climate denialists over time to talk usually the outcome is the same we are to be kept on a track towards net zero if for no other reason that is it efficient to do so, like an insurance policy safety for the future.  I would I think (personally) be willing to ring the BBC complaints line to record a complaint if they used valuable air time to give too much credibility to an unqualified individual giving their opinion without substantial evidence.  

 

I accept that you may not be a climate  denialist, or an anti vax or anti net zero contributor and may be just making those as examples of the kind of debate examples  you might like to see on the BBC, my apologies if I have argued that you are. 

Weren't we told the vaxes were "safe and effective". Wrong on both counts. as soon as Omicron appeared they were of little and rapidly diminishing effectiveness.

And I'd love someone to tell me what a "climate change denialist" is and why are they "mad"? It's a flip phrase but I think it means that you question any, and not necessarily all, of the following three points:

(1)  Is climate change/warming happening? I'll answer that - probably from measurements, but at a much slower rate than all the forecasts from all those experts over the last few decades. And why are we not told of any beneficial effects if it is, like increasing vegetation in colder climes? 

(2) Is it directly due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 0.031% of the atmosphere to 0.038%? Man produces 3% of CO2 produced annually - the other 97% is produced naturally. And is there any proof for this correlation of increased CO2 to global warming? 

(3) Is the solution of changing from a reliable, controllable, storable and concentrated energy supply to a weather-dependent, intermittent, uncontrollable and non-storable energy supply the correct one? Especially as the energy use and size of an economy are pretty strongly related? And at present wind and solar contribute from less that 1% to circa 10% of our total energy consumption (ie between <5 and 50% of our electricity consumption). So when the wind doesn't blow in Winter we'll need nuclear provision for all our transport, all our central heating and hot water, all our manufacturing industry and construction industries (which we won't have by then due to too little reliable energy) etc etc. How many nuclear power stations will we need for that, small modular ones or otherwise. And how's that construction plan going at the moment?

And after 15-20 years most of these wind and solar devices will need replacing, but we can't recycle them very easily because guess what - that'll require a humungus amount of energy!!

So the people who worry about this last point are the mad ones?

if you believe in all of the above, shouldn't you be losing sleep over China? - it burnt 300 million extra tons of coal (the biggest CO2 emitter of any fossil fuel to amount of energy produced) last year to bring it's annual consumption to over 3 billion tons of coal. But no one seems to blink an eyelid about that. 

 

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

21 hours ago, azda said:

Yet it’s used by the Govt as a propoganda arm, therefor not impartial

As soon as the government message is globalist and not a party political divergence, the BBC are eagerly complicit. Climate change being due to man-made CO2 for instance, all the lunacy of Net Zero, and no debate was allowed on anything that questioned the government narrative on Covid, lockdowns or vaccines. Furthermore the BBC actively got Facebook to close down forums for the vaccine injured as "disinformation". Of which my mother nearly died. 

 

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

For anyone who thinks the Rwanda deal is doing anything in our favour, it is of course not. 

So in return for sending healthy young men to Rwanda, in exchange we will get unhealthy, sick, old and young parentless refugees, many emotionally and psychologically damaged, from other African wars that Rwanda now wants to get rid of. So Africans don't want the burden of looking after other Africans - offload them onto Britain then, and get paid handsomely for it.

And where are all the Albanians etc are going to go when their obviously spurious asylum claims are rejected in Rwanda? - straight back to their mainly peaceful home countries of course. They aren't going to want to stay in Rwanda! No need for Rwanda to sort them out then. 

As HD says in the video - no one tells us this. The whole of the media stay quiet. Once again we're only given one side of the story. 

So why are the Left all up in arms about this? Wouldn't this news show how humanitarian and compassionate the government are, and why doesn't the government parade their virtue over this? Well, because the general public are stupid but not that stupid.

I wonder what Michael Rosen thinks. Is he prepared to make a financial contribution to the further burden the NHS is going to be under for this charade?

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

17 hours ago, DrLarry said:

it is a very difficult subject for many creating problems from all sides .  There is little shortage of housing  and many empty houses in the North East ....but I am not sure there would be much welcome here it is somewhat closed community towards people of difference 

In my limited experience, "people of difference" also form closed communities. I know of three examples that my and other friends' children would never be invited round to ethnic schoolfriend's houses, despite it happening the other way round of course. A shame.

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

13 hours ago, TomGoodheart said:

What a fascinating thread. I'm just going to pop this here. Written by the writer Michael Rosen. Which I found interesting.

Where do you start on this? It is straight out of the Communist playbook. That wonderful ideology that killed more people in the 20th century than any other ideology. But it will be different next time, honest! 

These illegal migrants are granted asylum because our system is broken, and the political will is not there to deport them, hence all that is needed is the "asylum seeker's" word, often given to him by the human rights lawyer. They'll now have a form to fill in, given several weeks to fill it in (so someone else can help them) and it'll be in English, so no pesky interview with an interviewer expecting the person to speak the language from where they claim to be from. It's a farce - no Albanians should be given asylum for instance. They're living in a democratic country not at war.

This is written by a Marxist, so it is manifestly dishonest - for example the Jews were German citizens who had lived there for generations and centuries when the plan to send them to Madagascar was made. There is no comparison. They weren't illegally entering Germany, knowing they'd be looked after far better than where they came from. And they were targeted specifically for their race - it's laughable that anyone can take this far Left garbage seriously.

And would the Germans have agreed to and obeyed a Madagascan tribunal to rule on whether these people had a right to live in Germany? - if so they'd all have been returned of course as they had every right to live in Germany! As it turned out the Jews would undoubtedly have given their eye tooth to go to Madagascar - because the Nazis were infinitely more terrible than that. Another reason for Gary not to make flip comparisons. Where's Braveman building the death camps then? The Left need to grow up if this is their political weapon.

So if police chiefs say the drug supply is now connected to the people who have come here illegally, then they presumably know what they're talking about. How does anyone get faux-outraged by that? But Michael Rosen knows differently - where does he get his inside information that the police chiefs are making it up. It's nonsense. 

Sweden now has the highest rates of gang crime, violent crime and gun crime in Europe having previously had one of the lowest. But should anyone dare to put their finger on what's causing it, there will be Michael Rosen calling them out as a Nazi. There is always complete denial of reality from the Left. 

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

7 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

your process may be to cut and paste , mine to write something as I understood it then went back and edited it , so perhaps it is less coherent than meat and two veg,  as you say more akin to a salad.  Please dont make assumptions about my methodology you have no idea of my process so please dont assume you do 

you seem to be a pretty opinionated member caught up in your own clarity on so many things .  If you wish to shut down a conversation then perhaps you should just elect to do that by contacting the administrator, but for me the point of entering this "domain " to to add to a conversation piece .  Apart from the aspects of collecting I find interest in these discussions outside numismatics are sometimes enjoyable to read but have little interest in many topics.   In most conversations there will always be a degree to which the topic meanders apologies if that bothers you.  I suppose I read too much Plato at school 

Meander away - but don't take offense when someone points out that what you are saying is not relevant to the thread. You carry on firing away with your definitions of "conflating" though.

[Gary Lineker (moved)]

20 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

Conflation in terms of rhetoric is usually perceived  with a   somewhat  negative trait usually a person's belief or conviction merged in an idea to attempt to strengthen its meaning.  A belief structure in the idea is usually held strongly in favour of one particular point of view over another and yes all sides on a spectrum of ideas conflate one sides view over another.  It is, as you say  not wrong from one side but less right from the other sides perspective,    

 

it is never easy to assume what is meant by someone, you have decided wrongly for example that my statement is critical   whereas my expectation of the sentence was simply to state that conflation exists for both sides.  It is afterall a pretty new word .  

Interesting word salad cut and pasted no doubt. Your comment hasn't got anything to do with being "critical", but it implied that "both sides do it so it's no big deal" Thus rather missing the point.

And of course no one's talking about the concept of conflation per se, they're talking about what has been conflated and whether it is appropriate. That was the whole point of this Lineker story. If you can't see that.....