Peckris 2

I remember toying with the idea of buying a few sovs in 1998 when the bullion price was down to £55. WHY DIDN'T I...

This has happened before in times of high inflation - specifically the mid-70s; a few years later prices had fallen back again, thought not to the levels of the immediate post-decimal collapse.

yes, if there is anything at all which lets it down a bit, it's the hair detail from the temple down through the sideburn to the cheek.

I'm not even getting a link, just a flat inactive url without a domain name

I'm sure there are plenty of Peter Nichols cabinets around - keep an eye on auctions, even eBay.

I was going to say it was one of the early (1860) obverses until I scrolled further and saw it was a halfpenny not a penny. For some reason, unlike with pennies, the Mint never reduced the gap from the top of the bust to the linear circle.

:Once again, I have to point out that although the BBC gets most or all of the licence fee, it is not something that enshrines the BBC - IT'S A GOVERNMENT TAX THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY in order to watch ANY TV, whether it be BBC, ITV, cable, satellite, or whatever. Do you REALLY think that if the BBC went out of existence (as Daily Mail readers secretly wish) the government would stop making us pay a licence fee? Please folks, come back down to earth and get real.

The hairlines are the only issue - otherwise it's not impaired. Would the hairlines prevent it being FDC? Possibly. Proofs are indeed struck on specially prepared 'polished' blanks, which is why handling must be very very careful especially no rubbing, which is how hairlines can appear.

Very nice indeed.

don't forget surgical (or methylated) spirit.

I remember a dealer at the Midland who had a huge box of mixed coins marked at 25p each or 5 for £1. I looked at it a bit dubiously and the dealer said "I've not checked through that so you might find some bargains?" Not only were there some pre-1920 florins and shillings in there, there was also an 1888 6d EF, and a 1951 3d Unc with good lustre. When I showed them to Stephen Lockett, he dashed off and made an offer for the whole box to the other dealer!

Welcome back

I presume they weren't intended to circulate for very long? I guess the Mint didn't care much if they were clipped, though the question arises "why bother punching them at all, why not simply recall hammered in order to use the silver for milled coins"? Perhaps the answer is that they could punch several hammered coins in the time it took to mint one milled coin, so it was an efficient temporary measure on the road to recalling the hammered coins.

The problem with a maximum bid is when you later find out it went for one bid higher - being the underbidder in those circumstances can be frustrating. Sniping with 7 seconds to go is - as Richard says - genuinely exciting! What bores me is searching minutely through 00's of listings in the hope of finding that elusive bargain.

I'm assuming he meant 3 seconds before the clock countdown ends on the item page (even if it doesn't, actually..)

Yes, WIII's reign saw something of a 'great recoinage' - the milled wasn't new, but I believe hammered coins were withdrawn during his reign? (I may be wrong about that...)

It's possible that desperate citizens of the world can see through the anti-migrant rhetoric of the Tories, and know that the vast majority of UK people - whichever party they vote for - are decent and compassionate as has been demonstrated so often e.g. towards Ukrainians (but there are very many examples).

Thank you Tom, for the research that I didn't have the energy to do.

Oh but he did - if you read his tweet, he clearly used the word 'language'. However, he was also criticising the government policy, that I will admit. Thank you for making my point for me. I did say 1933 and 34, which were the first two years of Nazi government - pre-1933 is not relevant. Two, both by the Home Secretary: one that we were being "invaded" by the migrants in small boats (who are clearly desperate people, as I can't see any other reason for risking the lives of themselves and their families crossing a dangerous stretch of water in overcrowded inflatables); two, that she would be ecstatically happy to see the first plane load of migrants heading for Rwanda.

If you read his tweet, you will clearly see he was talking about language, not actions. Which is always the way - to the right, the BBC are a bunch of pinko liberals, to the left, they're a toadying government mouthpiece.

I agree with you re. "trivialisation of the events back then", but please note that he never used the word 'Nazi' (nor, as Suella Braverman implied, 'Holocaust'). He was talking about the language used by governments, and the early pronouncements against the Jews in 1933 and 34 CAN be compared to some extent with the lack of compassion shown by the Tories.

Which is absurd! and utterly debases the meaning of the word.

Obviously, 'racism' as a term is not in itself - as you've pointed out - inherently bigoted; one can discuss racism as an issue in modern society without being bigoted. However, an individual who is racist is, virtually by definition, bigoted: it's not possible to consider one race as inherently superior to another race, or seek to rid one's own culture of a particular race (as has happened to Jews and blacks many times through history), without being so. This is not a lefty stance - one would find agreement in the UK from not only Communists and all sectors of the Labour and LibDem and SNP and Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein parties, but also the maority of Tories as well.

Please enlighten me : in what way is a racist NOT bigoted??

A perfect description of this forum...