|
|
The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com |
|
|
Coinpublications.com
Predecimal.com
Peckris 2
-
Content Count
3,086 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
140
Posts posted by Peckris 2
-
-
4 hours ago, Mr T said:The images aren't showing for me.
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.
-
On 3/23/2023 at 12:29 PM, DrLarry said:I doubt there will be a consensus about the value for money that the license fee covers BBC TV , radio, and historically channel 4 (although a different model commercially) all make valuable contributions to my life at so many levels £12 a month seems a small amount to pay, I rarely give it a second thought. But I can see if you are a person who never watches anything on these TV stations or listens to any of the national or regional BBC radios it isn't good value for money. I would rather the issue of impartiality was not the main focus as I have said I would rather a person give analysis but that is not what people want. I cannot see that it is favour of government investigating many of the issues in a very independent way, although I accept there are some serious issues from the past for which it must accept culpability but there are many institutions that have to face much of their cultural norms.
I suppose we all reflect our particular lifestyle in the choices we want to make using our money
: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.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, evansuk2000 said:I was a bit worried about the 'hairlines'...but I seem to see this a lot on these proofs...is it that the blank coin was polished before minting?
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.
-
don't forget surgical (or methylated) spirit.
-
3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:Happens only very rarely though.
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!
-
1
-
-
Welcome back
-
1 hour ago, DrLarry said:forgive my stupidity but what stops a person clipping the coin after the stamp ? could you not clip your own then shove a hole through the middle? it doesn't look very "official" that hole ! fascinating bit of the story thanks a lot .
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.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, blakeyboy said:I use a refreshingly simple system- I bid what I feel is my maximum when I see the listing.
The last minute bid to be 'clever' bores me - I have a very full busy life and I don't need to turn an auction into a mind game with strangers.
'Snipe' - 'Stealer' - what do those names convey?
There you go.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Martinminerva said:Just as a matter of interest, how can you do that now if the listing doesn't tell you at what seconds it finishes?! As shown above, it is very rare that a listing ends at 00 seconds, so how do you know when 3 seconds before the end actually is?!
Or is it automatic? But then, how does the software know at what seconds it finishes?!
I am a bit bamboozled!!
I'm assuming he meant 3 seconds before the clock countdown ends on the item page (even if it doesn't, actually..)
-
11 hours ago, DrLarry said:I found the counterfeit half crown ...below ....I often find I collect then sometimes find it difficult to place certain coins in y collection so they get assigned by some other system (random in my strange head) ...still I knew I would find its hiding place eventually . It weighs 10.59 grams a lead dull surface lustre no edge inscription . I must have been a hard thing for merchants and others to keep up with changing currency ...I suppose clever counterfeiters took advantage of changes in currency and released coin by Royal mint very soon after before the people become familiar with it . This one is obviously a cast copy
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...)
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:Skilled though Rosen is, I still don't think there is any realistic comparison between UK 2023 and Germany in the 1930's, and that such comparisons are extremely unfair.
Just to show, this is a picture showing the flight of Jewish people from Germany between 1933 and 1939. The polar opposite to this country, where the argument is about the desperation to get in.
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).
-
1
-
-
Thank you Tom, for the research that I didn't have the energy to do.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, DaveG38 said:I don't buy this argument that he only meant language and not actions. He certainly made no such distinction in his tweet. There was nothing else going on in the 1930s that would come close to being recognisable as similar to the government's migration bill, so it is crystal clear that he was equating the Nazi approach to that of the government in order to stir up this kind of 'publicity.' Furthermore, he didn't dispel any misconceptions about what he was talking about, fully intending to leave the impression in people's minds that the government is in some way equivalent to the Nazis of the 1930s. Had he not intended to give this impression, and knowing the interest it would stir up, he would have made this clear.
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.
4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:No, but by natural implication that's what he meant. By 1930's Germany he wasn't referring to the period 1930 to 32 when the old Kaiser was in charge.
I disagree with you that there is the remotest comparison between what has been said by the "tory" government and what was said against the Jews in the period 1933 to 1934. If there is, then give an example comparing two pronouncements, one from then and one from now.
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.
-
1 hour ago, DaveG38 said:I entirely accept that GL's tweet cannot in any way be held to be representative of the BBC's views. The problem, as I see it, is that the implication in his tweet that the government is acting in the same way as Nazi Germany did was clearly going to stir up a controversy. As soon as it did, the BBC had two choices. Either censure him, on the grounds that this post was offensive and reflected badly on them, a reasonable position given that the alternative approach would have been the second choice, which was to ignore it, and then watch the headlines screaming that the BBC supports the idea that the Tories are like the Nazis. The BBC were damned whichever way they went.
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.
-
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:I think if he'd just said that he felt the government lacked compassion on the issue, he'd probably have got away with it, and nothing else would have been said. But the left now have this absurd habit of conflating things the government propose regarding immigration, with nazi Germany. Any - even lightweight - student of history knows there is no comparison, and that to do so is an intensely insulting trivialisation of the events back then, to those affected and their successors.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Menger said:Yup. But here you are using “racism” in its conventional sense.
The whole basis of “racism” in the newfangled sense (which has been adopted by at least the woke left, BLM - and much of the corporate sector in the west - as well as the universities, civil service, military, among others) is that “intent” or “individual belief” (or ideology) is not a relevant. What matters is disparate outcomes (or participation) between racial groups. That is racist.
In this way capitalism, the West, golf and the countryside have each been called “racist”.
I dare say coin collecting is a little racist too by the same metric.
Which is absurd! and utterly debases the meaning of the word.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Menger said:I guess the modern definition of racism (at least on the left?) focuses on disparities of outcome between racial groups. This is why, say, “whiteness” (aka bourgeois culture) can be regarded as “racist” - because it is seen as exclusionary of other culture in its effect (not intent). As such, the intent of “racists” is no longer a relevant factor - one can be racist irrespective of intent. So there may be more racists than bigots (I.e., racists who are not bigots) - as bigotry requires an intent to unreasonable and obstinately hold onto bad ideas.
Ama wrong?
(Only teasing. Of course racists are bigots. Not least advocates of discrimination policies, quotas and wot not.)
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.
-
3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:Absolutely.
Assertions are made as though they are fact and not personal opinion. I'm surprised that more people haven't been sued for defamation of character, given what they've stated about various individuals.
eg: "what you say might be interpreted as racist" (correct) "you're a bigoted racist" (incorrect)
Please enlighten me : in what way is a racist NOT bigoted??
-
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:You're never going to stop individuals having opinions, and some are so strongly held that they will be expressed in a frank and forthright way. It's pointless trying to shut people up, and it will never work.
I don't personally agree with a lot that Gary comes out with, politically....but, it's his view. We all have them.
As a person, he is a likeable guy.
I can't help thinking that much of the blame lies with the BBC with a very weak, confused and inconsistent policy.
A perfect description of this forum...
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, DrLarry said:Well I think it's good value for money. No I'm not really that well off but I don't need a lot of money to live on. But I don't think I spend more than £300 per month living expenses and I think it's about £12 a month. Does that make my statement less or more valid ?
Agreed. iPlayer now carries a huge number of 'box sets' (never having watched Waterloo Road I'm now ploughing through the whole thing); as well as that there are 4 TV channels, and any number of radio stations both national and local; that's not even touching on a vast range of podcasts and the World Service. I'd say I get better value for my £12 a month (which by the way also entitles me to watch ITV & Channel 4) than the £10 I pay Netflix.
-
2
-
-
21 hours ago, Michael-Roo said:BBC. Impartial. Sport.
The BBC, being a license financed, non ad revenue, broadcaster, brand names and logos are always edited out wherever possible, even to the extent of food brand identifiers being clumsily censored by use of black tape on containers in cookery shows. Sport? Come footy post match analysis; any manager, player, associated pundit, loon with a view, is shown standing before a board festooned with ads for all manner of companies and products.
Why is this?
Probably part of the contract involved with winning the match coverage to start with? The Beeb may not have had much choice in the matter when getting MOTD rights from the PL.
-
6 hours ago, Nick said:Because it is the national broadcaster that we are forced to pay for, on the basis that it stays impartial.
Sorry, but that's totally wrong. 1) he's sport, for which there are much more relaxed rules about impartiality, and 2) he can say what he likes on Twitter, where he's not representing the BBC. Would I say the same if I didn't 100% agree with him? Don't know...
-
4
-
Coin prices continue to rise
in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Posted
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.