1949threepence

Sadly the BBC is no longer the bastion of impartial reporting either. Moreover, whilst they would insist they were a wholly inclusive organisation, when was the last time you heard, for example, an Essex, Scouse, Birmingham, Newcastle or West Country accent among its national newsreaders? No shortage of received pronunciation or Scottish accents, but not much else.

We can all learn from it, Martin. In scrupulous fairness to you, I have seen similar heads up posts in the non private part of the forum, go unremarked upon. The problem is the very large amount of non member traffic through the forum, as can be seen if you ever click on the online users link. Even at 3am our time, as it reaches a global audience. Maybe @TomGoodheart could delete the post. Although he's not on here that frequently, and apart from Chris Perkins, we never see the others at all. Or once in a blue Moon. Although if you PM'd one, an e mail is sent out, which they might well see.

I always thought that "data" was one of those words, like "sheep", which acted both as singular and plural. Just looked it up and it appears that "data" is, as you say, the plural, and "datum" the singular - who knew? Well obviously you did, but I must plead ignorance as I have never once heard the word "datum" before. Now I know.

Say what?

Yes it's a beauty isn't it, and the apostrophe is well pronounced. That's well above average in terms of condition.

Knowing the type's history, as just alluded to, I actually did look at both BRITT AND IMP, several times at each as it happens. Concluded that it was far more probable than not that it wasn't a Gouby X, but still decided to go for it out of curiosity, plus the fact that it was cheap and better than my current ordinary 1911, so had nothing to lose - as stated in an earlier post.

I agree, it's completely wrong. As you say, two totally different meanings which could potentially cause confusion. "Distinctly unusual" might be a better way to put it.

Both I's are to a gap. It's interesting you say that Pete, as all the references to the hollow neck variety, pre Gouby, are of the I of IMP to a border tooth, not the I of BRITT. The earliest reference I can find is Court in September 1972, but no doubt it was discovered prior to that. Gouby doesn't even mention the type in his 1986 book, which covers pennies from 1860 to 1970. But he now says the I of BRITT pointing to a tooth is the determining factor. Although both I's point to a tooth on the variety, so the net effect is the same either way. . Freeman just refers to hollow necks in 1911 and 1912. I've never seen one from 1912. Peck makes no reference.

Plus the ones further round look thicker. I bought it anyway because it was a reasonable price and it's better than my current 1911, so I knew I had nothing to lose. Didn't think it was, but was worth a look if only for comparison purposes. But this is my pic of the same obverse. You can immediately see the difference. The moral being, when it comes to border teeth and things pointing to them, pics can be extremely deceptive.

What is the proportion of incorrect English usage, to correct. You do the math (sorry couldn't resist) [pedant mode] shouldn't that be ensure? [/pedant mode]

Why did you decide to give up on collecting, out of interest?

Gouby X or optical illusion? link

I think one of the problems is that you see the word written down somewhere - often in the media - and if it's not a word used very often, you just assume it's correct. Inheritees isn't a "derivative" of a word I'd frequently use, and it sounds looks plausible enough. Whereas if someone writes, for example, "could of" instead of "could have", that immediately hits you in the eye as obviously incorrect grammar. Yet many do.

Here you go, Chris - link Like Martin, I'm not convinced either. Same with a lot of proofs, VIP or otherwise. Sometimes it's absolutely blindingly obvious that the coin is a proof. The differences hit you in the eye immediately. But there's a lot that frankly don't really look any different to a currency issue.

Do not defund the police.