|
|
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
1949threepence
-
Content Count
8,081 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
262
Posts posted by 1949threepence
-
-
50 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:I'd want to see an UNC example of the straight bar to be absolutely sure - the curve might have been flattened out by wear.
Haven't really got the motivation to search tonight, but a cursory glance at the one in Richard's collection shows (interestingly) that the lower bar E of PENNY is curved, whereas the lower bar E in ONE is, seemingly, straight.
-
1 hour ago, Taikonaut said:Are the trays thick and double recessed? I like trays that are thick especially if the recesses are larger to cater for larger coins and make the coins more secured.
No they're just normal trays with bog standard recesses.
-
Just bought a couple of upgrades from Asprey Coins, based in Havant. In doing so, I had a good long chat with the owner, Mark Horton, on Monday Evening. Easy to talk to and a real coin enthusiast. Anyway, we got round to talking about varieties, and he drew my attention to something - possibly a mini variety - which I've never come across before. Namely slight differences in the E of PENNY in 1900 pennies. Mark had observed that the lower bar of E in penny was straight in some examples, and slightly curved in others. I checked mine, which was curved.
Mark sent me an e mail with some illustrative pics. They're a bit big to use on here, so instead I started looking at 1900 penny examples on e bay, and outsorted a couple of examples.
Straight lower bar of E in PENNY
Slightly curved lower bar of E in PENNY
I've used the direct links as you can employ the zoom feature and see more easily. But he's right, there is a noticeable difference.
Thoughts?
Mark was very happy for me to raise the issue on here and use his name.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Sword said:But the price up from bullion value is so high that one might need to wait for decades to break even. True, a few do well but most won't. I would say just don't buy random commemoratives for "investment". Investing in coins is like investing in shares - you need to know what you are doing.
However, if you must buy commemoratives, then gold ones are the best IMO. By orders of magnitude.
-
2
-
-
One piece of advice I would always give to those interested in buying commemoratives - buy gold. Whatever else happens, they will never lose their bullion value.
-
2
-
-
On 5/28/2023 at 5:38 PM, Kipster said:Nice coin, if you don't mind paying around ten times it's value.
Great hair detail - but not that great.....
-
2 hours ago, alfnail said:Obverse 2 Mike, 143 teeth, best way to be sure.
Thanks Ian - much appreciated.
I'm upgrading my F10 with one I've seen on a dealer's website - advertised as a F10, but wasn't 100% certain.
My existing one is only VF.
-
I had no idea.
What are they auctioning?
-
Varieties are (or can be) difficult to weigh up in terms of their noteworthiness.
I agree with @Mr T that Freeman is probably the very best source for modern milled bronze, although he starts at 1860 for pure currency coins, at the commencement of the bronze era. All his varieties are taken very seriously, whereas some of the more recently discovered ones never seem to resonate with dealers and collectors - minute date width differences+ being an obvious example.
As far as current values you need a decent website, as book values soon become out of date.
You might find this useful, possiby - link
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, mick1271 said:Looks like Obv 2 . Bottom of the rose is cut off , and IT of BRITT tilted forward
OK, cheers Mick. Thanks for that.
-
Quick question - got a blind spot and can never tell these two obverses apart. It's an 1860 reverse D. So the coin is either F10 or F13.
But is this obverse 2 or obverse 3? The letters in BRITT always look the same to me, and don't look out of alignment.
Thanks in advance.
-
I've just ordered a 4 tray drop door mahagony cabinet from Rob Davis - specifically for patterns and proofs. Just £165.
All recesses 45mm, need a decent size.
Will be quality, I'm certain.
-
1
-
-
Derek is still very active on facebook, and has challenged my views in public threads on more than one occasion- although it always ends amicably/humourously.
I did once ask him why he never posts on here anymore, but he never responded.
-
1
-
-
On 6/6/2023 at 7:21 PM, blakeyboy said:I am writing this at 20 past 7 in the evening, in the first week of June, and in my lounge it's 12˚C
12.
Bloody freezing.
Got a scarf on.
Indoors.
In June.
On 6/6/2023 at 9:01 PM, 1949threepence said:Don't worry, it won't be like this for much longer. Heat & humidity wii be heading our way towards the end of the week.
Should have added that the very dry air and low humidity has added to the cold feel once the Sun goes down. Some of the time humidity has been <40%, which is quite unusual for a British Summer.
Interestingly the Summer of 1976, whilst very hot by day, was often quite chilly at nights (by normal Summer standards), especially later into July and in August. Intense dryness, low humidity and clear skies meant considerable overnight relief from the heat for many - not dissimilar to desert conditions. Typically a max of between 30 and 32 degrees by day, could be preceded and followed by 8 to 10 degrees overnight. Same recently, but obviously not very hot by day.
As the heat and humidity rise from tomorrow onwards, it will all feel very different. You won't need a scarf, that's for sure. Nor will your living room be just 12 degrees.
-
12 minutes ago, oldcopper said:And....a broad sail veiled head 1894 pattern went for ~10K dollars (from memory) a few years ago at Stacks and Bowers, part of a fantastic bronze penny collection. London Coins had previously sold a nice one for £1600 hammer back in 2006.
Which all means that if anyone wants to form a veiled head penny pattern collection (2 coins), they've missed the boat by about 15 years.
If anyone on here bought that 1894 pattern from LC, well done!
Either or both of those would be an absolutely fantastic addition to a serious collection. But they're becoming almost out of reach.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, secret santa said:I was going to bid for the 1895 pattern (F777) at Noonan's today. A similar specimen sold for £3500 on Baldwin's list in 2011 but today it went for £10,880 !!!!!!!!!
Needless to say, I didn't buy it.
44 minutes ago, oldcopper said:£12,880 you mean!
It went for £10k hammer, plus whatever juice was on top of that. The same specimen sold for £1900 hammer at the Laurie Bamford auction in 2006.
I didn't think it would go for quite as much as that to be honest. But it is vanishingly rare of course. R19.
-
2 hours ago, oldcopper said:I expect he sees the ones he wants to see! He can probably see all of them - it's just a convenient excuse for getting out of answering any of my questions after he comes out with his usual nonsense.
It's the same old story - there is no real perspective or realism in Peckris's blithe platitudes. It's all taken at face value from the media or politicians. He hasn't thought about it. He "hopes" China will come round - Xi has said that China will only change over to renewable energy when "others have shown it to be a success". If China can gain vast economic power from being the only country in the world that can do energy-intensive manufacturing, Xi isn't going to kill his golden goose - virtually limitless cheap energy, and the unfortunate result of net zero will be the complete economic ascendancy of China. So we're basically enabling a slave state to become the economic powerhouse of the world because they can, and do, burn as much coal as they want. To make all our renewables like solar panels for instance!
Xi is safe enough in his stance - no one will ever make a success of it of course, as the renewables shebang has two huge flaws: its energy is not storable on any scale thus has to be used when made, and the supply is variable and uncontrollable. It's weather dependant, and cannot be magicked up when needed. You can't have bigger elephants in the room than that.
"The wind will keep on blowing" - as you say, not if we have an anti-cyclone above us which happened for a prolonged period this Winter. And in Winter solar is basically useless with long nights and weak light, not forgetting it produces nothing for 50% of the year, ie night. So solar is only really significant on high Summer days when we least need the energy.
So on not very windy days in Winter, how many nuclear power stations, small modular or otherwise, would we need to effectively produce 100% backup for ALL our energy needs? That would entail charging all vehicles, warming all buildings, hot water, all industry and all current electrical stuff?
And how is our nuclear building programme going at the moment?
We're tricked on every level - we're told renewables produce up to 50% of our electricity, often craftily called "energy" instead as if it's our total energy requirement. And yes it does produce up to 50%, but only now and again. But it also produces less than 5% of our electricity at other times. They don't tell us that, but just employ the phrase "up to". They don't mention that much of the rest of the electricity is generated by gas. And that's to order, unlike renewables. But electricity is only currently about 20% of our total energy consumption, the remainder being mainly fossil fuels with a bit of nuclear, that means our billions of pounds investment in renewables provides 20% of between 5% and 50% - so less than 1% to maximum 10% of our total energy requirement, produced randomly of course.
Where does one start on this? - there are so many holes in it. Like some elderly acquaintances of ours who have just bought a mid-range EV, so as to tell everyone they're "saving the planet"!
Help, help, help.....!!!
Excellent post, and one I can't really add to.
@Peckris 2 over to you.
-
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:I doubt we will face a winter crisis, at least not compared to the miners' strike that brought down the Heath government in '73, with a 3-day week, no TV after 10:30 pm - which was at a time when we were nearly fully dependant on coal. Now, 50 years later, the wind will keep blowing, and the turbines will turn.
The unions can be very stroppy when it comes to jobs. If they can't see the winds of change (pun intended), then more fool them. Anyway, Labour isn't as reliant on the unions as they once were, a legacy of Blair and New Labour.
I can see quoted posts of course, but quoting your post doesn't include the post you quoted! However, as far as emitters like India and China are concerned, I wouldn't say "free pass"; when it came to trying to get agreement, the West had three choices:
1. Get everyone to agree to a minimum level of reduction (which would not happen)
2. Abandon the whole business through lack of agreement by certain countries
3. Reluctantly accept a certain level of compromise as being 'better than nothing', which is what we had to settle for in the end.
We don't know what China is up to, they are an industrialised authoritarian Communist economy who keep their cards close to their chest. Maybe they will come to see the danger posed by climate change. Let's hope so. What's more important is that America under a Democrat president and Congress are making great progress and reduction of CO2 - that really does make a difference. As far as Britain is concerned, we do still have some influence in the world. If - I should say 'when' - we achieve carbon neutrality there are nations that will take notice even if our contribution amounts to the proverbial teaspoon (actually it is more that that, though not a huge difference on its own).
Not necessarily - if we get a severe Winter with a persistent Scandinavian anticyclone, we could experience a flat calm over many weeks just in the areas where most turbines are placed.
As far as what you say about China is concerned, I'm way more cynical than you on this issue. I certainly would regard it as moronic beyond all belief if we continued to tighten towards net zero before are ready - and we are very far from ready yet. The "setting an example" you hint it is just arrogance. Especially as no-one will take a blind bit of notice, until such time as we truly are at net zero. Then they might.
Any rate, I notice that Starmer was back peddling slightly today when he admitted it would be a very long time before we could do completely without fossil fuels. Actually the idea of a "GB Energy" isn't a bad one.
I'll let @oldcopper reply if he wishes to do so, and quote to you what he says. Although I must admit, I find it quite extraordinary from a technical point of view, that one member's posts really are invisible to you.
-
1 hour ago, blakeyboy said:I am writing this at 20 past 7 in the evening, in the first week of June, and in my lounge it's 12˚C
12.
Bloody freezing.
Got a scarf on.
Indoors.
In June.
Don't worry, it won't be like this for much longer. Heat & humidity wii be heading our way towards the end of the week.
-
32 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:No - Labour's position is very clear: all existing exploration (plus any licences issued before Labour come to power, if such comes about) will continue / be honoured. What they've said is that there will be no new licences issued which - even if there was no climate change prevailing - makes perfect sense given the sharp decline in North Sea oil and gas stocks.
However, there will plenty of jobs created by a switch to alternatives, of which offshore wind looks the best bet. There was a news item in the past month that shows our reliance on non fossil sources of energy went over 50% for the first time, from a base line of about 10% earlier this century.
Everyone is AIMING for 2030 which is laudable, but let's not get our knicks.i.a.t. if the target is missed. The important thing is that an effort is being made.
I did say they would not be granting any new licences. I know that existing ones will be honoured.
It's great that renewables are now reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, but by deliberately cutting back on fossil fuels at this stage, we risk a Winter crisis at some point, especially if the wind stops, as it very well might depending on the weather conditions. Moreover, some time will be needed for any (new) nuclear power stations to come on line.
I'll let you argue with the unions over new job opportunities. It's them that's raised it, and they bankroll the Labour Party to a greater or lesser extent. So Starmer really doesn't want to get on their wrong side before he's even in power.
As far as 2030, the target will be missed whether or not the eco zealots get their knickers in a twist over it.
*************************************************************************************************************************
By the way here's a question for you from @oldcopper whose posts I know you once said were invisible to you. If you want to reply through me, I'll make sure he sees it.
Quote"I would like the climate alarmists (eg Peckris, I know he can read my comments) to explain why the West signed up to these climate treaties that gave "industrialising" nations such as China and India a free pass to emit as much CO2 as they wanted. They are primarily responsible for the world now emitting more man-made CO2 than at any time before. I like the analogy of us trying to empty a bath with a teaspoon while China fills it up with a bucket. That sums this lunacy up, whether or not you believe in the man-made CO2 driving climate change theory."
-
2 hours ago, oldcopper said:Politics today:
One side: we'll do something insane.
The other side: we'll do something even insaner. Vote for us!
I would like the climate alarmists (eg Peckris, I know he can read my comments) to explain why the West signed up to these climate treaties that gave "industrialising" nations such as China and India a free pass to emit as much CO2 as they wanted. They are primarily responsible for the world now emitting more man-made CO2 than at any time before. I like the analogy of us trying to empty a bath with a teaspoon while China fills it up with a bucket. That sums this lunacy up, whether or not you believe in the man-made CO2 driving climate change theory.
The thinking of some of these eco zealots is truly, truly odd. They go screaming raving mad over what the UK do or don't do, with our 1% emissions (which have halved anyway since 1990), and quite literally never say a word about the likes of China, India - and even the USA.
I just can't take them seriously at all as I don't think they're all there. I also think that with specific regard to "just stop oil", a tragedy is imminent, whether because of a motorist just completely losing it and ploughing into them deliberately, or (more likely) a genuine accident.
What does seriously annoy me personally is the deliberate shutting down of any other view than so called "settled science". It's all part of this somewhat Orwellian "disinformation" campaign. Who the hell decides what's disinformation and what is valid reasonable argument, and what precisely lends them the intellectual supremacy to do so? If they are confident in their own view, then they should be happy to argue it out in open debate. But that never happens, at least not in the MSM.
As we know from history, new evidence can emerge which changes the landscape completely - such as the discovery in the 19th century that cholera was caused by infected water. If that debate had been closed down, how many more would have died?
-
Got to laugh. Keir Starmer has upset the unions (GMB & Unite) with his messianic zeal over not granting any more oil and gas exploration licences if Labour get in next year.
They are unhappy about the effects on their member's jobs and financial security.
As I've said before, yes, a transition to net zero would be a fantastic long term aspiration. 2030 is absolutely impossible to achieve, 2045 maybe. In the meantime we also need oil and gas both to ensure our own security and as a possible export to Europe.
-
13 minutes ago, oldcopper said:Don't know why it says Germany was invaded in 1953. Am I missing something? East Germany was established in 1949 but had been in Russian hands since 1945.
There was an uprising in East Germany in June 1953, which was quelled by Soviet troops. Although it wasn't an invasion as such. They were already stationed there.
ETA: the map is incorrect anyway, as it extends across all of Germany, despite the fact that West Germany was unaffected.
-
32 minutes ago, copper123 said:My lovely bottle brush tree died during the winter along with a few other temp sensitive plants , but at the moment the garden is just a pleasure to be in and its still work in progress on it a true labour of love
Spot on - sat out today in the garden, and it really couldn't have been better weather. Hot sun, nice ambient temperature of 21 degrees, and a pleasant breeze. Idyllic.
Royal Mint Holding Auctions Asking For Consignments?
in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Posted
Totally agree. It is, intrinsically, a conflict of interest.