Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, secret santa said:

I've never seen a specimen well worn through circulation as per every other date so that must mean something ? Although, if the bronze coins were issued soon after, maybe they wouldn't have circulated for very long anyway.

So, actually, I've added nothing of value to the debate.

There have been a couple of pretty ropey ones put through SNC over the decades. I can definitely remember one in fine or worse. Perhaps it should have marketed as - "almost unknown in this state of preservation". I'll look it up.

I can't imagine they weren't initially produced for circulation (though what we see today must have mainly been put aside as Rob says) as they are a rather substandard issue - askew die axis, bad die clashing seen on all specimens, degraded lettering (more apparent on some than others), the partially blocked date and flatness of Britannia's breast on many. Also, the only instance in the copper or bronze series where two numbers in the date are overstruck rather than the more prevalent one (OK, for the pedants - excepting the 43 or 41(?)/39 proof halfpennies). So all very makeshift.

Due to the massive bronze production of the early 1860's, most copper would have been exchanged or put aside by 1864 I would guess.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Rob said:

I would postulate that a handful were tucked away by collectors, taken from circulation. Just as the people today will collect anything about to be demonetised or superseded for whatever reason, so it is likely the same applied in 1860 - collectors' habits haven't changed. If you have a small number (32K) of 60/59 coppers out of the millions circulating from previous years, that had done the rounds for a few months until the bronze version appeared, I would suggest - cue an instant 'I'd better keep one of these' from collectors who would be the most likely to spot and keep for posterity and you have a small population of preserved but slightly worn 1860/59s. Assuming that the copper pennies were withdrawn as soon as they could be replaced, it would soon remove the majority from circulation. The fact that they were demonetised in 1869 does not mean that there were no withdrawals prior to this date. More likely is that they would be replaced at a rate approximating to the value issued, and that would likely have started immediately after the bronze coins entered circulation. The copper would probably be used for the bronze alloy needed.

Thanks.

Yes, I think I'd have to 100% agree with your thoughts.

A very small population was issued, perhaps in response to an immediate demand somewhere, and sent to a few banks, only for collectors at the time to remove a limited number from circulation early. Hence the mostly non BU, but predominantly still high grade specimens available. 

I speculated above that they were potentially minted in response to an immediate demand, but possibly that wasn't the real reason. Maybe there never any intention to produce 1860 copper pennies, but some blanks were leftover in early 1860 and it was decided - for posterity, a final curtain call - to mint them as 1860's, but obviously using an overdated 1859 die. With that said, it's highly improbable that the mint would allow for any sentiment in the way it was run.

It's also interesting that an even smaller number of 1860 copper halfpennies and farthings were minted, but with an actual 1860 die. The mintage of both is unrecorded, so maybe they were proofs? Again, it is stated that they were not issued for circulation.

So in conclusion, the 60/59 pennies had to have been issued for public circulation. To suggest they were not, would imply they were just kept in a vault and not released, which is clearly incorrect.   

  

        

Edited by 1949threepence
typo's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

There have been a couple of pretty ropey ones put through SNC over the decades. I can definitely remember one in fine or worse. Perhaps it should have marketed as - "almost unknown in this state of preservation". I'll look it up.

I can't imagine they weren't initially produced for circulation (though what we see today must have mainly been put aside as Rob says) as they are a rather substandard issue - askew die axis, bad die clashing seen on all specimens, degraded lettering (more apparent on some than others), the partially blocked date and flatness of Britannia's breast on many. Also, the only instance in the copper or bronze series where two numbers in the date are overstruck rather than the more prevalent one (OK, for the pedants - excepting the 43 or 41(?)/39 proof halfpennies). So all very makeshift.

Due to the massive bronze production of the early 1860's, most copper would have been exchanged or put aside by 1864 I would guess.

 

Yes, I seem to recall that such a specimen was posted on here some time ago. In fact, it looked for all the world as though it had 30 years wear, rather than the maximum just less than 10.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Yes, I seem to recall that such a specimen was posted on here some time ago. In fact, it looked for all the world as though it had 30 years wear, rather than the maximum just less than 10.     

Perhaps it was what they like to call a "pocket piece". So maybe not circulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

 

 

12 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Thanks.

Yes, I think I'd have to 100% agree with your thoughts.

A very small population was issued, perhaps in response to an immediate demand somewhere, and sent to a few banks, only for collectors at the time to remove a limited number from circulation early. Hence the mostly non BU, but predominantly still high grade specimens available. 

I speculated above that they were potentially minted in response to an immediate demand, but possibly that wasn't the real reason. Maybe there never any intention to produce 1860 copper pennies, but some blanks were leftover in early 1860 and it was decided - for posterity, a final curtain call - to mint them as 1860's, but obviously using an overdated 1859 die. With that said, it's highly improbable that the mint would allow for any sentiment in the way it was run.

It's also interesting that an even smaller number of 1860 copper halfpennies and farthings were minted, but with an actual 1860 die. The mintage of both is unrecorded, so maybe they were proofs? Again, it is stated that they were not issued for circulation.

So in conclusion, the 60/59 pennies had to have been issued for public circulation. To suggest they were not, would imply they were just kept in a vault and not released, which is clearly incorrect.          

I agree with the notion that there was a small but urgent demand for pennies earlier in 1860, so the 1860/59s were minted in a hurry and issued - maybe, as Mike suggests - only to a few banks.

I've said more than once before, and no doubt I'll have to say it again, the bronze issue for 1860 was VERY LATE. Why do I say this? Because the mintage, for a completely new issue, is way below what it should have been to replace copper pennies. Look at the huge mintages for 1861/62/63 - you'd expect something similar for the first year too, but not so. The 1860/59 copper s no doubt met an urgent need that may have been relatively small, but clearly there. I simply cannot believe there was never an intention to strike those coppers for circulation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

 

I agree with the notion that there was a small but urgent demand for pennies earlier in 1860, so the 1860/59s were minted in a hurry and issued - maybe, as Mike suggests - only to a few banks.

I've said more than once before, and no doubt I'll have to say it again, the bronze issue for 1860 was VERY LATE. Why do I say this? Because the mintage, for a completely new issue, is way below what it should have been to replace copper pennies. Look at the huge mintages for 1861/62/63 - you'd expect something similar for the first year too, but not so. The 1860/59 copper s no doubt met an urgent need that may have been relatively small, but clearly there. I simply cannot believe there was never an intention to strike those coppers for circulation.

I can see where you are coming from re the late date, but an alternative scenario can be envisaged. We have to consider the halfpennies and farthings (and silver for that matter) alongside the pennies, and not lose track of the other demands on the mint's time. 

If we accept the interpretation of the scratched number pairs found on the obverse of the early bronzes as tonnage figures struck to date for the denomination, then this might give a suggestion as to why the 1860 pennies are relatively scarce. A quick perusal of Peck shows 1864 coins with fractions for all three denominations - a penny with a run of fractions from 237/134 to 240/137, a halfpenny with 312/118 and a farthing run from 233/8 to 236/11. As 236/11 and 237/134 are sequential, it means that the presumed tonnage of halfpennies up to the 236th ton of bronze was 236 - (133 +11) = 92. That means a greater mintage of halfpennies than pennies based on relative unit weight, which is pretty much what you see when it comes to 1860 halfpennies, as they are considerably more common than the penny, but the numbers out to 1864 tail off markedly after 1862. 1863 must have been devoted in the main to pennies with some halfpennies plus a handful of farthings.

I'm still not fully comfortable with the above idea due to the low number for farthings, which seem relatively common, but maybe they were set aside more readily. The numbers in Peck seem fairly consistent with the theory out to 1866.

It is also worth noting that the farthing only has 3 obverse and 2 reverses from 1860-1864 against 8 of each for the halfpennies and 7 of each for the pennies. Maybe they had fewer problems with the smaller dies, but equally, the larger mintages and by extension number of dies for the other two might have meant they wore out the punches etc. 

So, maybe the reason for the low number of 1860 pennies was simply down to a more pressing requirement for the other two denominations. There's a parallel universe to the world of pennies only.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

 

I agree with the notion that there was a small but urgent demand for pennies earlier in 1860, so the 1860/59s were minted in a hurry and issued - maybe, as Mike suggests - only to a few banks.

I've said more than once before, and no doubt I'll have to say it again, the bronze issue for 1860 was VERY LATE. Why do I say this? Because the mintage, for a completely new issue, is way below what it should have been to replace copper pennies. Look at the huge mintages for 1861/62/63 - you'd expect something similar for the first year too, but not so. The 1860/59 copper s no doubt met an urgent need that may have been relatively small, but clearly there. I simply cannot believe there was never an intention to strike those coppers for circulation.

I think that has to be the case. I said earlier that an unrecorded but very small number of 1860 copper halfpennies and farthings were produced, but using an actual 1860 die. The natural assumption being that they really were produced as a genuine "last hurrah" for the coins. Maybe the same was intended for the pennies, but an urgent local demand intervened, and instead of making a new die for 1860, they hurriedly alter an almost clapped out 1859 die for a short run job. 

After that, the notion of producing a fresh 1860 die purely for the pennies, probably got kicked into the long grass as the momentum for the new coins took hold later in the year. 

Total speculation on my part, but it does fit what happened.  

   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You overlook that the RM struck coinage and produced dies for Commonwealth and other Countries, some of which our Monarch was Head of State.

The 1860 Halfpenny Obv die was used for Isle of Man coinage.

A small number of coins could have been struck for Pyx, testing purposes, or marketing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The farthings 1860 copper  , less than ten are known point to a strictly limited mintage , they could have been sold as keepsakes of the old curency in 1860 , that would account for their good condition as well.

It also does not make sense that so many pennies were produced compared to farthings and halfpennies , I doubt after all this time anyone really knows , unless there is something found  in the royal mint archives I am pretty sure we will all  never know for sure

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way I am pretty sure there never was a quick death to the large pennies , they remained legal tender for quite a while compared to recent recoinages.

I am sure they were pulled out and melted down for their copper quite slowly, as it would have caused the mint a great expense  and they did not have the capacity to mint so many bronze coins quickly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, copper123 said:

And by the way I am pretty sure there never was a quick death to the large pennies , they remained legal tender for quite a while compared to recent recoinages.

I am sure they were pulled out and melted down for their copper quite slowly, as it would have caused the mint a great expense  and they did not have the capacity to mint so many bronze coins quickly

Ah, but they managed fine from 1861 - 63!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Rob said:

I can see where you are coming from re the late date, but an alternative scenario can be envisaged. We have to consider the halfpennies and farthings (and silver for that matter) alongside the pennies, and not lose track of the other demands on the mint's time. 

If we accept the interpretation of the scratched number pairs found on the obverse of the early bronzes as tonnage figures struck to date for the denomination, then this might give a suggestion as to why the 1860 pennies are relatively scarce. A quick perusal of Peck shows 1864 coins with fractions for all three denominations - a penny with a run of fractions from 237/134 to 240/137, a halfpenny with 312/118 and a farthing run from 233/8 to 236/11. As 236/11 and 237/134 are sequential, it means that the presumed tonnage of halfpennies up to the 236th ton of bronze was 236 - (133 +11) = 92. That means a greater mintage of halfpennies than pennies based on relative unit weight, which is pretty much what you see when it comes to 1860 halfpennies, as they are considerably more common than the penny, but the numbers out to 1864 tail off markedly after 1862. 1863 must have been devoted in the main to pennies with some halfpennies plus a handful of farthings.

I'm still not fully comfortable with the above idea due to the low number for farthings, which seem relatively common, but maybe they were set aside more readily. The numbers in Peck seem fairly consistent with the theory out to 1866.

It is also worth noting that the farthing only has 3 obverse and 2 reverses from 1860-1864 against 8 of each for the halfpennies and 7 of each for the pennies. Maybe they had fewer problems with the smaller dies, but equally, the larger mintages and by extension number of dies for the other two might have meant they wore out the punches etc. 

So, maybe the reason for the low number of 1860 pennies was simply down to a more pressing requirement for the other two denominations. There's a parallel universe to the world of pennies only.

A lot of that - the tonnage data - is way over my head! However, do consider all the circumstantial evidence:

I read somewhere (sorry, I don't have the source) that the changeover to bronze was originally to have happened in 1858, but there were so many problems with the thinner dies that it was pushed back. This makes sense if you then take into account all the very many varieties of 1858 penny - that they decided to use up existing dies resulting in several overdates. At greater leisure they produced dies for 1859 (very few varieties), which then got pressed into service again in 1860 when 30k pennies were needed in a hurry.

If the changeover didn't happen until late in 1860, that would reinforce the 'low mintage' rationale. Meanwhile, if they didn't experience the same problems with the two smaller denominations, they would have gone ahead with minting those bronzes. The 1860 copper halfpenny and farthing - much rarer - could indeed have been mementoes not intended for circulation.

Edited by Peckris 2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

A lot of that - the tonnage data - is way over my head! However, do consider all the circumstantial evidence:

I read somewhere (sorry, I don't have the source) that the changeover to bronze was originally to have happened in 1858, but there were so many problems with the thinner dies that it was pushed back. This makes sense if you then take into account all the very many varieties of 1858 penny - that they decided to use up existing dies resulting in several overdates. At greater leisure they produced dies for 1859 (very few varieties), which then got pressed into service again in 1860 when 30k pennies were needed in a hurry.

If the changeover didn't happen until late in 1860, that would reinforce the 'low mintage' rationale. Meanwhile, if they didn't experience the same problems with the two smaller denominations, they would have gone ahead with minting those bronzes. The 1860 copper halfpenny and farthing - much rarer - could indeed have been mementoes not intended for circulation.

Totally agree , it might explan why 1860 bronze farthings are relatively common , they were the dies the mint had the least problem with so could release them into circulation straight away

Edited by copper123
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were other coins in circulation as well around the cut-off date of 1869 (?)- the 5 and 10 centime French coins, 

made in Marseilles on the Heaton presses, and there are still loads about, but nearly always very worn.

Now, if we can assume that these worn coins haven't come into the UK after a long life in French pockets, how come they are so worn?

is it possible that they existed in change for years after the deadline?

Maybe they didn't stand out amongst the same sized new bronze, so the mint didn't spot them, and shopkeepers still accepted them?

If I had gone into a shop in say, 1875, with a handful of copper, would that change have been refused?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

There were other coins in circulation as well around the cut-off date of 1869 (?)- the 5 and 10 centime French coins, 

made in Marseilles on the Heaton presses, and there are still loads about, but nearly always very worn.

Now, if we can assume that these worn coins haven't come into the UK after a long life in French pockets, how come they are so worn?

is it possible that they existed in change for years after the deadline?

Maybe they didn't stand out amongst the same sized new bronze, so the mint didn't spot them, and shopkeepers still accepted them?

If I had gone into a shop in say, 1875, with a handful of copper, would that change have been refused?

 

I don't know much about French coinage. Were they demonetised in France at about the same time as the copper penny?

Or do you mean they were circulating in the UK. Not quite with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

There were other coins in circulation as well around the cut-off date of 1869 (?)- the 5 and 10 centime French coins, 

made in Marseilles on the Heaton presses, and there are still loads about, but nearly always very worn.

Now, if we can assume that these worn coins haven't come into the UK after a long life in French pockets, how come they are so worn?

is it possible that they existed in change for years after the deadline?

Maybe they didn't stand out amongst the same sized new bronze, so the mint didn't spot them, and shopkeepers still accepted them?

If I had gone into a shop in say, 1875, with a handful of copper, would that change have been refused?

 

I suspect these regularly circulated in certain parts of the UK , Ie London , Bristol ,portsmouth and dover and a few others , I think they were "tolerated" in these towns as the population was quite liberal  because of trade and the wealth it bought  .I suspect if you tried to spend one in a shop in a rural spot you would be laughed at .

Shopkeepers would take coins as long as they knew the could get rid of them , a bit like a few shops now accepting bitcoin etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, copper123 said:

I suspect these regularly circulated in certain parts of the UK , Ie London , Bristol ,portsmouth and dover and a few others , I think they were "tolerated" in these towns as the population was quite liberal  because of trade and the wealth it bought  .I suspect if you tried to spend one in a shop in a rural spot you would be laughed at .

Shopkeepers would take coins as long as they knew the could get rid of them , a bit like a few shops now accepting bitcoin etc.

Apparently France converted from copper to bronze from 1848.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bronze French 5 & 10 centime coins are quite common metal detector finds, so obviously circulated widely. They are the same size as the bronze UK currency,  and I doubt the public was greatly concerned about them. They pre-dated the UK bronze coinage, and I understand that they were a strong influence regarding size and alloy in the development of the new coinage particularly given the Heaton involvement.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jelida said:

The bronze French 5 & 10 centime coins are quite common metal detector finds, so obviously circulated widely. They are the same size as the bronze UK currency,  and I doubt the public was greatly concerned about them. They pre-dated the UK bronze coinage, and I understand that they were a strong influence regarding size and alloy in the development of the new coinage particularly given the Heaton involvement.

Jerry

The fact they are regular detector finds could mean they were thrown away as well but it also points to them circulating , thanks very much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bronze recoinage of 1860 was intended to replace the large copper coins then in circulation with smaller and much more durable bronze, modeled on the success of French bronze coinage introduced in 1852, with the copper coinage being demonetized at the end of 1869.  Until demonetization, the mint paid a two per cent premium on the copper to encourage its rapid withdrawal from circulation, as the two coinages were not compatible.

My two cents worth...

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

A lot of that - the tonnage data - is way over my head! However, do consider all the circumstantial evidence:

I read somewhere (sorry, I don't have the source) that the changeover to bronze was originally to have happened in 1858, but there were so many problems with the thinner dies that it was pushed back. This makes sense if you then take into account all the very many varieties of 1858 penny - that they decided to use up existing dies resulting in several overdates. At greater leisure they produced dies for 1859 (very few varieties), which then got pressed into service again in 1860 when 30k pennies were needed in a hurry.

If the changeover didn't happen until late in 1860, that would reinforce the 'low mintage' rationale. Meanwhile, if they didn't experience the same problems with the two smaller denominations, they would have gone ahead with minting those bronzes. The 1860 copper halfpenny and farthing - much rarer - could indeed have been mementoes not intended for circulation.

The question of the numbered strikings was addressed by Graham Dyer, former curator at the RM Museum in a 1982 article entitled 'Numbered Strikings of Victorian Bronze Coins, 1860-1868'. Whilst people are unlikely to have this, the important points are laid out in Michael Gouby's 2000 publication 'The British Bronze Coinage, Pence, Halfpence and Farthings 1860-1869' whereby Dyer has shown the improper fractions seen on a few coins relate to the total tonnage of bronze to that point (larger number) and the tonnage of that denomination (smaller number). As the BM has an example of an 1864 farthing with 236/11 (P1872) and there is a penny with 237/134 (P1662), using the consecutive numbers as a total for bronze output in tons, we can deduce the tonnage of halfpennies to that point, as after 236 tons of bronze struck there had been 11 tons of farthings and (using 237/134 as a reference point) 133 tons of pennies. ie, the remainder is 92 tons of halfpennies. 

Further to the above, the introduction to the publication gives a little history, including some useful snippets, summarised as follows:

Victoria was only happy with the portrait at the beginning of August 1860.

The mint was very busy at this time with gold and silver and didn't have the resources to produce the number of coins required for the changeover. Consequently they gave Watt a contract for 1720 tons (including all three denominations) in the first week of Sept. Production was underway at the Tower mint by the end of the month. On the 15th October, daily output of halfpennies and farthings was just over 150K - 50K short of the 200K target. The deficiency was due to too many dies breaking, with an average of 30000 strikes obtained instead of the usual average of 60000. There was a need to reduce the relief on all three denominations at this point. The farthing was done, the halfpenny was 'very nearly ready', but the pennies required a further alteration, so at this point were still not in production. Nor had Watt started production by the end of November. The beaded border created a problem, with flaws appearing in this area regularly.

Taking the above into consideration, it is hardly surprising there are fewer pennies extant than the other denominations for 1860. 

Given the delay in getting the bronze coinage started, I would have thought they prepared 1860 dies for all three denominations. 1859 halfpennies and farthings are both scarce, and the halfpennies I have had of this date were all struck from old worn dies, whether 9 over 8 or not. So it is likely they intended to strike a good number of the smaller denominations in any case. As John pointed out, the halfpenny obverse was certainly used commercially. 

It is beyond debate that they intended to change over to thinner, harder bronze coins earlier than they did, but as the decimal patterns of 1857-9 show, the bronze flans were prone to lamination. See below for the F689 edge. All 686s have this problem too. As these are both dated 1859, it is clear the problem was ongoing. Both are struck in bronze with a thickness of 1.5mm and are 27.5mm diameter. Freeman analysed the similar F686A to have 92.5% copper, 5% nickel, 2 % tin and 0.5% zinc, but this variation in alloy didn't cure the problem.

For those unaware of what the numbered coins refer to, please see attached 1866 halfpenny showing 405 behind the head and 138 in front, i.e. 405/138. 

F689 edge.jpg

img608.jpg

Edited by Rob
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the numbered coins kept as an example piece to check quality and die wear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

Were the numbered coins kept as an example piece to check quality and die wear?

Can't see it. If the average number of coins obtained from a die pair is 60K (their quoted average) and you can strike a back of the fag packet 100K pennies from a ton of metal, you will need more than one die per journey. There's no way to reference wear at the end of each ton. 

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rob said:

Can't see it. If the average number of coins obtained from a die pair is 60K (their quoted average) and you can strike a back of the fag packet 100K pennies from a ton of metal, you will need more than one die per journey. There's no way to reference wear at the end of each ton. 

...then why not just write the totals in a pocketbook?

Why scratch a coin as a tally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I can see it being possible that they were monitoring quality at a known point in time, as taking an example after every ton is no different to sampling for the pyx, but can't see how you can monitor die wear, given you would need to sample a coin after every couple thousand to build up a picture for an individual die.

One of the things Dyer also noted was they stopped in 1868, possibly due to the death of John and Thomas Graham, and the associated reorganisation at the mint. Ouija board required? 

Edited to add, the totals for metal used and coins produced would already have been documented in some form somewhere. Retaining a coin from a known point in time is something that can only be sampled when it is made. You can't go back and sample retrospectively, as presumably the coins were made and immediately shipped to the four corners of the country. This I suspect was the reason. The numbering started in 1860 when there were huge problems meaning any changes could be tracked, and speculatively could have been continued simply because nobody thought to stop the monitoring. 

Edited by Rob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×