edinburghPF

In The Gazette, the specification of all coins are laid out clearly. From the precise and legal jargon, I would say it was clear that these specifications must be met, except for a minute variation in weight/dimension as set. But I wondeering if there is a requirement for coins to display their denomination? I assume so, or there would have been no need to reissue a specification for the ciruclating coin. It would seem that at LEAST date, deonomination and effigy are required. And there may/must be guidelines on the useage of the writing too. I would love to find out where these requirements are laid out. I cannot believe that they are just rough conventions that are adhered to. My overall point is that this coin seems to be a case of Specification Error, in which the specification omitted the deonomination in error?

I have been wondering about the Battle of Britain 50p, which I find fascinating. A couple of points. There exists three distinct types and maybe 8 variants (metals etc). The Mint claims it was not an error and was deliberate. This can be seen in the technical announcements of the coin. BUT the Mint issued a secondary specfication of the coin with the denomination. The questions: Is there any other Decimal Coin without a denomination? If so, is there any other 50p without a denomination? Have any other Decimal coins had a secondary (replacement?) specification presented by the MInt? Does the Mint have a requirement to place the denomination on coins?

I noticed the jump a few weeks back after a daft Daily Mail article. They spiked from £4 to £18 posted.