oldcopper

Well can I just emphasise I am not a nerd - my anorak is festooned with the coolest badges of course. Secondly, shouldn't that be pedant-in-chief?

"overcome with indifference" - I like that oxymoron!

I heard the vendor lost quite a bit of money in that 2004 LCA sale, probably because much of his stuff, eg Nicholson's coins, had been on the market only a few months before. So the fantastic 1685 halfpenny for instance cost him £6,100 and sold for £4,400 hammer, the P.565 was £2,800 Nicholson, went for £2K hammer and so on. It was a good auction to buy stuff at. Nicholson's P.565 resurfaced in the Pywell-Phillips Spink auction in late 2018 - £1,800 hammer. It was erroneously provenanced to Peck - as I joked to Greg, it had been owned by everyone except Peck! A great collection by the way. Dave - sorry I wrote a bit ambiguously - the P.565 was £150 in Colin Cooke's 2006/7 catalogue. I don't know what the Croydon Coins price was.

Yes, amazingly another P.565 does exist, but in bad shape, as sold in CC's Dec 2006/Jan 2007 catalogue item 992. I quote: Heavily corroded but salient details are still visible. Of the highest rarity. Apart from the Nicholson specimen (which realised £2800 and is the photographed coin in the Spink 2005 year book), we know of no other specimen. Bought from CCA #55 13/4/1988. Ex P.W. Laurence £150. I don't think anyone knew there was a second specimen until this one turned up.

Yes it's not in the LCA database.

It started off at A$1400, and came down in increments to A$450 (that's on the archive). I don't know how much further it would have come down if no-one had bid for it - but the vendor was presumably already nursing a big loss if they bought it at Baldwin's, so might have withdrawn it. Call it a gap filler! The last I saw of the Nicholson piece was DNW June 2013 in Andrew Scottern's (?) collection, £1200 hammer. I haven't heard of it in LCA - I'll look that up.

Talking of rarities in awful condition, here's a type coin of similar rarity to the above 1695 DEI GRATIA that cost £280 including extras (ex Noble Numismatics - the price kept coming down every time it didn't sell). And as for the edge lettering.....well I think I may be able to make out one letter....possibly. Anyway, it's ex Weightman and Hoblyn and went for £660 hammer at Baldwin's back in 2007. The reverse is worse but the obverse is of course the important side.

No it hasn't I think was the gist of the last conversation. That is one **** coin for the asking price! Still, interesting there are quite a few out there.

As well as Mark Rasmussen, Nicholson's/Shuttleworth's coin was also in one of the early St James's auctions.

I think unfortunately if Spink view it as a pattern they don't put them in, only in exceptional cases such as the Petition Crown. I don't think they list any copper patterns, and none of the earlier proofs. They go to town on the bronze of course, but they don't list any proofs or patterns there either. The coin at the top of page 2 is the $4700-priced one from memory, probably from the best metal but isn't as detailed as yours, which I hadn't seen until now. So nice one!

Mark might have sold one more recently, but the only one in his archive was the Nicholson example, sold on List 9, so during the middle-to-late 2000's. He sold it for £495. The best known (~GF+) was for sale by an American dealer some years ago. He wanted $4700 for it; too much for me! Great example though.

On paper 32,000 minted, but how many of those were 1859 as was the usual Victorian practice until Grahame (?) the Mintmaster stopped it in the 1860's or 70's. It does look like a makeshift issue, as well as the misaligned dies, the severe die clashing, the lettering isn't good either, for instance the 2 N's of Britanniar are irregular and spindly, and also the blocked date seen on some (but not all) with the bottom of the 6 missing. Though the hair definition on Victoria's head is generally sharp, it is definitely lacking quality control in these other areas, which are not this severe on any other of W. Wyon's pennies as far as I'm aware (though he was long gone by then). Perhaps they had all these blanks left over and a Mint Apprentice was told to get on with it?!

For the 1860/59, the die axis is usually askew as well, so if you turn the obverse over sideways, Britannia is leaning approx. 20-30 degrees to the right. I think it's the only Victorian copper penny (or maybe any penny?) with an askew die axis as standard rather than 0 or 180 degrees. I wonder why they did this. It's easy to see on Heritage archives as they show the pictures of the coin in the slab as well.

Mick Martin, if it's the same one (there are at least two now!), wrote a long article in SNC 2009 working out the relative rarities of the Soho coinage and restrikes - very useful information. I believe I sent it to Secret Santa a while ago.

Perhaps it was stored with this proof?

Interesting, looks like the Britannia is also in the George II 1729-39 style (the "rat" halfpenny)

I downloaded the parts I wanted off the web - via Treasurerealm.com. It's free.

I should have mentioned that it had an engrailed edge, so was an original, but though of even colour, it didn't quite seem to have the chocolate richness of Soho bronzing. So to see that it was suddenly ex-Boulton after I sold it (and I had an idea of whom subsequently bought it and thus I was less surprised at this "marketing technique") was a reach to say the least.

So you haven't got any specific data on my previous request, I'm not surprised and I've called your bluff on this - what you said was rubbish - it clearly didn't say that black people get convicted 6x more often than white people for the same offence , it said 6x more blacks than whites go to prison for "drug offenses". Which is a completely different meaning. You don't realize that? But, like Peckers, just shoot the messenger - that'll hide the embarrassment. Every one of the convoluted points you've made so far can be dismissed in seconds, as I have done. The sad thing is you're so desperate to prove it's white racism, but you can't make that charge stick. Why are you so desperate to prove that narrative, can't you think for yourself?

Well, if you can't see the lies you're being fed, that's your lookout. I thought this would happen with you, as I've backed you into a corner of having to discuss my point which lets the police off. So it's flounce off time. That's a shame. All my statistics are official government statistics, and I've drawn the correct conclusions from them. So a bit of thinking and reasoned argument would have been appreciated, but i don't think you had any. I remember you tried this faux-outrage when I pointed out BAME voting patterns. Then when I showed it was in a BBC report, you went a bit quiet. Anyway, this is where your dogma has now got you - you support an organisation that wants to defund the police, and the consequences of that mean losing the entire justice system, the prisons, the lot, because the police are the foundation and enforcement of all that of course. So no rule of law - who should be looking in the mirror, now?

Where's the information about blacks being 5 times more likely to be imprisoned for "the same offence"? What it says is that blacks are almost 6x more likely to be imprisoned for "drug charges". And the same proportions of blacks and whites use drugs. Not the same thing. "Drug offenses" mentioned in the next paragraph is similarly not just "drug use" but presumably more serious drug offenses as well. The obvious explanation is there is a much higher proportion of drug dealers among blacks. Recreational use of a drug is the lowest level of drug crime; dealing and distribution are higher: the offenders will more likely have a much greater quantity of a drug as well when arrested. And it will also depend on how hard the drugs are - is there a different profile of popular drugs in both communities? A small amount of recreational cannabis is probably overlooked, but heroin will be treated differently. You might have some more specific figures, if so let us know, but on the above, you can't tell anything as they are not comparing like to like. Nasty diseases picked up in prison, we won't go into the reasons. Whites have a higher mortality rate in prisons than blacks or Hispanics apparently - if it was the other way round, there would no doubt be a fuss about it. That's sad about the criminal record information, but blacks are overwhelmingly over-represented in all violent crime and theft, so I can understand if an employer is going to be wary about that. The trouble is it's a chicken and egg scenario, which will be difficult to break.

For crying out loud, how many times do I have to say: The big fraud is that they aren't factoring in the relative crime rates of the two demographics. The last article is a perfect example. I don't even need to look at the first two, because they will undoubtedly be doing the same thing. Now, from the relative prison populations, blacks are 5 times more likely than whites to commit crimes. Thus their interactions with police will be 5 times higher than their demographic ratio would suggest. Police aren't shooting at random members of the public or locking up random members of the public are they. They're shooting mainly at criminals or taking criminals into police custody. Hence to get an accurate perspective, we should not only be basing the numbers on the demographic, which will increase the black number by a factor of 4.5. We should also be basing it on the extent of the criminality for each demographic, which will then lower the black number by a factor of 5. Got it?

Actually, the figures are from Washington Post data, which is taken from official data. Pop "465 white 234 black police shootings" into Google and it should come up with "Law-Enforcement - Perpetrated Homicides: Accidents to Murder" click on that and it will give you p68 where the figures are for the last few years. I saw these figures elsewhere which is why I've got 2016 data, but the other years' ratios are pretty similar.

The figures are FBI figures from 2015/2016 I think. I will check, though they are definitely government figures. Interesting, so the statistic that blacks are responsible for 50% of US gun crime, despite being 14% of the population, is a myth? And your statistic, if it exists, is obviously legal gun owners, which I would expect to be predominantly white. So in the UK, compare the percentage of whites owning gun licences with the demographic of gun crime. Do you think these figures are going to be proportional? I don't think so, what a silly argument.

No, you said that black suffering was mostly caused by whites, I was showing you that in fact, both in terms of magnitude and brutality, it is mainly caused by other blacks. Where was the falseness in any of my examples? I'd love to know. As for "deflecting blame" form the slave trade I was showing you that other parties who were actively involved in the slave trade and placed no value on African lives, were both African and Arab. And it continues today - apparently a slave in Libya costs ~$200, so I've read. I know nothing must interfere with the narrative of purely white evil against others without original sin. You are obviously absolutely not bothered by the easily understandable fact that the whole argument of over-representation with the police is a lie. I watched YouTube Christo Foufas on Talk Radio smugly try and dismiss a woman who dared support the "white lives matter" banner with his oh so unchallengeable "police stats form the US show they are over-represented. I know the statistics". If only she'd known the truth! Luckily there didn't seem to be any comments that stood up for him. But no-one has spotted the big lie in the comments, or perhaps they had - you'll be glad to know I've posted these facts on 2 youtube channels, but guess what, the posts had mysteriously been removed next time I've checked. I bet you still haven't tried to understand it, have you?