oldcopper

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.....!!!

Thanks, that's probably what they mean though they aren't really right.

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.

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.

All three of Peck's 1826 copper proofs were in the Verene collection, all ex the June 2012 Spink auction and before ex Glendinings in a 60's auction (I think as one lot then?). They are beautiful multi-coloured coins.

Yes, that's definitely bronzed, and easier for the pre-1853 Wyon proofs as there aren't many copper ones around.

To me the best way to tell is to look at the brown colouration in incidental light, not reflected light. This removes most of any colourful aspects like blues, greens etc. If it is chocolatey brown, milk to plain, then it's bronzed, if a paler sort of "wan" brown then it's toned copper. There are examples that could be either, sometimes it's very hard or impossible to tell. I'm talking about the traditional bronzed colouration of the official issues, Soho or Royal mint, not the often golden brown of Taylor's restrikes.

Talking of 1839 halfcrowns, I presume you got the Heritage Auctions 1839 proof halfcrown PF66+ at a very reasonable $38,400 and perhaps also the "pure silver" 1847 Gothic crown at $186,000. Maybe not! That was a nice result for the halfcrown vendor as it sold 10 years ago for $10,500 at HA, so a nearly 300% increase. I hate to think what the Gothic crown vendor made. And telling the difference between pure silver and sterling silver might be difficult - the specific gravities of both would be close, and for that price increment you'd hope some test would be pretty clear-cut! Otherwise it's only a PF64 1847 Gothic crown, of which there must be loads around. Perhaps there's some spectroscopic method.

Thinking about it, the Baldwins coin might have been 1857.

Is that top one ex-Baldwins (which they sold as a proof) then ex-Roland Harris, but looked artificially bronzed? Nice looking coin. And presume you mean that the 1839 IOM halfpenny shares the same obverse, as there was no 1839 Jersey halfpenny and they have an ornamented fillet in the headband?

There have been a few 56 OT's in high grade over the last 2 decades - Pywell-Phillips SCA 2018 (ex somewhere else but I've forgotten where), Baldwins 47 (Gregory II) - later sold London Coins, fantastic coin, nearly full lustre, Mark Rasmussen list 15 ( Old British Collection) - ditto almost BU, Dave Craddock also had a nice one in his tray several years ago.

Heritage say there's a graze on her cheek. Might be that. Baldwin's did list it as the proof, just strange they implied the obverse was less certain to be from a proof die than the reverse, and gave it a low estimate of £3-400. Perhaps the graze, if it was that, put them off. If anything I'd have thought the obverse would be easier to tell proof-wise based on the sharpness of the hair.

I saw it at the LCA auction where it was brown, it went to pink pre-slabbing, a great process whatever their secret recipe, as it turned a nothing special coin (still sold at ~£1K though) into a $6.4K one a few years later.

Having seen a few coins proofed up, I wouldn't go for one either. Peck didn't know of one, that's not definitive as he did miss things, but it's evidence that in his 30 plus years of researching he never saw one that jumped out at him as a proof. One example I would like to look at was sold as "full lustre" in a very early 2000's SNC. It was listed as the colon proof, but I couldn't make out the usually bold colon from the photo, in black and white back then. Perhaps it just didn't show up on the photo, though whether colon or no colon, a "full lustre" one would be quite something to behold

I saw the 1841 "proof" penny at DNW just out of interest of course as I was there. Better than their recent "Dr Reddy's patented 1859 facsimile proof penny", but not by much! There was no way it was a proof from the worn dies on either side from the photograph for starters. It must be artificially bronzed. There's an 1859 proof coming up at HA which came from BA 44 in 2006 - where they put "impaired obverse, but reverse definitely struck from a proof die." Estimate at the Gregory sale £3-400, but two people must have thought it a bona fide proof as it went for £1200. Baldwins didn't say why the obverse was impaired or why they weren't certain that side was a proof. Interesting to see it in the hand but i'm not going to risk several thousand for that privilege!

Wow! HA PR64 no colon 1841 with gorgeous pink toning - went for nearly $6.5K in 2017. Oh wait, it's the same coin!

Ummmm...not convincing: London coins 1841 no colon "proof" Roland Harris collection 2009, before that I think Baldwins.

it would be worth even more than a copper one if it really was 60/59!

That's the thing - if a government person explained to Parliament why the information given by Bridgen, Chope was wrong, or put out some official rebuttal with stronger counter-evidence, that would be that. Yet their approach, followed slavishly by the media, is to pretend that this subject does not exist. It's as if they think - if we ignore it, it'll go away. To many of us it seems the politicians have backed themselves into a corner, which is why they're now in full la-la land, as of course they can't admit what a humungous cock-up they've made of it all. I can see them doing the same with Net Zero in years to come. Are they under instruction or have nearly all of them completely lost their marbles?

Yes, back in 2004 DNW had nice examples of all 3 main early proof sets in one catalogue, and all went for £11-20/25K'ish. Where's that time machine!!

Interesting, but calm down. As you advertise it, it's open to enquiry, and my questions are perfectly sensible. I find it strange that the unpaid Chief Executive Officer of a charity lives half a world away, not a normal arrangement, but you've explained it so there we go - questions answered. No problem!

Everyone's tribal to a certain extent, it's part of human nature, the professed exception being certain left-wing white people. I say "professed" because when you see their actions they almost invariably live in other majority white communities. But as an internationalist who says he isn't keen on England, why didn't you choose to stay in the rainbow nation of South Africa as you'd been there for 10 years already? And being an unpaid Chief Executive of a SA charity, wouldn't you have been better to have stayed where you would be most needed, as who is going to pay for your flights over there and back - not a cheap option and hopefully not the charity.

Considering the average age of death from Covid is and always was 82, and the victims almost invariably had various co-morbidities such as obesity, the authorities initial idea of vaccinating the at risk elderly seemed reasonable. The rolling it out to other age groups is incomprehensible though, based on spurious transmission/infection theories for which there has never been any evidence. Pfizer for one never claimed their vaccine had any effect on either transmission or infection, it just mitigated the symptoms. But you wouldn't go and see your granny if you had flu-like symptoms anyway. It's worth seeing Andrew Bridgen (available on his YT channel) empty the Commons last Friday before making some damning observations from the government's own data about the current risk/benefit of continuing the booster programme. An eye opener, but no one debates or debunks what he is saying, which tells the story really.

The weekly Public Health Agency reports were shelved about a year ago, but they were showing the increasing trend that vaccinated people were becoming far more likely to be infected than unvaccinated. The PHA authors were at pains to suggest this might be down to behavioural differences between the two groups, but that was pure speculation, as they couldn't of course admit the other explanation. Perhaps the shelving and the observed trend were connected?

Weren't we told the vaxes were "safe and effective". Wrong on both counts. as soon as Omicron appeared they were of little and rapidly diminishing effectiveness. And I'd love someone to tell me what a "climate change denialist" is and why are they "mad"? It's a flip phrase but I think it means that you question any, and not necessarily all, of the following three points: (1) Is climate change/warming happening? I'll answer that - probably from measurements, but at a much slower rate than all the forecasts from all those experts over the last few decades. And why are we not told of any beneficial effects if it is, like increasing vegetation in colder climes? (2) Is it directly due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 0.031% of the atmosphere to 0.038%? Man produces 3% of CO2 produced annually - the other 97% is produced naturally. And is there any proof for this correlation of increased CO2 to global warming? (3) Is the solution of changing from a reliable, controllable, storable and concentrated energy supply to a weather-dependent, intermittent, uncontrollable and non-storable energy supply the correct one? Especially as the energy use and size of an economy are pretty strongly related? And at present wind and solar contribute from less that 1% to circa 10% of our total energy consumption (ie between <5 and 50% of our electricity consumption). So when the wind doesn't blow in Winter we'll need nuclear provision for all our transport, all our central heating and hot water, all our manufacturing industry and construction industries (which we won't have by then due to too little reliable energy) etc etc. How many nuclear power stations will we need for that, small modular ones or otherwise. And how's that construction plan going at the moment? And after 15-20 years most of these wind and solar devices will need replacing, but we can't recycle them very easily because guess what - that'll require a humungus amount of energy!! So the people who worry about this last point are the mad ones? if you believe in all of the above, shouldn't you be losing sleep over China? - it burnt 300 million extra tons of coal (the biggest CO2 emitter of any fossil fuel to amount of energy produced) last year to bring it's annual consumption to over 3 billion tons of coal. But no one seems to blink an eyelid about that.