oldcopper

The trouble is you don't see digs like that even on a common or garden example. Look at the cleft on his cheek as well: https://auctions.sovr.co.uk/index.php?option=com_timed_auction&view=lot_detail&low_estimate=0&high_estimate=50000&keyword=&exclude_keyword=&sort_by=lot_number&image_filter=0&box_filter=0&paper_filter=0&export_issue=0&arr=0&auction_id=17&list_type=list_view&lots_per_page=45&page_no=5&lot_id=754524&search_type=&year=&month=&department_id=&cat_id= And nose!

Interesting sale, some fantastic coins there. I was interested in what was one of the most detailed long hair ChII farthing patterns, though with some obverse digs (lot 110). But as often happens I found the one person in the world who wanted it more than me! Those two ChII pattern shillings/farthings went astronomical. I might have had a flutter at 2-3K for the portrait one but 14K, that is a lot. Still, it's probably one of only two known, it's almost certainly the ESC plate coin in my edition, and the only other one known is the ropey and porous one in the BM (Illustrated in Peck). It probably doesn't belong to the copper series, but what a coin. People often misacribe the more common "date between crowns" variety as ESC 1067A, when that is specifically the "date either side" variety. Because they can then call it "R6 in ESC" probably! Mark Rasmussen had probably the nicest one of those on the market in his copper collection of Lists 14-17 at £1500 - not lustrous but good detail. I'm surprised the variety is not in ESC, as it is an almost identical design to 1067A. One surprise in the sale - the Churchill crown at MS66 - really? It fetched £320 but you can see obtrusive digs at the bottom of Churchill, and it looks dirty. I thought mine's better than that - value less than £5. Perhaps Richard's right about this slabbing business......

Talking of brass thrupennies, has anyone looked closely at the Ed VIII one coming up in Sovereign Rarities tomorrow? I wonder if it's even made of brass. The colour is very yellowy, and compares exactly with the 1806 gilt penny a few lots later, but perhaps more importantly, and this is most apparent if anyone's got a printed catalogue (with the big blow-up of it on the front cover), there seems to be some localised peeling of the surface colour to reveal brown metal (ie copper) underneath, around the truncation and back of the hair. It may just be an optical illusion, but could this be a mint trial in copper subsequently covered with a yellow metal coating? It's lightweight (~6g), but that doesn't neccesarily mean anything, as Peck lists even lighter and thus thinner-flan variants. I should add i haven't seen it in the hand.

Sorry, just replied that he did but didn't see the post above.

It was sold by Colin Cooke in 2018 for ~£5K. Norweb did point out it had a silght edge knock which wasn't mentioned in the later sale. I have to say it looks rather dull from the photos.

However, you should see some of the 19th and early 20th century auction prices for iconic early copper patterns and proofs for instance. Here's one example: Mackerell 1906: Anne Vigo five guineas "brilliant" - £30 Anne Bello and Pace farthing (later the Brookes specimen, in worn condition, illustrated in Peck) - £40

It was a beauty to behold as well, struck on a really thick flan in my Spink viewing.

Baldwins sold a possible 1844 "proof" penny which they said they didn't think was a proof, just a well struck currency, in the late 2000's. I don't think they exist, unless one turns up of course! Peck didn't see one and I think he was just going on an old reference in his footnote (again from memory, I don't have Peck to hand). Adams also didn't have the 1841 copper and the 1853 bronzed proofs. Now that Montagu mentioned the silver 1841 penny, that must be one of the biggest regrets of my (numismatic) life to miss out on it (I think it's the only one in commerce) when it came up in the Glenister Spink auction in 2007. Way out of my budget then, but if only I'd pushed the boat out - it went for £4,000.

Sure did!

Baldwins bought the Deane collection in the 1940's or early 50's from my memory of their catalogue descriptions, so chances are that Peck would have seen this coin. I don't know if the earlier Deane ticket called it a proof, but it would certainly have been brought to Peck's attention if it was thought a proof at the time. It was an obvious currency strike to me - of course there are sometimes grey areas as to whether or not a coin is a proof, but this one was clear enough even at a glance. Look at the scaling above the breast for instance on the blown up LC photo. I think it fetched about £600 at the Bladwins sale.

I saw it at the Baldwins and the LC auctions - and no way is it a proof! That fact was underlined by LCs's description quoting Baldwins only and not saying anything about the coin themselves. It fetched only a fraction of what it got at the Baldwins sale.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/12/remember-all-those-breathy-predictions-about-an-ice-free-arctic-by-2015-nevermind/?sh=43dac38daa19 I'm sure that link has examined those claims as well.......or is it all one-way traffic with some people. I wonder if Tony Heller ever made those claims? Or if any climate alarmists have ever taken trends out of context then simulated impending armageddon? Surely not!

Fancy a cricket anyone?! I don't know if anyone has been following what has been going on with the Dutch farmers and thier massive demonstrations. All despite the Netherlands being the second largest exporter of food in the world just behind the US. Some papers have carried small news reports on it. Done in the name of climate change of course, in this case ammonia emissions. He mentions the absurdity of China's record and forecast re their CO2 emission amongst other things, to show that no one in power is seriously enacting this craziness to lower CO2. And the fact that it will just result in everyone from our energy-poor economies importing yet more from the massive carbon-emitting China. I think he has a point! Worth watching. OK, the interviewer has a cowboy hat on but I think we can forgive him that.

It is difficult for people to overcome the psychological barrier that people in authority or their beloved media are lying to them by data manipulation or suppression. This has happened in other areas such as covid and the racial politics both in the US and here, in fact it seems that if the globalists decree something to be so, scientists and bureaucrats will find it so. The ONS got criticism for misleading everyone about the vaccinated vs unvaccinated take up of ICU beds last year - a blatant manipulation to give the largest possible ratio of unv'ed to v'ed. I wonder if the public was informed at all that it was a fake correlation? And this was from the ONS, all experts in statistics!.

Well of course he won't listen. He's not interested in opinions that conflict in any way with the narrative that he's been told to think. It's an article of faith, and easy in a way. No need to think about anything except which derogatory dog-whistle to use against those who have actually thought about these matters, and any area awkward for him to address like China's coal consumption, will be ignored, because he might have to think about that. Anyway, here's the interesting thing to me about The Great Barrier reef tale that's been spun for us. Here's a graph of the coral cover over the last few decades since measurements began. Notice the slow variable drop from 2005-2010 followed by a sharper one from 2010-2012'ish. Now, I bet about the this time, this accelerated drop in coral was then computer modelled to continue dropping. So people like like David Attenborough fell for this over-simplified picture which conveniently gave the worst possible result. and he stated in 2018 that the GBR would be no more by the end of the century. Now according to the map, it was near to its previous high points in 2018. All the experts etc would have agreed that things looked grim for the GBR, at that exact moment of time. But maybe they were taking a tiny timeframe and falsely extrapolating that the trend would continue. But it now looks cyclical, perhaps an El Nino phenomenon or some such. So perhaps nothing to do with long-term global warming. The question is: did these experts or the media publicise its regrowth, especially in the years after 2015 where the coral cover was bouncing back? And if not, why not?

And two of the big poster-children for global warming have crashed and burnt: Second record year for coral cover (since records began 36 years ago) in the Great Barrier Reef. Polar bear populations are now estimated at 25-30 thousand up from 5-6 thousand in the 1960's. Neither of these observations is disputed, but both these iconic images were used to scare people into thinking that climate change was makng polar bears go extinct (no sea ice you know) and coral reefs bleaching then dying out. What was never mentioned was that coral reefs usually recover quickly from bleaching episodes - where was that comment in all the doom? This is how it works - we're given only the partial information that fits the narrative. Other information or factors that don't are ignored or downplayed as much as possible. This is not to say climate change isn't happening, it's just that the evidence for it that was shoved in our faces to produce an emotional reaction turns out to be wrong.

Fair point, I understand not wanting it to get too snarky of course, but this discussion involves winter heating payments and thus its climate change rationale which is trying to remove or minimise fossil fuels from our lives. This is in a part of the forum which is not specifically about coins and which I personally find interesting and a very important discussion to have. We're all grown-ups on here, and no one wants the discussion to get bad-tempered, but it's important to get your point or points out there, and not allow the political discussion to be dominated by people who, in your opinion, are talking nonsense.

Thanks - I see someone unsurprisingly is applying the stereotyped smear of attacking the participants rather than listening to and addressing their point. He can't help it.

Here's a personal experience of science and politics mixing, and guess which came off worse? 35 years ago, the cloud from Chernobyl was crossing the UK and a bloke in my shared house worked in a junior position for an environmental monitoring company. They were contracted by the government's MAFF to pick up sheep droppings in the Lake District and measure their radioactivity. So off he went, bagged it all up and sent his samples off to be measured and then the company wrote a report to MAFF on their findings. Some time later the report got returned by MAFF and large chunks of it had been crossed out in red! I remember my housemate talking about resigning (he didn't in the end). He was not at all happy about it. Presumably the actual radiation figures were deemed politically unacceptable by MAFF so the report had to be altered to play down these levels, like missing out the higher levels found and just concentrating on the lower readings. So no one would have worried too much about the radiation in the fall out, as the government would have assured them that all the research showed how low level it all was. Moral in that case - if science and politics mix, science comes off worse. And for some reason, both climate change and Covid are now political footballs.

No, let's get this straight. You aren't choosing what to believe, that implies a reasoned open-minded attitude. You are being told what to believe, and even when contrary information is staring you in the face, you still cling to what you've been programmed to think. Also, if the narrative changes or even flip-flops, you seamlessly adopt the new right-think without even being aware that what they were telling you some time ago with the same certainty, was very different. The world is not run on principles, it is run on money, and those with the most money to dole out get the largest influence. Gates is the biggest financial contributor (if you include his GAVI alliance - he's second otherwise) to the WHO and he also funds much of the world's research into vaccines and other research institutes like Imperial College and thus people like Neil Ferguson, a big and very much officially promoted influence on our needless self-destruction of lockdown. Bil and Melinda have also given hundreds of millions of dollars to the Western media via their Foundation (all open information), and so we all think he's a great guy because that is all we are told about him. And he might be, but greasing the media's palms promotes that perception of him, and relegates any negative side. Why is he allowed to effectively bribe the world's media like this? None of the above is "conspiracy theory", it is all information published openly giving what the B&M Gates Foundation has disbursed. And Bill's overall wealth has increased by 26 billion dollars (a year ago) during the pandemic which has overall resulted in the largest wealth grab from the middle classes into the pockets of the hyper-rich. That information is from the investigative journalist Robert F Kennedy amongst others, and as a self-proclaimed left-winger you, as with the rest of us, should be appalled by that. But you wouldn't care even if you knew. That's not something you've been told to get concerned about. Who's Robert F Kennedy and can you believe him? Where's his proof? Fair question. Is it just another conspiracy theory? Well, firstly, no one's denied it and if anyone has got his recently published "The real Anthony Fauci" the level of corruption and deceit he uncovers spanning several decades at the top of the medical establishment in the US is staggering. OK, again how can you believe him? Because no one is even attempting to sue him for anything in this book. And he's having a go at some of the richest and most powerful people in the world. Butr these people are essentially untouchable so they don't care. The book lands like a big tree falling in the middle of the forest. The media studiously ignore it. And both medicine and science in certain areas have been absolutely corrupted by money. Whoever pays for the research and controls the medicinal establishment will get the research or agreement they want, and this is kept in place by fear via this whole new hierarchy of morality where if you don't agree totally with the official narrative you acquire a bad name such as "denier" (with its intentional echo of holocaust denier) or an "anti-vaccer" or a this or a that,. This cements the groupthink. So Brian Stelter: But 97% of climate scientists think that global warming is happening. Meteorological guest: Because the government doles out 2.5 billion dollars a year into research into climate change and only funds the people who give them the answers they want. Make of that what you will. And PS this e-mail hasn' been specifically written for Peckris. He probably stopped reading after 5 words.

Congratulations! Textbook stuff. Let's run through it. "Deniers" - great start. Shoehorned that into the first sentence ie anyone who looks at something from a different angle to you or has a different opinion is a "denier". Then the made-up (as usual) amazement that people are pointing out..., well what are they pointing out? You ignore the elephant in the room and despite looking very closely I can't see the word China anywhere in your post. But where's "Daily Mail" - you used it last time but missed a trick here. That killer riposte is taking a break I see. I tell you what amazes me - that anyone in their right mind can assert that the intermittent renewable energy sources of wind and solar (not nuclear, but that's going nowhere fast at present) can in any way be a substitute for fossil fuels. You can't run any industry, especially heavy industry, on an intermittent energy source, much of society's needs will depend on a high carbon-footprint manufacture and installation technology which supplies low and fickle electricity, and these solar panels and wind turbines will last 15-20 years then be chucked away. Fridges, ovens, building heating - all required reliable energy. And you won't be able to drive anywhere if last night wasn't windy enough. Or is every household going to have a massive toxic Chinese-produced battery the size of a chest of drawers to give stability of energy supply? Eco-friendly or what! But don't worry, massive improvements in renewables technology will come along and save us just in the nick of time - we just have to take your word for that, but even your illusory massive improvements won't change the whole flawed concept of renewables I'm afraid. Nuclear excepted again, yet 30 years of non-investment into nuclear has buried that one for the foreseeable future. But here comes Bill Gates, nuclear plant manufacturer par excellence......he's got an idea you say? "I'd rather be proved wrong on climate" - no you wouldn't and you're quite prepared to sacrifice our economy and standard of living in a pointless gesture to give you the satisfaction that "at least we tried". so hang the consequences, so long as your media and government primed conscience is satisfied. That's the important thing of course. If any of the politicans or XR idiots actually really believed in the link between CO2 and global warming, wouldn't they be banging down China and India's doors to express their terror at what the world's major polluters were ramping up. That they couldn't care less says it all.

Sorry, "very little way", not "very little was". Another worry is that high oil and gas prices might actually mean higher CO2 production, not lower, as poorer countries switch to cheaper coal, a less efficient and more polluting energy source that emits far more CO2 for the heat it produces.

"Never was a truer word spoken"!!? If so there must be a pattern that indicates this is not a freak event. Have our previous Summers been getting this hotter and drier? Is there a long-term gradient/trend which has not been matched before? And was 1976 a freak event? - yes it was, but if that happened today the end of the world would be nigh! You can see the desperation in Peckris in trying to ascribe everything to climate change. It's like a religious cult. If the next few summers are as hot and dry, or hotter and dryer that would indicate a pattern, but it may just be a cyclic weather phenomeon anyway. It might, just might be down to man-made CO2 emissions, but we have very little was of confirming that. But a pattern will have to happen before anyone can pronounce on this. Secondly, p*ssing in the wind is the correct analogy. China is increasing its coal use by 300 million tons this year to just over 3 billion tons. In 2021 India consumed over a billion tons of coal, the USA 0.5 billion. Our coal use last year was 8.6 million tons by way of comparison. Work out the percentage that is of the others!

it's all based on computer modelling, none of which has been even remotely right in the past. The arctic isn't ice-free yet despite all the forecasts from "climate experts" and polar bear populations are doing well, despite the forecasts again, the Maldives hasn't sunk yet........ It's like Neil Ferguson from Imperial College (donation at least £150 million courtesy of the B&M Gates Foundation). Nobody could be more wrong more often, yet he's still in a job, wheeled on by the awestruck BBC now and again. Yet the computer code he undertook his Covid modelling on was found to be old and deeply flawed. But he did get the sack temporarily, because he went to see his girlfriend during lockdown. Just like the government, all these experts are quite happy to break their own rules, because they know the real risk ie they aren't in their mid eighties and/or suffering from serious co-morbidities....

I notice that some of their estimates are remarkably low.