Peckris 2

OMG. No offence meant, I honestly didn't know that (and the OP didn't mention it as part of their post.) Oh dear, what can I say, except that was only thing that leapt out at me. It is a brilliant resource (can I stop digging now?) I proffer two things. 1. An apology for undiplomatic language. 2. I hope you didn't mind me correcting you about the "mule" situation?

I tried to get in touch with its creator but there seems no way to do so - every icon on that blog takes me to MY Word Press account, not the creator of that one. There's no 'Contact us' (or 'me') spiel so I'm a bit stuck. However if you know them, perhaps you could pass the message on? (More diplomatically obviously than "appalling error"!)

You have to understand what a mule is. All ME bronze was intended to be introduced with a modified reverse. The 1925ME halfpennies were (the non-ME 1925 halfpennies used the old reverse); all 1926 farthings were ME and all had a modified reverse. My theory has it that the penny was not intended to be introduced until 1927, with both ME and modified reverse. However, along came the 1926 penny issue (and my theory about that is quite radical but makes sense) which muddied the waters. It's quite possible the small issue was intended to be completed with the old obverse, but then they ran out of dies - possibly left over from the unexpectedly reduced 1922 issue? - and as the 1927 obverse dies were already there, they decided to use them but possibly under the pressure of time and other factors, they weren't going to produce a special modified reverse for 1926 which was unplanned anyway. So their use of the ME along with the old reverse means the 1926ME is - AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN - referred to as a "mule". The unique D+d 1926 is what the 1927 penny looked like, and that's when (according to my theory) it was planned to be introduced. The definition of mule has absolutely nothing to do with rarity.

Great record ... but come on! it was quite successful.

If you avoid the iPad Pro series (she doesn't need that!), you can get a very capable iPad that's up to date, fast, but without all the bells and whistles of the Pro series. The best thing about it? It's around half the price or less of the Pro series. It's on sale here: https://www.tobydeals.co.uk/en_GB/product/apple-ipad-9-7-2018-32gb-wifi-silver-2.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwh9_bBRA_EiwApObaOP_agx1yA2KYFjiimPRwyF9wVDsynHRK_E25Hf6vTCfY3IARzORv-hoCgWcQAvD_BwE for about £50 less than the full price (though I have no idea what that seller is like). That's the 32GB model which ought to be enough for your mum? My mum got sucked into a "Breezie" via Age UK but that's a Samsung and it's been fine for her.

I think it must have been corrected since you posted? I see only 4+C for 1927? Yes, all reverses from 1927 onwards use the Gouby D reverse. There is an appalling error in that page you linked to - the 1926 D+d (Probably Unique) pattern is described as a mule. NO!!! That's how the 1926ME should have been struck - it's the currency D+b 1926ME that is the mule!

Wow, you never heard that before? My favourite Shadows hit!

Fine for this forum then!

Very underrated , The Alan Parson Project. "Eye In The Sky" is the album to have though.

If you're only interested in the money, then they're not worth anything much. However, if you're interested in coins and varieties, there are at least 3 different varieties of the 10p and 5p in the sets, but I don't know about relative rarity of these.

The short answer is that die issues are very localised and will be seen in the same particular place(s) on many top grade examples. Wear tends to be more generalised, starting from the highest points of the design and spreading downwards. I'm not sure what you mean by reflections in relation to wear?

Although I'm too disabled to use it now, my Ion amplifier - though solid state - was designed to give a similar reproduction to valve amplifiers.

Then you should be very happy - the sole bidder is at $449 A$ (or does your $600 not include the $200 refund?)

It's not even a fake - it's a reproduction coin that doesn't even pretend to be a close approximation of the original. I note that "Guest's" link above now points to a similar 1909 halfcrown which IS properly described as a reproduction, though the description of "rare coin" is total BS.

Yes, absolutely. You've let the bidder decide about grade and you've mentioned that it was mounted. And you've had a bid! Would that and the $200 recover your original cost?

Looks promisingly hilarious - sadly I don't have 41 minutes to watch it, not right now.

It's actually very nice inside, but it's not what you'd call a cathedral exactly, not for England's second city especially when you consider Liverpool's two.

Ok, I'm not looking at other answers so this is entirely off the top off my head. The £9 is rather misleading. They should have paid £25/3 = £8.33 each plus a 66p share of a £2 tip to the waiter. I.e. £9 each IN TOTAL including the tip to the waiter. So they actually paid the waiter £3 too much.

It could be the Mint is slow to issue the full figures? I remember in the late 70s seeing that the figure for 1976 50p's was less than a million, and I started collecting them avidly (though oddly I never questioned that there were plenty out there). It later turned out that that was a provisional figure only and in the end there were millions.

That's Birmingham Cathedral IIRC?

Still are, surely?

Indeed it is. However, I'm utterly amazed that it took you 4 years to find in your change a coin of which there were 10m minted. Something doesn't quite square...

I have since found the "index" and uploaded it to Dropbox. https://www.dropbox.com/s/wf4g1xl056jj3p2/BNJ contents 1-80 (index of sorts).pdf?dl=0

No chance!