Peckris 2

I've seen it's pulled .... but 0 bids? How do you explain that given the above posts?

Quite possibly the best Who concert I attended - though 1969 would run it close. Both featured 'Tommy' extensively and it's not even my favourite album!

Great idea. Unfortunately due to various things like incontinence and severe fatigue I simply don't travel out of the county

Early 70s. Any particular reason for asking? 1. Awful Americanism. 2. English grammar! It was the execrable Reverend Lowth who, in the 18th Century, "decided" that - following Latin principles - you couldn't end a sentence with a preposition, nor split an infinitive (among other things). The latter is especially ridiculous as an infinitive in Latin is a single word and therefore cannot be split anyway! That's also one of mine. Derived from hearing "could've" and assuming what was heard was "could of". I remember practising my modern Greek on a ferry around the Greek islands - the barman asked me - in English - to speak English so he could understand me better! Another Americanism. Aaaaargh.

Why would they strike millions of coins then overstrike each one? No, as Martin says, it's the die that gets recut either to reuse it or to correct an error or to recut wearing characters.

That's a VERY expensive pine plank!

1968, 1969 (opening night of the UK Tommy tour), 1971?, 1974, 1975, 1976 Charlton, 1989

I wish! Unfortunately I'm not mobile these days.

Alas poor Yorick, I knew him HORATIO ... amazing how many people get that wrong! I assume that's what you were referring to? Yes, the word criteria used as a singular (like phenomena) is almost as annoying as 'attendee'. It also trumps my degree in 'Roman and Hellenic Studies' from Birmingham University! But at least we were taught modern Greek by a Communist refugee from the Colonels.

It means you offer it to me first, and in the unlikely event I'd refuse, at least I'd be head of the queue!

Shows the differences between collectors - it would have been my first thought! But then I am a type collector now.

Hmm. Methinks you missed my (dreadful) pun. I'll get me coat.

I think THE most obvious difference is the rim - it's very much wider on the pattern.

I thought we'd already agreed it was Obverse 5 (the dink in the forehead)?

I'd LOVE one in that condition! If you ever upgrade I'll happily buy that off you.

Ok, here's a question that seems obvious (to me!) - why didn't you decide to sell most of the collection apart from one choice example of each type?

Thanks Mike. It's hard to determine a VIP proof when there were normal proofs in that year. Why wouldn't they issue VIPs with early strikes of an 'ordinary' proof set? In any case, the real determiner - the penny - is the normal proof issue, as has been pointed out.

anyone got a link?

Yes, each year had 'recut waves' apparently

You na' lyin'... (Think about it...!)

Oh god, I hope not! It's bad enough we have to put up with the appalling abortion of a word "attendee".

Well, yeah, but the non-existant word 'inheritee' had been used so many times above! I just couldn't let it rest...

No, I meant the one that advertises a tiny gold coin designed by 'a descendant of Pistrucci'.

That one wasn't even the RM - the London Mint Office or something fatuous like that.