Sylvester

Make that 1700 years and you might be onto something! Sylvester...

Just like to say that for the first time ever i've recieved a decent lustrous new(ish) £2 coin in change, a 2003 one too...as they say; 'very noyce' Sylvester.

I didn't lie about my age...only 6 years behind you Chris. I have changed many of my political ideas already since being at Uni, incredibly in the opposite direction to what most people expected. Most people come out of Uni with left-wing ideas, except there seems to be more and more of us right-wingers filtering into that equation. I just seem to be heading further right, (to reactionary conservatism) but clearly not towards fascism...since fascists believe in equal rights for whatever ethnic group they happen to be in, but they ignore everyone else. I on the other hand care little for equality, call me 'bourgeoisie' as the Marxists would say, but i like having possessions and lots of silver lying around, would i share it out freely like socialists suggest, even to fellow Britains? No i wouldn't, i have often been likened to Ebeneezer Scrooge and Monty Burns. I think i'm a bit of a capitalist, i just like collecting money, new/old/legal tender/things which haven't been legal tender for years... It's always nice to have more of something than someone else, to know you have a better coin, or you did better in an exam, or the such. I think it's human nature to be that way, and there's not point in trying to change it. That's why communism will never work, humans by nature are greedy and selfish to some degree, (the ones that deny it are plain lying). Just like some people are weak and tend to prefer following orders and know exactly who's in charge, and others are strong and will refuse to take orders. Alpha people and beta people, or so i heard it referred to. With regards to the Labour Party, i think they are going totalitarian, Blair went to war despite the country opposing it. Blair will refuse to hold a referendum because he knows he'll lose. Blair is going against the population here and he knows it. What i think we've got here is a classic case of a facade of 'Democracy' where the people are fooled into believing they've got rights when in actual fact the government is pretty much doing it's own thing, like a dictatorship. The only thing that stops it becoming an overt one is the precarious power balance between the three parties. If the opposition crumbled so there was no opposition, except for the small parties like the Green Party, i don't think Blair would bother holding elections at all...afterall he won't step down for Gorden Brown; despite the fact they made an agreement prior to 1997 to that effect... All constitutional democracies are a lie, the only real type of democracy is a radical democracy of Ancient Greece, but as i stated earlier human greed would quickly corrupt that... So there is no good system. Might as well go to feudalism at least that way we're not kiddig ourselves any more. I also don't think MPs should be paid (except for travel expenses and hotel expenses whilst in session), i think they should do it volunterily, that should weed out the ones that are in it to line their own pockets and stuff whatever the rest of the country thinks/feels. Afterall the monarchs never got paid for what they did, they were expected to live off of their own lands. The Parliaments were unpaid in the 16th century i believe also? I am also totally opposed to Blair stripping the hereditary power from the Lords. I think the Lords should be totally hereditary to counterbalance the totally elected Commons, and things like Thatcher should be kicked out of both. Now there is a woman i didn't like. She ruined the strong industry and thus money making export deals of the country...now we are reduced to buying stuff in, and consequently higher unemployment...bad move letting her in office at all, let alone on three separate occasions... Sylvester. I don't know about you Chris but i've stuck to some of my ideas for the past 10 or so years throughout, school, college and uni...and despite all the left wing influences on me, very few have sunk in...some might have, like total religious toleration (well almost...although i do seem to get angry at Christians a bit for what they did to all the other religions over the years), and total equality of males and females...but that's about it...

I agree with Oli the future is with the US not Europe. I consider myself British, not European, i never have and never will consider myself European. Therefore i am totally against the Euro. But just to give you an idea of my political views, (not on immigration and the likes because this is not the place to discuss it), but my approach to lets say coinage, is if i had been alive when we went decimal i would have been totally against it, and i still am. If i got in power (i hope for everyone else i don't) i would take us straight back to pre-decimal, ban metric (except in science...where it makes far more sense...don't ask there is a logical argument in there somewhere!) and i'd ressurrect the gold and silver standards. But being a reactionary conservative, who has studied so much medieval history, probably too much, i am a bit too pro-monarchist and think that the monarch should have far more say, and should run the country (if it worked in 1499...then why change?)...put it this way the Queen could do a much better job of it than Butcher Blair...and if i had been around in the French Revolution (if i'd been French) i would have supported the absolute monarchy. Nothing like tradition. Basically i'm one of these people that doesn't hate people from other countries but i think each and every country should be proud of what it stands for...us English are just far too laid back. It's about time we took a leaf out of the US's book and had more Union Jacks flying about the place, one in all the school classrooms for a start. And school children should be drilled on the National anthem...afterall none of us know the words! (Not many Frenchmen or Americans could say that). Personally i also think the national anthem should be changed from 'God Save the Queen', to 'Rule Britannia'...Why? well i object to the God bit, not the Queen bit like most people object to. I'm sure i mentionned in a previous thread that i didn't like Charles I, but i would still have supported him because i hated Cromwell somewhat more...the man that banned Christmas/gambling/doing anything on a sunday/not going to church/theatre/fun in general... So that's where i stand...a bit radical but in a reactionary sort of way. Sylvester... You can tell i didn't vote for Mr Blair.

Who's William Brewster? Having just done a google search, William Brewster appears to have had something to do with the Mayflower if it's the same guy as on your coin, and all i can figure out is that 1) He must have been famous, 2) He was born in Nottinghamshire, 3) He's dead... And that's about it... Ah on second thoughts having just checked the search results again...would you believe it there's another William Brewster...(yes he's also dead) follow this link. (i've only glanced at it but it contains the words Brandon, and William Brewster)... I'm still none the wiser i'm afraid... http://www.brandon-heritage.co.uk/miscellaneous.html Sylvester.

That's just killed it Chris... You'd be lucky to get another post now! Sylvester.

Chris... The sixpence arrived in the post today. Thanks alot for it! Pretty nice coin despite all the poor things it's seen, i bet that coin could tell us a thing or two! I now have a stand in 1745L sixpence...thanks again. Sylvester.

Well Chris as i once read regarding the 1997 £2, and i suppose you could also do this with the 2p 'new pence' coins... Next time someone asks tell them you have a 'new pence' coin and you are willing to sell it to them for £20, the amount of 'believers' that think that the 'new pence' coins are worth a fortune will suddenly become sceptical once they realise that they are not getting something for nothing, and will not part with the £20 mark my words... Then again you also get so of the persistant types that if you offered to sell them one for £20, they'd offer you £30 for being so generous and insist that you take it. Some people are just born mugs... Sylvester.

The essay is not that good i'm afraid...and his achievements, well from what i've read he didn't have any...i feel he was misunderstood, and therefore despite all his faults i find i'd like to stick up for him (i like misunderstood monarchs, AEthelred II 978-1016, Harold II 1066, Stephen 1035-1054, John 1199-1216, Richard II 1377-1399, Henry VI 1422?-1460 & 1470-1471, Richard III 1483-1485, Henry VII 1485-1509, Mary Tudor 1553-1558, James II 1685-1688, George IV 1820-1830, William IV 1830-1837...and i think that's about it) but all the evidence is clearly against AEthelred...sadly Sylvester. All the monarchs above are seen in a bad light for so many different reasons...notice how Charles I is missing from that list, but he was an idiot, who asked for what he got, if you still refuse to compromise with Parliament when it's clear you've lost what do you expect to happen?

Excellent, looks like we are getting somewhere, i'll have a browse around for it...if i can find a copy, i'll keep my eye on it and nab it as soon as i am able to. Sylvester. Anyone interested in coins of AEthelred II? Because i have found what looks to be a really good book on it... Actually i'm using it for an essay on the 'achievements' of AEthelred's reign, it just so happens that there is alot of coin info in there too...not relevant to my essay however... Anyone interested just say so on here, and i'll put the details up for it...

From a numismatic point of view, the euro is a terrible thing. Kiss goodbye to all the variety, the end of interesting coins, as in coins that can actually change obverse and reverse, with the euro you can only change the reverse as if you changed the other then well it kinda defeats the purpose of trying to have all of them looking the same... Take the Irish euros...having seen pictures of them, if i remember rightly the obverse has the euro obverse, the reverse is a harp? Is it a harp on all of the denominations? Now look at the pre-euro Irish coins, harp on one side, and a different reverse for each coin on the other. If the UK joins the Euro, the choice will be either keep the elements of the UK on all the reverses, or keep the Queen, you don't really have room to keep both. You keep the queen because that's what i should imagine what people expect to happen, then say good bye to any varience between the denominations. Say goodbye to the Queen and you destroying a British tradition...but you might have more interesting coins...alright maybe not. Either way it's just replacing one set of junk uninspired coinage (which is what we've got now, except the designs change occasionally on both sides), with an inflexible even more uninspired set of junk...that changes less frequently. And it's also a blow from a national point of view, and from an economics point of view. The UK's economy is stronger than some countries on the euro, join it and our economy will be effected. There is also the concern of possible hyperinflation, if Germany goes down in a crisis for example, since France and places share the same currency they go down too...you can no longer just adjust the exchange rates between the two to help limit the impact. Also the euro is not flexible enough, if one country is doing really well and wants to revalue the currency they can't, likewise the opposite can happen. But it does mean you can buy things from Chris easier...so it does have some good points. Sylvester.

Well Eliza i'll wait and see what you find on the mintage figures front, if you do find anything then i'll be glad of a photocopy of the relevant bits... I've got my eye on one of those books, but my cash is tied up at the moment, Christmas shopping is pending and whether i'll have enough left over and all. Otherwise i'll have to wait till January. (i know they are not that expensive, but i'm on a tight budget until the new year) Sylvester.

Chris you're right, i forgot about the cartwheel stuff...steam presses indeed for these. Not sure about what was used prior to this, horses are a very likely possibility. Sylvester.

For one minting coins in such high relief nowdays at the speeds that are used in modern methods, i'd hate to see what'd happen to the die after a couple thousand... Minting was done by hand presses from 1663-1815 was it not? Then from 1816 steam powered machines took over... When i say hand operated presses, i do not mean hammered coins... Sylvester.

M. Pierre Blondeau was the guy that did all the milling in Charles II's reign. Before him of course there had been, Mestrelle (Bessie's reign) and Briot (Chopped Charlie's reign..sorry Charles I ). Mestrelle later got dismissed from the mint and some years later was hung for forgery. Sylvester.

[ASIDE]...George Bower was also responsibly for the 1689 half guinea, and some of the William and Mary Halfpenny and farthings. The coins he designed often had rather comical portraits... Sylvester.

It could indeed be that. It could also be a method for the mint to do random quality checks to make sure it's employees weren't making the coins substandard by nicking off with *surplus* metal...that should have been in the coins. [ASIDE]...Kinda like the old hammered silver coins, officials would haul a few out of circulation and test them for weight and finess, to make sure that the moneyer wasn't making a sneaky profit by producing substandard coins... [bACK TO FARTHINGS]...If you don't think that's plausible then, i'm sure i read somewhere about all the underhand things that went off later in W3's reign with the production of copper at the provincial mints. Many coins were often cast rather than minted as it saved money! And there were many foreigners employed that could not even spell the kings name, hence all those wonderful spelling mistakes of William, and of course the lack of design and detail on these coins and inferior workmanship. Sylvester.

Regarding the flan manufacturing in a word Chris, no. No it wasn't as uniform as it is today, if you look at the early stuff you'll notice that they are not totally round, or to put it another way the diameter around the coin is not consistent the whole way around. Try stacking a few lower grade half crowns on top of each other, or better yet some of the maundy stuff as it's smaller, and i should imagine rounding the smaller coins would be harder. You'll notice that a pile of early milled coins never look as good stacked as a pile of late milled coins, which are exactly the same size all way around, and about as round as round gets, (unless it's a fifty pence of course!) They also look better stacked because of the higher rims and lower relief... Therefore i suppose the might clip them for that reason...if they were overweight... Only other reason i could think of was to check the consistency of tin/copper purity, but they could do this by using the leftovers after they cut the blanks out of a rolled sheet. Sylvester.

Don't underestimate my mother! I did look where that got me... And about the coin, thank you Chris! That is very generous of you, and i will take good care of it...it will join the slightly bent 1696 sixpence that i aquired in a bag of scrap silver, currently in my good collection awaiting replacement with a better one, but i've got my eye on one!. I'll send you my snail mail address in a private email. Thanks again! Sylvester.

Sorry Chris...but i'm sure you'll pull me up on something so fair's fair! Sylvester.

Ah Eliza i presume you mean the use of the word English rather than British with regards to Mackay's book. The reason is that if it's from Henry VII then it would be English coins, as Henry VII through to Elizabeth I were monarchs of England only, Scotland had their own kings (and Queen, singular intended) prior to 1603. When Elizabeth died in 1603 her cousin James VI or Scotland inherited the throne of England and that's when it became Britain. However Scotland continued minting it's own coins until about Anne's reign? So they still would be English Coins up until about 1707. When the Act of Union took place, that's when the coins became British! (I think...) So English is more accurate than British in that sense. Sylvester. Eliza i would be very glad of photocopies, but l will check for the book first though...thanks!

Chris, thanks for making me the offer on the coin. The truth is i do need it...but, i am attempting to find as many of them in as higher grade as possible. The George II stuff should mostly be about EF- and upwards, (except for the rarer stuff like that 1746 Proof). I haven't come across any UNC ones yet though. Coins in the following grades are really what i'm looking for (but it takes me a while to save up for them)... *George II EF- or higher, *George I VF+ or higher (where possible, i would settle for a good VF though), *Anne VF+ or higher preferably AEF, *William III AEF+, *William and Mary i only need the 1693 (upside down 3) and 1694, AVF-VF+ is about the grade i could afford, roughly AVF on the '94 one. *James II AVF-GVF, *Charles II VF-VF+. (I really appreciate the workmanship of these coins and the higher the grade the more detail to appreciate!) But some coins may have to be ever so slightly lower depending on what's available, but no mounted coins, no holed coins, preferably no haymarked coins (but for some reason this is common on coins of this period, how does it happen exactly?), no counterstamped coins, and no creased or bent coins. As you can see i'm fussy about this particular denomination. Now if it had been a William III half guinea i would have settled for bent, creased or haymarked, (wouldn't have an ex mount though, or a cleaned coin). I bidded on one on Ebay, and i got thoroughly beaten, i gave up after £300, and that was a slightly bent example in about F, it went for about £400 in the end...and for a 1701 coin in that condition, some people have more money than brains, even i went too high and i probably would have broken the bank if i'd won it...so i'm glad i didn't, but i'm even gladder that i made someone else pay more for it. I suppose that's the consolation prize when you lose something you really wanted, to know that someone has paid over the odds for it, perhaps two and a half times of what it's actually worth. Still since i can't really afford to collect half guineas, i'll stick to sixpences. My parents think i am wasting my money (despite the fact that my father was a semi-serious coin collector himself...he still gets on at me [i think he was more of a stamp man...which is an hobby i never really took to, and quit 2 weeks into it]). My parents think £20 on a coin is scandalous, hence they don't know about most of my coin purchasing...if they'd found out i'd spent £225 on a James II half guinea they would have gone up the wall! I remember telling them i'd paid £70 for a 1750 EF+ sixpence (actually it was £200), and my mother went mad...talk about a lecture, good job i didn't tell her what i really paid, only reason why she found out i'd got it in the first place is because she had to sign for the parcel! Sylvester.

Florins were legal tender until 30th June 1993... Sylvester.

Some people would say i'm mad (and some indeed have said this), i just say i'm imaginative... Sylvester... Bringing Numismatics alive...

Well you never know she might have seen a picture of one! Grrr i didn't think about the date on the cheque book. I could just tell em it was an error, or perhaps, perhaps i could just redated it '84... Might work... might... Sylvester.