Sylvester

I don't care for mistrikes, but i do for 1988 £1 coins. Mintage of 1988 £1 coins is alot lower than any other date (except 1998/9 which were not minted for circulation but only in sets). The 1988 is the third 'rarest' £1 coin and the rarest in active circulation. It also in my eyes has the nicest design most designs are used twice, the 1988's was used just the once, why i don't know but it gives the 1988 a unique quality. Alot of the circulation issues are hoarded because they look 'different' and because collectors like me like having them around. I did once spend five of them together in one go. Now that's something that never happens. You never see more than one in change at any one time. I haven't seen any of them this year. I haven't recieved one in change since 2003.

Yep! The very same. 105E Delux i think! I dunno how bad, 'poor' condition they meant, but if they really did bash it around with that tree then it'd be about fit for scrap and not much else. It was under a sheet apparently and had been there a while in the car park, so i suspect rust would have set in under the wheel arches and along the bottom edges of the door. Angleboxes, more like rustboxes. Like all 60s cars.

Harry Potter might be able to defeat Lord Voldemort amongst others. But seemingly his powers are no good at saving flying cars. As someone's pinched the car used in the film! Apparently it wasn't even in drivable condition and thus must have been towed away or a recovery vehicle used, i can't see why anyone would want to pinch it? Firstly it's condition is reportedly very poor and secondly i wouldn't think selling it would be all that easy. I mean since the film came out everyone now refers to them as Harry Potter cars!

I never thought you were! Mind you should you feel like it though, i wouldn't be that bothered. Nothing much bothers me. Honestly though cleaned coins don't bother me all that much. Less of the ginger remarks though! (i know i started it...) I'm not gingerist though, far from it... too far from it if truth be known.

I haven't asked! I doubt they tell me anyhow... Of course what they don't know is i actually know the publisher! (Actually i think Mr Smith knows because we were talking about the catalogue, and i was explaining how much better it was!) ... you can pay me later

To be honest Peter i'm not bothered if they have been cleaned. Cleaned coins of this era aren't really a problem, it's a fact of life. Like freckles and gingers, the two go hand in hand. Sorry couldn't resist.

John Smith who runs the coin shop on the Shambles at York. I have also seen a few of them around elsewhere though. A stall in the York Antiques centre had a few, but they were the base metal coins.

On saturday i went one better. Domitian (AD 91-96) silver denarius minted in about 91/2. Depicting Minverva on the reverse. Domitian was also incidentally the last of Suetonious' Twelve Caesars and he was part of the Flavian dynasty that managed to successfully install themselves as Emperors after the catastrophic events of the AD 69 succession disputes following the downfall of Nero in 68. And today i went and bought this; Severus Alexander (222-235) denarius minted around 232 depicting Annona on the reverse. Severus Alexander was involved in the downfall of the raving nutcase Emperor Elagabalus in 222.

For over a year i've been edging closer to the abyss that is Ancient coins. And each time i edged dowards the sheer drop i never had the corage to take the plunge. Knowing that once i did so things might never quite be the same again. Then i finally jumped headlong into oblivion about a month ago. First came Septimus Severus (AD 193-211) and his rather bizarre beard. A silver denarius minted around 200/1, depicting Jupiter upon the reverse. Then last week i got this, Antoninus Pius (138-161) silver denarius minted around 152/3 depicting Pax on the reverse.

Noyce! Dunno if i need a 2006 edition though as i don't follow the modern stuff as a rule. But you will be pleased to note Chirs that i purchased the CC Roman Silver Coins book the other day. And i've now officially taken the plunge into Roman coinage, to supplement my medieval.

That one doesn't have Mary's portrait on it though!

I still don't get why they withdrew that coin. The reverse was way different to the half sovereign. If it really was due to confusion then how did the shilling manage to survive? Victorian shield back sovereigns were being issued concurrently with St. George right up to 1887, so enter the jubilee head people might have though they had St George and a shield reverse again, albeit a different one! Mind boggling stuff.

We never learned anything about the Genitive or Accusative cases in English. In fact i didn't think English actually had them. Don't remember them in French either, i seem to remember the first time i ever came across these terms was at the age of 16 when doing German at school. And we certainly never declined and congugated knowingly. The terminology was never taught to us. Which i think was a bad move. I only learned that stuff proper when i started trying to learn latin (self taught). I'm on my fifth attempt now in 7 years. It's very difficult. The grammar terms lose me far too much. Gets too complex. And this is beginners? I found the dunce's guide to it though and it's helping alot more. I wonder if they do an idiot's guide to it? Hopefully i can enrol for Archaeology with beginner's latin next year. I will learn this blasted language if it takes me a life time to get beyond simple sentences to ones that include atque.

I have to same feeling towards post-1399 coins that don't fall into the 1663-1799 period. I find decimal a little more alluring than Elizabeth II predecimal though, never rated the Gillick much.

Don't forget Oli i had a comprehensive school education. We focused on themes (and i never did Romea and Juliet anyhow), we never did grammar or explaining what archaic words meant. It wasn't until about four years ago that i knew what heretofore meant. The teacher had to explain it to me in great depths because i didn't have a clue. Here to fore, sounds like it's here right now. I heard no previously anywhere in that word. Definately no afore. Other words i dislike, 'ere' (before), and thou. What's wrong with 'you' and 'before'? 'immediately preceeding' sounds much better more technical. More scientific. I think my problem with literature and heaven forbid poetry (and why ididn't get top grade in history) is because i see things as either right or wrong. It either is or it isn't, it's black or it's white... ambiguity really doesn't feature much. If it's provable through empirical means then it's correct. Maths i liked, but i was crap at it. But the theory behind it was good. Same with grammar, it's got concrete rules... i like rules. Pity poetry doesn't have rules and a guide to understanding it definitively.

Shakespeare was so complicated i find. It took me ages trying to translate everything he said to actually enjoy what he was on about. Don't get me started on Chaucer he was even worse he totally lost me, hook, line and sink. I find modern literature to be much better crafted anyhow. It's probably the only time when i would back modern over medieval. Give me Stephen King or Terry Pratchett any day of the week. If you haven't read Good Omens i heartily recommend it. A philiosophical book written with twists of humour about Armageddon and some angels that aren't keen on implementing it. The ineffable nature of God being a key theme. Truth be told though i never liked English at school. I enjoyed it at college though when we were doing stuff like language acqusition, accents, dialects, mutual divergence/convergence, occupational discourses, a spot of simple grammar. Oh and my favourite gender theories in language. Etymology was good too. We covered the termination of v/u interchangability and the dropping of the medial s. This is the English i like, if i must do English. Story writing was my favourite though. As you can tell i was a language student through and through, literature i was either indifferent to or i abhorred. Although i never really liked English, chemical sciences was my buzz. Nuclear physics! Oh baby... and space... i'd give anything to be studying those again. I regret doing history sometimes.

As much as i hate to admit it, i still don't get why 'where for art thou Romeo' means why are you Romeo? Maybe i'm missing something fundamental here. The only Shakespeare play i ever liked was Merchant of Venice, i've read that one three times. Midsummer's Night Dream was dire. I hated that so much it was unbelievable. My favourite author though has to be Terry Pratchett, sarcasm... love it. I also like Robert Louis Stevenson too. And Arthur Conan Doyle! Now he was one hell of a writer i loved reading his stuff. As for Tolkein well i loved his imaginative style but i found him a little long winded, although i did like his Homeric style. Ah the Iliad, now there is a book!

And that's why i don't get pedantic! Someone will pull you up Geoff. My typing is my weakness. Must have caught the 'c' twice there. (I never re-read what i've typed anyhow!) I hate Shakespeare anyhow. England's greatest writer? Rubbish... England's greatest plageriser. Charles Dickens is probably a much better writer all round.

Britain is returning to a class based society i believe, which is probably a bad thing. Chav class, goth class, yuppie class... etc.

Wind, rewind, So shouldn't evolution be revolution? Watchout for the Chav revolution... coming to a high street near you!

Ah the Auld Alliance lives on!

Wot u sayn' am n't ac'dem'c, uh [innit]? Still you can't help worring that the language is going down hill. If any of those spellings make it into the dictionary (and lets face it the word Chav is now in the dictionary) it will mean they are then officially recognised (be it either formal or informal), language could get very complicated if that 'txt spk' ever takes off in a more formal way. Accronyms are all the rage (and formal) and they are just as bad. I mean i won't stand in the way of an evolving language as long as evolving means it easier and more sensible and coherent, but i wouldn't call text speak any of those!

I have heard it said many times that Scots were tight fisted with the dosh... now i know!

Wot iz ths i c b4 me? R'meo, o r'meo where the f*k r u? Ah progress, alot to be said for progress.

I've always fancied one of those Mary portrait Testoons. Never seen one for sale though.