Sylvester

Ha now there's the thing. When I first joined this forum I was 19... I'm now 26, I don't know quite where those years went mind but the strange thing is I now feel younger than I did back then!

Oh, but it has! The standing Britannia is a feature of the "Britannia' series of coins since the late 80s - check out Spink S4281 and S4500 for example. Whether it is as remarkable as the Edward florin would be the subject of a big debate here I'm sure, but I think it is an excellent design. One of the best of the recent designs. I had actually forgotten all about those (as you'd probably surmised ) I actually do really like the design but I don't class any of the Britannia serieses as real coins, so I tend to ignore that they exist. Same with the British trade dollars!

Or at least on a size of coin approximate to the original (where possible). Kinda screwed on the 50p though, nothing was heptagonal before that arrived. Now how about a reissue of the gold florin of Edward III on a £5 coin? You know i'd even buy one of those. Or a half noble on a bimet £2 coin.

Oh I'd love to see a reissue of the Edward VII florin, that was one design sadly cut short by Edward's death. All of his other designs had either been carried forward into Edward's reign from Victoria's (bronze, 3d, 6d & gold), or were carried forward into George V's reign (1/-, 2/6d albeit modified, and the new 6d a beautiful adaptation of the then current shilling design). Sadly the iconic florin was the only design that hadn't been done to death (like the dull wreath 6d) that was discontinued. Actually some modern virtual copies of old coins could be welcome, I always thought the 1989 sovereign issues were very well executed (pity they're not available in bog standard BU, since I don't like proof finish coins, always look a bit like tacky 'cheap bling' to me, especially gold proofs). I'd love to see the 1911 halfcrown reverse reused, a beautiful design, especially with the slightly concave field. Gothic florin £2 coin anyone? Una and the Lion cupro-nickel £5 coin? Britannia reverse 2p? Pistrucci's Geo IV farthing design on the 1p? Quarter guinea design on the 5p?

OMG, not a 1932 or a 1925 I hope?? Actually, it must have been 1992 (not 1991), I can pin point it to that year because I remember my grandfather had just moved house and it wasn't long after he started working in a junk yard. It was on a trip there that I acquired a 1918 florin from a box full of loose coins (it was full of hundreds of predecimal pennies and florins, shillings, 6ds, 3ds etc. that had all been found here there and everywhere). As for the one I spent I can't remember the date exactly but what I do know is that it was one of the post-27 design coins, I remember that well because it was the first one of that design i'd ever seen and I wanted it for my set! I did manage to nag my mother enough that she sent me back on with a Liz II florin hoping to get it swapped, the PO owner checked through the till but it had gone by the time i'd got back. I've always suspected they actually took it out and kept it themselves, I remember them commenting that they hadn't seen one for a long time. In 1993, however, when the florins were withdrawn I stockpiled a few quids worth of old florins, most were George VI, sadly none were silver.

Funny you should mention those, I used to have the 1995 and 1996 ones that I got from the Post Office when they were issued. I recently acquired another earlier one from a friend who recieved it in change, I think it was a 1994 one? I have spent at least two pre-1997 £2 coins, one (a dove one) was given to me in change in a shop in Huddersfield in 2003, for one purchase, however, they soon got it back because I saw something else I wanted to buy! The other one I spent was a Bank of England one, this must have been around 1998. So they do circulate, just not very often!

I'll definately bear it in mind, I've got to finish my BU small 10p date set first, including all minor varieties! Now that set is near impossible. There's some i'm types i'm convinced don't exist in BU any more or even EF. I actually think the £2 coins of all types/varieties is probably easier because they're more recent so still around in higher grades and more people collect these coins because they're simply more interesting.

I shouldn't laugh though, it'll probably come to that. I'll swap you my Clement Atlee for your Douglas Hurd!

If you do decide to break the coin out Mat, ensure you're careful! On a US forum I was once advised that there are numerous ways to crack coins out. Some use all kinds of things from pliers to clip bits of, hammers, chisels, vises, none of which sound very safe. One of the safest methods I came across was wrap the slab up in a soft cloth all way around and then use G-Clamps and slowly apply pressure to the edges of the slab or if you prefer on the surface of the slab in the label area, anywhere as far away from the coin as possible. You can just use one clamp. Just turn careful until you hear it crack. Unwrap and inspect the slab, if it needs a little more persuasion, re-wrap in cloth and apply a little more pressure, or perhaps from a different direction (depending upon how it has cracked). I've cracked two coins out using this method, a valueless Lincoln cent (as a test), followed by a decent grade fairly scare gold 2-ducat piece from the 1780s, nothing like pressure, but both came out totally fine. It just takes patience and nerve. Another method is to wrap it in cloth/rags and hit one of the long edges with a hammer. I'm not keen on this method though as it's harder to regulate the pressure, hit it too hard and you could damage the coin.

Anyone who has been on this forum for several years may remember all too well my views on slabbing. I have to confess to having moderated my ideas somewhat substantially since then. There was a time when I was anti-slabbing, and with good reason too. I have always enjoyed handling the coins I own, looking at them from all aspects, obverse, reverse and edges. Something that slabs hinder, particularly the edges. I have a strong passion for early milled and hammered coins and with hammered, as Geordie rightly points out, why would you want them slabbed? To me it's kind of like going to a museum and looking at coins behind glass. So that was my pre-2008 stance. However, in recent years I've mellowed somewhat on slabs, particularly considering my collecting fields have shifted slightly (although I was dealing with US coins long before my views changed). To me it's not so much the guarantee that the coin is genuine (because i'm sure we're all aware of instances where TPGs have been fooled and have slabbed fakes, or worse still fake slabs!) For me the slab really comes into its own on three grounds. 1. It offers the coin more protection from the environment (although not infallible). 2. Photographic evidence of the coin and proof that you own in. But for me the most important 3. It prevents mishandling of coins. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard collectors and dealers complain about the classic, "I found my late relative's coins, but they were dirty so I gave them a quick clean before I brought them here for valuing, how much are they worth?" Anything that stops coins, that were once well loved, from being completely ruined by a totally uninformed heir has to be a good move in my book. Frankly, I have little sympathy for the heirs losing out here, for me it's the fact that some coins have survived so well for so many years and could be eagerly sought after and enjoyed by real collectors but are totally ruined in a matter of minutes. Imagine what could have been a darkly toned UNC Bun Head penny presented to you freshly polished with brasso. It'd break the heart.

I wish I knew more about sovereigns to shed light on this, looks like i'm going to have to get gemmed up a bit here! Regardless of what type it is, it's still a damn fine looking coin! I like Jubilee issues, especially the gold.

I often thought of putting together a set of £2 back in around 1999, but it never got off the ground (not helped by the fact that I really disliked the Rugby one) and then I lost heart completely when the commems came every year. There's just too many of them and too much variety when you start taking into account minor varities as well. I do sometimes consider a date run of technology ones though, it's definately (for me) the best £2 coin design, simply because the design, so simple but so clever, so much meaning locked within. I've always admired that.

I remember near the end, around 1991 or so I was sent to the shop with a George V Florin to purchase a bottle of milk (despite my protests that I didn't actually want to spend this), my mother won the argument and it was spent.

Never say never Scott. With the way inflation is going what is 50p worth these days? I certainly don't think of it as a high denomination coin any more, you'd struggle to buy a chocolate bar with a single 50p these days! Even a £5 note doesn't go very far now when you go shopping. Anyway as with the State quarter program they could roll it out over a long period. One or two counties per month, remaining 50ps needed could be made up with the standard issue. Technically they're already doing this every year with 50p and £2 coin already, most years sees 2 or 3 designs (one/two commem plus the standard design) for each coin. Personally I miss the good old days when commems didn't really exist, the only time you got a £5 or something like that was during either a monarch change or a design change (every 20 or 30 years). Back then commems actually were special, the rot set in around 1927 when the wreath crowns arrived minted merely to sell as gifts for Christmas. Then the awful 1935 commem, followed by 1951 and then down hill it went. The only commem I really like is the Gothic Crown, depending which reason for its striking you are inclined to believe.

Oh dear. 29 designs, shallow clip art reliefs, reminds me of the US State Quarter project, which was such a money spinner that it then went on to many other similar themed projects. It wouldn't surprise me if the Royal Mint decide to make a regular thing out of this, using the 50p for lots of different clip art designs every year. Just think; a design for every county, historic buildings/monuments, monarchs, Prime Ministers etc. Certainly a shrewd business move. Not so sure I like it though. Note how since the redesigns of 2008 the overse relief has also been greatly reduced. Won't be long until we're doing what the Netherlands do, a simple outline portrait.

Part exchange is a useful means of disposing of unwanted coins against coins you do want, but to be honest it rarely pays to do it that way, be prepared to make a loss on most. I've part exchanged many times and the only one I made a nice return on was a half guinea, I sold to a dealer for £375 having only bought it for £225 two years earlier. If only i'd sold it now, could have raked myself in a nice £800 profit, rather than £125!

Yeah I collect decimal 10ps but only the small ones! To be fair though this isn't really my main focus. I tend to strike a balance between Norman era coins and half guineas, although I have a fondness for 17th/18th century 6ds and sovereigns too.

I don't see how it really makes much difference to be honest, downgrading to nickel plated steel is still one better than aluminium. I suppose it doesn't really matter any more, after all (ignoring the vending machine industry) what are we actually losing? Cupro-Nickel, base metal rubbish anyhow. British money has been on one long downward spiral since 1920. Just my opinion, others may differ.

Well I've deleted some, but as I'm not a full moderator I only have access to parts of the forum, so i've removed what I can!

Hmm a difficult one, it depends what you mean as lesser coins? If you meant modern ,then I'm afraid I view most things since 1816 as modern but that's only because I spent a good time with earlier material, which have a different feel, they don't feel modern. If you stack a pile of shillings dating from 1816-1966 in a pile the only difference is the silver ones are generally lighter and the milling on the cupro-nickel ones is closer. About the florin, well I have a fondness for florins of all types but I wouldn't want to pay a lot for anything struck from 1920 onwards (when the silver was debased). Cupro-nickel coins generally aren't as attractive as their silver counterparts in my opinion, in one way simply from an aesthetic point of view, silver is softer and the details appear sharper. The other thing is I simply just like silver in and of itself, moreso than gold.

A very good question indeed and one I've had many answers to over the years! I been through most areas of British coinage at some time or other. Started out on shillings originally supplemented by brass threepences. However, Elizabeth II issues really didn't do a lot for me, neither did the whole Scottish/English having to get two of each date. So then I tried my hand at type sets (1887, 1893, 1901, 1912, 1937), which strangely morphed into collecting half sovereigns and shield reverse sovereigns by date instead (I still have a fondness for half sovereigns even now). Then I turned to hammered coins and sixpences. Initially the 6ds were from 1816-1967, but the long run, of what I consider dull wreath reverses, from 1831-1910 really put me off progressing far with that. I then switched to early milled sixpences (which I still adore), I did rather well with that set compared to most others i've tried in the past. However, I then got bit by the gold bug (again) and took to US gold, half guineas and hammered gold, which brought the sixpence collection to a stop. Then in 2005 I sold off everything to allow me to switch to Anglo-Saxon and Norman pennies, which after two years also stopped and were put into storage. I then took semi-retirement from collecting. These days I hardly buy coins any more, the one set I am actively working on (albeit part-time) is my date run of US Standing Liberty Quarters. Other than that I really don't find many post-1800 British coins that interesting any more. I still like the early milled coins and the early medieval coins though, and I purchase them as and when I feel inclined. Although I generally spend my money on other things.

They turn up on a reasonably regular basis. e.g. The last 3 St. James's sales had 2,4 & 4 pieces respectively. I didn't check the other houses, but it is reasonable to assume these were not the only pieces available in the past 15 months. I will admit I wasn't thinking auctions. I've just never seen dealers selling them ((shops, internet, coinlists or otherwise). They may well have been some at the York fair but I didn't come across any.

Talking of undervalued, i've always pondered about acquiring some Edward VI gold, the thing is i've never actually encountered any for sale. Me thinks it's rarer than catalogues might suggest.

Monarchs that are thought to be batting for the other side, or both; William II (Disputed, many primary sources simply had it in for him) Richard I Edward II (with Piers Gaveston, then Hugh Despenser) James I (many including the Duke of Buckingham) William III But of course much of it could simply be contemporaries that hated certain monarchs trying to villify them. For example if George IV hadn't been so overtly into the ladies then homosexuality could have been another complaint that was laid at his doorstep along with all his other faults. Whether true or not, it didn't really matter because it was all character assasination anyhow. It may be the case with the monarchs above. It could be that Edward II simply wasn't interested in warfare (unlike his father and son) and had close friendships with other men but none of them were sexual. To the observing medieval noble though, a king that doesn't like fighting and warfare? (Remember Edward I had left a rather large impression), well he must be a coward and womanly and well 1 + 1 and the answer will eventually lead you to 4.

In some respects beauty in one era is different to beauty in another. In Tudor times beauty was all ultra slim waists and white pale complexions (only peasants had tans, because tans meant you had been outside toiling in the fields all day). In the 1700s fashions had changed, fat was in, if you were fat it meant you were rich and everyone wanted to be seen to be rich! Then there was the whole wig thing, going from the darker wigs brought in by Louis XIV and Charles II to the powered white wigs of the 1700s. Of course in modern times things have changed and beautiful women these days 'have' to be thin (so the media keeps portraying them) and a tan goes a long way, whereas deathly pale is a no no. So Mary may well have been a stunner by late 17th century standards.