Rob

Ditto to the first two sentences.

I agree. The Labour Government may have 'caused' the deficit by spending billions to bail out the banks, but the alternative would have been total economic collapse, worse even than Greece. Unfortunately I've read that the banks are back to some of their worst excesses, and haven't learned a thing it seems except how to make irresponsible profits. One thing that's certain is that only a small minority of people have the ability to remember more than a week or two ago. Sure the last government borrowed lots of money to bail out the banks, but that was because they had already p'd up any reserves against the wall buying votes with uncosted and unsustainable benefits. Banks making excessive profits now? Maybe, but that is a politicised statement. Payday loans are slated for their high rates of interest, but the admin costs of a £5 loan are no different to a £500 loan. Borrow £5 for a few days and it is little wonder that the APR is so large. Collecting the money is expensive too, but has to be done if the case is to be made for a business model. The economy is stumbling along on the back of consumer spending funded by borrowing now that banks aren't so restrictive in their lending. Why are people borrowing at the first opportunity when interest rates increases are a one way bet? Making a profit is not irresponsible. Shops that make a profit due to bumper sales are not considered irresponsible. Apple makes huge profits because it sells something the public wants. So do banks. They pander to the instant gratification mob, such as many purchasers of 'must have items'. Ed Balls is still shadow Chancellor, despite having been GB's right hand man for a significant period of the economic irresponsibility pursued by the last government and in which he presumably had a say. Milliband can't remember that far back, so carries on, regarding him as the right tool for the job. Right tool? Yes, yes or no depending on how you read it. Don't forget that as Chancellor, he would be responsible for wasting far more money than anyone else, whilst at the same time increasing the indebtedness of all the taxpayers in this country. Virtually no politician thinks beyond how to get elected next time round. Osborne, Balls, Cameron, Milliband, the names are irrelevant. Solve that one and the country might be in a better position.

That will be a mistake I believe, from creating this listing from other listings. Some of his other offerings also have the same 'additional information'. Ok, fair enough. I haven't the patience to trawl through ebay listings - in fact, this and the eBay laughs thread are just about the only time I bother viewing.

I'm sorry Rob I don't agree with that. The financial crisis got dramatically worse when the American government allowed Lehman Bros. to go to the wall. Allowing Northern Rock to go tits up would have put even greater pressure on the UK economy and would certainly have meant that the cost of bailing out the other miscreants would have increased exponentially, perhaps to the point that it became unviable. This would have then led to the UK going cap in hand to the IMF and conceivably to global economic meltdown. Don't forget it was a very close-run thing and the odd percentage point here or there could have tipped the whole thing over the edge.Somewhere along the line it is necessary for sufficient numbers of people to get hurt in order for the sytemic failures to be drummed home. Whether it was Northern Rock or some other institution is not material I feel we live in a society where nobody takes responsibility for their own actions. In the case of the banks it should also include borrowers who for some reason seem to think that the same economic conditions will prevail for the length of their mortgage. Why should they when economies have always been cyclical? Why were banks offering loans of over 100%, and why were people taking them out. If you don't have to put your own equity into a purchase, it isn't yours, you don't have a stake, so may not care? Would anyone here lend their own money on that basis? I think not. Couple that with the ridiculous arrangement we have now where you can bankrupt yourself and be completely rehabilitated after 12 months is crass and a recipe for default. Moral compasses need to be aligned on all fronts. If you can't afford it with some level of safety margin, don't borrow. People feel the need to get a new car (see where all the PPI payouts have been spent), why? I was 33 before I bought my first new car - but not before I had paid off my mortgage which I always viewed as a 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over me. Prior to that I lived on cheap second-hand vehicles. A car is a depreciating liability, not a status symbol.

If you do a lengthy scroll to the bottom of the page, the following information is provided for 'the medal'. If the florin has an inscribed edge as written, that is seriously naughty given there is no mention of it in the normal listing. I guess the inability to edit the original listing is just eBay's way of helping underhand behaviour. Additional information re the medal: Edge of the medal reads as follows: 05853 CPL A.E. HUNTER A.O.C

Welcome to the forum Lee. I started by collecting everythimg and anything I could lay my hands on when young, migrated to a collection of shillings and halfpennies when I finally found a focus, but after finding it difficult to fill some of the gaps in suitable grade plus the monotony of date runs, decided to go for maximum diversity within the British series from Celtic through to the modern day. By avoiding duplication of design wherever possible, it means that I have effectively become a type collector. However, old habits die hard, so I still have mini collections of George III pattern halfpennies and Freeman based halfpennies where I try to get an example of each Peck type and obverse/reverse examples respectively. Plus I often find myself buying an example of a reign/type that although strictly duplicating a design, is too attractive to ignore.

Northern Rock should have been allowed to go to the wall. For people to cry that their life savings were in danger should be a salutory lesson in the art of not putting all eggs in one basket. For those who put more than the compensation limit on deposit - you took a gamble and by rights should have lost.

The Nicholson images show a reasonable comparison between what is considered a specimen and that which is a proof. Nicholson 400 is a Heaton 'proof', but the fields are misty relative to the RM proofs because they are not so finely polished. Mine is definitely better than N's, but still not quite as good as the RM pieces.

But as nice as it is, it still falls a little bit short of say my 1867 bronzed and 1879 bronze proofs. Both are ex-Nicholson http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/nicholson_part5.html for comparison.

And the regular one.

Now that's a very interesting discussion. What do you make of this catalogue footnote to the sale of an 1874H penny by DNW in 2006: FootnotePeriodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished ‘specimen’ coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369). Truly genuine Heaton mint proofs of this period (cf. Adams lot 268 = SNC April 2005, 2467) are exceedingly rare; most of those so catalogued in the Freeman sale were in fact ‘specimens’ That's fascinating. Presumably though, such specimens had the H mintmark? Seeing as I have one of the coins in question, here is the halfpenny ex-Freeman and Terner collections. Unfortunately it's only a scan which reduces contrast a bit, so if I find time later tonight I will try to take a picture alongside both slightly earlier and slightly later RM proofs for comparison purposes. I don't think you need to make too much of some of the lot footnotes as they are often reiterating past footnotes, or even copying them verbatim. It is probably better that collectors make up their own mind. I can see the arguments for both sides, but compared with a regular currency piece that has proof-like fields, there is no comparison.

Good news/happy feely stories make for dull media. It ain't going to happen. Conflicting views brings surprises (good media), agreements mean you already know the news.

My son supports independence on the grounds that he often works out of Aberdeen, so it would boost his days out of the country for tax reasons.

The two catalogues above were available at the Midland on Sunday, the other one will be out shortly.

HVE is HUE. I can't think of an example prior to G2 (1740 halfpenny) where U is used to replace V.

I don't know about being frightened of Scottish indepemdence, but I sure am wary of having to adopt Scottish spelling.

North is a start, followed by the numerous articles in the BNJ and the various sylloges of the SCBI series. There are specialist works on small sections/mints/reigns etc such as Mossop's Lincoln work, Sadler's Ipswich mint volumes etc. As with all publications, no one reference gives all the answers. The list is very long indeed, so narrowing down the field of interest may help giving guidance.

I like NGC more too, but mainly for their greater propensity to mis-atttribute. Fewer potential profits are available for this reason in PCGS slabs. I concur with the idea of their acquiring a grading book or two. Cheap loupes from China might not go amiss either.

He could have been French given that the French version for Lincoln was Nicole. Alternatively, it should be borne in mind that the language of the nobility and court was Norman French following the conquest, so this may be normal for the period. Not a clue about HVE the individual though. In the Mass sylloge, Lincoln has 4 moneyers for Va, Alain, Andreu, Hue & Iohan. 4 moneyers for Vb, Andreu, Hue, Rauf & Tomas, and 2 moneyers for Vc, Andreu & Hue. These all write the signature NICOLE in all three classes.

They haven't attempted to… they just say 'mostly uncirculated'. While some are, many are most certainly not. so they got the 1967s right?

How did they manage to grade them in that case?

I suppose the question is, is it available? I have many images of desirable but unavailable coins.

They aren't popular because the design is fairly boring and monotonous across the entire series. However, for anyone wanting to assemble a complete coinage they are the ideal material. Cheap, relatively available despite the low mintages, and ultimately quite a satisfying venture for the collector.

As was said at the time of the farthing mule debate. It was a mule in PCGS' considered opinion..................................................precisely. Something other individuals and TPGs are incapable of making, apparently. A guarantee is a safeguard against their making a balls-up. They and other TPGs, of course, do not make them.