Rob

Thanks Paul. Was Francois Rude from the right period and location? It could be that Rude the Coyner was the correct spelling. I threw Ruud in as an Anglicised version of a foreign name to broaden the number of possibilities. If Rude is French, there is also the possibility that Queen Henrietta 'borrowed' him, being of French Royal blood. As for the van Loon book, my Dutch ability is zero, so unless there is a translated version, I'm b*****d. Rude the Coyner was mentioned as being at Hereford in October 1644, which by my reckoning was the same time as Gerard's troops returned from west Wales for the winter recess. I also think he was the person responsible for the initial SA coins and the Tower marked W coins together with halfcrown obverse C plus a number of reverses. Also the early W/SA shilling obv. B and the tower marked 6d. I also think he followed Rupert to Bristol in Sept. 1644, but was sent to Hereford later that month or in early October as Prince Rupert was still President of Wales at this point, and so responsible for all things in Wales and the Marches.

Does anyone have any literature which gives the names of any Dutch engravers in 1640 or thereabouts, or have knowledge of any names. We are talking in the middle of the 30 years war here, so the reference material might be about coins, or something military and related. They would be active in the protestant United Provinces, i.e the coastal regions. I'm trying to think laterally. The reference to coins struck at Hereford in the Civil War mention a 'Rude the Coyner', but given Prince Rupert came from Holland to support Charles I, it is possible that he brought a Dutch mint worker or two with him. Ruud is a Dutch name, and the style of the early W/SA coins is odd in that you get two letters separated by colons. In other words, exactly the same as seen on continental issues such as contemporary ducats etc. when there a number of titles to incorporate. It is clear from this layout that the engraver wasn't completely au fait with this country's obverse legends. Ta.

A trial would be from a run of strikings that were used to test out a particular feature. An example of this would be my trial halfcrown struck from halfpenny dies. See below. However, during a conversation with Graham Dyer a few months ago, I learned that they were not interested in either halfpennies or halfcrowns, but rather the metal (steel). Therefore, trials can be unrelated to the die size or design. An alternative would be a striking of a single die in lead or tin in order to assess the state of work in progress, an example of which would be the Moore penny uniface below. This is probably made from the P2135 obverse die, which developed a major crack and would have been reworked. This die was not to be found when Shorthouse visited Moore's workshop following his demise, but combined with the known die breaks and a hint of undertype on this obverse, is likely to mean this was the same piece of diestock. It is struck in >90% tin, with the balance mostly lead. Anomalies could be things such as coins struck on the wrong blank, or the wrong coin struck on a particular blank depending on viewpoint.

Given the condition, nobody would pay over melt for it, so surely the best result would be to cut out the eBay middleman and scrap it. Fees on eBay must be more than the discount to spot offered in many places.

I like oddball things which are not usually investments, but bought for interest's sake. Acquisitions in the past couple years include an icon and some books.

Everybody else had one, as did the workplace, the pub, the TV schedule gave an approximation, the car probably had one, bedside alarm, church spires, bus and railway stations etc. I'm not saying there wasn't any means of telling the time, just that I didn't have to carry it around on my wrist because other alternatives were available - just as they are today. You have to remember that we used to walk and look around at our surroundings because there was no desperate need to glue your eyes to the mobile screen, to the exclusion of life around you.

Davies records die no. 37 as the highest with obverse 4, but that doesn't exclude higher numbers found at a later date.

Stopped wearing a watch in 1980 when the option was inadvertently shorting out HV electrics with me as the earthing rod, or living happily ever after.

The two obverses for 1867 are the I of VICT to bead and the other to a space. The 1868 is I to space. There are two reverses for 1867, one with a smaller and the other with a larger gap between the LLs. The smaller gap is up to die 18, the larger gap is up to die 37. This all based on Davies p.60

So should politicians

This is a good starting point. As you can see, the known examples whilst sometimes similarly grotty are nevertheless clearly different to your coin. The Brooker coin and description added for completion's sake, this now in NMW. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=273764 https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=269614 https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=159160

Tastes as bad here as it does there or anywhere else. I can however recommend the Coopers if you are in Adelaide.

And another 18th century book worth acquiring given the chance. The Pembroke plates (1746) acted as the illustrations for the Sotheby auction catalogue when the collection was sold in 1848. 100 copies were originally printed, but some of these will have been cut up or lost down the years. Chips and fragments are faithfully reproduced meaning it is possible to identify the less than perfect coins.

5 parts to go for in total, printed between 1762 and 1769. Silver coins 1762, Gold coins 1763, Copper coins 1766, Anglo-Gallic, Sterlings, EIC, West Indies, IOM, Gold & Silver Patterns 1769 and Jettons or Counters 1769. All in wonderful Olde Englifh.

The printed word is far more practical when it comes to flipping between multiple pages, and as a reference volume, that will be what happens most often. The book every time for me.

It's just a regular Tower 3a sixpence (S2813). The shape of the crown mark is not important as there were many punches of varying size covering the six silver denominations, not to mention the gold as well. Sold as a Dovey Furnace 6d? Yet another demonstration of the unfailing ability of people to identify only the rarest possible option. Despite the Tower 6ds occupying a full page in Spink's tome, there being no plume above the shield on the coin in question and virtually all priced in the low pounds (for this type £50 fine, £200 VF), the vendor remarkably manages to pick out the one priced at £1350 fine and £4500 VF, which although not illustrated, is described as similar to the shilling as is the 4d which is illustrated. With no example in John Hulett's collection nor Lord Stewartby's, and the number known can be counted on one hand, why anyone would think they have one is beyond me. Brooker had one, but if the vendor had taken the time to look, they might have noticed the bust is the wrong size, the crown mintmark is the wrong shape, there is no plume in front of the bust, there is a plume above the shield, which in any case is a different shape, size and has different garnishing. On the plus side, there IS a VI in the field behind the bust and the legend does start CAROLVS D G, but it all goes tits up at MAG. Never mind, hope springs eternal. FYI, yours is the sixpence equivalent of the shilling shown below, which similarly exists with mms. bell, crown and tun, i.e. it has the same basic constituents for layout and design features.

What price two leadership contests in the next year or two?

Thanks for the heads up. I've been looking for one of those telephone tokens for years.

If Parliament burns down then the country can get on with life. That's a win-win.

If he can have a medieval Saxon Scarborough siege piece, I want his Tardis which would unquestionably be authentic

Au contraire

FWIW, my wife expressed the opinion that we might be better off if she went back to Germany with me in tow. She thinks we would be better off getting out of the EU because the deal as it stands means this country gets screwed indefinitely. She also thinks Merkel could have helped in the past when the immigration issue was raised a few years ago and blames her in part for the mess we find ourselves in. Other musings include the backstop is an unacceptable imposition on this country and the deal must be rejected, May has to go, but anything that puts Corbyn in power would be an unmitigated disaster for the country.

Opinions must be freely voiced whether you agree with them or not. Suppression of free speech is not a good route to go down as it hardens views within the ranks of the constrained and creates a bunker mentality. It also pushes grievances into the long grass without resolving any issues and allows them to fester, rarely for the better. Taboo or politically incorrect subjects need to be discussed because there are some with genuinely strong feelings, and simply saying shut up doesn't make for the case against. Minds will never be changed by maintaining silence, only by interactive debate. You will always get ideological clamouring for suppression from extremists on the opposing side, but this rarely commands the support of the middle ground. So, everything's ok then, until it all blows up........

First, I applaud your appreciation of the splendid organ that is 'Private Eye'. That cover was worthy of inclusion in the 'Stuff that makes us laugh' thread. Custom unions are ok as a decision of equals pulling similar weight, but not for a country as an outsider with no say in their formulation. The EU is a mature customs union with policy dictated by the Commission and rubber stamped by the European Parliament. The EU dictates the rules of any participation in that union and is not going to consider doing something which dilutes their position to accommodate the aspirations of potential members. Clearly it is easier to reach an agreement with fewer constituent members, but that is not the situation in this case. We would unambiguously be rule takers. The problem with a customs union in this case is that it requires potential participants to sign up to all the other legislative baggage such as the freedom of movement, social legislation, state aid etc. that accompanies any joint intent to permit free trade. The EU would not change its own rules on a single point in the interest of a trade agreement. Now I'm not saying that all the baggage is necessarily wrong in principle, but as a country outside the decision making process, it is not in our interest to sign up to an agreement that requires religiously following rules set up by a body which (rightly) has no interest in satisfying the needs of a country over which it has no direct control.

The problem with the backstop is that it requires both sides to satisfy the criteria of no border whilst at the same time the EU insists that the UK is in a temporary customs union in order to protect its borders from unfair third state competition until it is possible to provide an alternative. This is likely to prove extremely difficult in its execution as it would require electronic scanning of lorries moving in either direction for the passage of conforming items, but any item that does not conform to agreed standards or is otherwise unregulated would need some method of customs inspection. i.e. Those two provisions are essentially mutually exclusive, so a prolonged and potentially open-ended customs union is not a fanciful distortion.