Rob

I think the agreement would be workable if there was a time limit. It is the unlimited and irrevokable call by the EU on our financial resources whilst curtailing any ability to even discuss trade agreements that effectively says you will never be allowed to leave. That pisses people off. Given that we are leaving the EUtopia (pardon the pun), surely in their view that should be sufficient punishment for having the temerity to vote leave.

Yep, because nobody in politics is prepared to bite the bullet demanded by the public in the referendum. Any contributions to a body over which you have no say is clearly a gross waste of public funds. The suggestion that the proposed agreement will safeguard jobs is just as deluded as the idea we can have anything we want. The EU can put pressure on national politicians to get firms to repatriate any jobs to shore up their domestic position as it would no longer be working against an EU member. The idea of us signing up to a perpetual transition period means we have no way of pursuing ANY strategy. This is a windfall of unprecedented scale for the EU - a competitor that pays you to tie its hands by agreeing a non-competition clause whilst getting nothing in return doesn't come along every day. For all those anxious to pooh-pooh Rees-Mogg's assertion that we would become a vassal state to the EU, I would suggest that a state which is not allowed to pursue it's own sovereign policies independent of the opposing party; where the latter is given additional rights to determine the movement of goods within former's sovereign territory, is quite categorically subservient to the master. We even pay for the privilege of being screwed, but that is much a case of as you were. Everything the EU does is related to their own Great Leap Forward, where the ultimate aim is their European superstate. That any UK politician should willingly sign up to bankrolling that ambition in perpetuity without requiring something in return beggars belief. 100 years from now we will still be unable to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, because the question of the Irish border has not been agreed. The EU can let this one run for as long as they want to get a no-strings financial windfall. Personally, I would prefer to have the flexibility to work myself out of a sticky position without legal restrictions, than be tied to the control of a foreign body that cares nothing for myself, this country or its people. Ultimately, charity begins at home.

I would prefer to see prices from a French catalogue, because Krause pricing is geared towards those paid for slabbed pieces - hence the numbers seen, which are frequently all over the place with some things listing at $200 in VF but only $20 in UNC. The absence of anything against both 1710 & 1713 suggests none have been submitted, which may or may not be an indication of relative rarity.

I always reduce the light levels to such that the camera decides it wants to use the flash, therefore the light level should be reasonably consistent. I don't even attempt to take pictures in natural light as they are always under-exposed. At least the current method gives a series of mostly similar exposures, even if every one is different. Best of a bad job, but at least it produces something to work with.

Should have planned 2 years ago for no deal; should not have agreed to no change on the Irish border (however desirable that might be); and definitely should not sign up to a transition period that can only be jointly terminated. If we are in a permanent state of transition, then we will be paying 10 billion + into the EU coffers year on year for no say. They have no reason to terminate a steady flow of funds as it is a free lunch for them. They only agree to things that move that support the Great March Forward, and if you make the wrong choice in a vote you have to go back and repeat the process until their desired result is obtained, after which the issue is determined to be decided in perpetuity. Our contributions will help that process immensely as they would come with no strings attached - a free lunch for them with no exit for us. Why would they not support an indefinite transition period?

It's probably just part of the greater development of language. People feel they have to use the latest buzzwords or phrases to be perceived as 'cool', whatever that means, or whatever the speaker perceives it to mean. The all pervasive use of acronyms was given a huge boost by texting and the need to keep the number of characters down. Today, that cost pressure is virtually non-existent, but you still find people using acronyms on the assumption that everybody will understand. Whilst it may work for the masses and popular culture, it is unhelpful for general communication. Rhetorical question, but why has the acronym 'lol' replaced the full stop as a punctuation mark?

I was asked what I thought about an Anne farthing at the last Midland fair. It was a wrongun. Whilst I can't remember the particular variety, it was the crudeness which was obvious. The proud relief on the hair and drapery was simply too mountainous.

In my case, colours are a lottery. The camera will do as it pleases. It's about as consistent as autofocus, which again seems to be a random setting. I suspect I'm not the only person with this issue.

It is the first symbol. Originally there was a symbol to designate when the coin was struck. This symbol is known as the mint mark, privy mark or initial mark and may be a cross, or something else. The mark changed following each pyx trial in medieval times, but prior to that the mark was almost always a cross.

I had that on my radar for the past 8 years, but not at that price. The other one isn't likely to make a return to market any time soon.

North, which you can see in Sylloge 39. Elmore-Jones, Doubleday, Sazama (a dozen or so sales through DNW), Stewartby, Delme-Radcliffe, Lockett. It depends how far back you want to go. Many named collections had a Plantagenet section, but only a few were devoted mainly to the period. There are plenty of more recent ones such as Robin Eaglen's, so it's more a case of when you want to stop. Most specialised collections will automatically include a number of obscure varieties - that's why they specialised.

I don't believe any ESC rarity values

1070 (526). Large shields, early harp.

It could be that Stacks are not filling in the boxes correctly because I usually get charged 5% by FEDEX, UPS and RM.

I'm afraid that's not going anywhere as it has settled in quite comfortably between the 1845 and 1853 copper proof. And I don't want the hassle of rearranging the trays.

It's the bronzed 1849 piece noted in footnote 2 on p.408 of Peck, where mention is also made of an 1850 changed from 1859. The original date of this one is unclear, though must be 1851-57 as it has dots on the shield.

What do you think?

The forum has been like the Marie Celeste of late - where is everybody? A Victoria copper halfpenny for consideration.

A gimmick.

Go along with the dodgy status. Aside from the fact that it has been scrubbed a bit, the giveaways are the straight lines defining the hair on the forehead and more obviously Hibernia's belly detail. Compare with a few to go through auction recently.

The edge on the 6/- token should be plain. When you say the 5/- token is milled, is it possible to post a picture? These are supposed to be either plain, or retain traces of the 8 reales edge which is a square/rectangular pattern. It shouldn't be a conventional milled edge, which ought to ring alarm bells. Taylor restrikes are plain edged.

Not going to open an unknown file, but surely the colour should be a giveaway. Upload the picture as a jpg and keep the file size to under 500kb, then we can have a look.

Do what? I see the original listing at £5K has been relisted at a far more reasonable £500. My original opinion remains unchanged.

If they got them from LMO or Westminster etc, they might have paid, and by extension think that they are worth £4K.

Maybe they were struggling to reconcile a good strike with a 1920 halfcrown. My hypothesis is that they looked at it, trying to find a fault such as a copy which would lead to rejection, but found none. As this clearly didn't match up to the splendid indifference of strike usually seen (and these accorded high grades), they gave it a low grade to cover their a**e. Fish out of water springs to mind.