1949threepence

Yes, that's a really good way of putting it. I actually very much like them, and already have an R96 & R98. Looking for an R97, and also, eventually, a few of the 1797 restrikes. Of course the first ones weren't produced until about 1862 (according to Peck), and continued for many years henceforth. So much of Taylor's work could never have been presented as fake currency anyway, as that type would already have been demonetised. Even so, as Rob says, there was never any intention to deceive, and everything was done "up front" as it were. Boulton had a great imagination, and some of his productions, especially around 1805, are truly unique.

Very popular are the quasi fake Taylor restrikes. When the SOHO Mint was closed in 1848, and whether by default or design, Birmingham die sinker W.J.Taylor purchased some genuine SOHO coin dies along with scrap metal, and proceeded to mint his own. He was relatively successful at it, as he had a number of orders, and many of these re-strikes are still available today. Although often lightly spotted because the dies were rusted, some are actually very attractive looking, such as the 1806 and 1807 (R97 and R98) restrike pennies. Supposedly bronzed copper, the bronzing seems a bit thin, and the result is actually a very pleasing dark golden tone in many cases.

Ingram is offering one with a "cleverly altered date" (looks clumsy and botched to me), for an overpriced £325 - link

In addition to the great remarks already made, there's one or two more tremendous pluses as far as coins are concerned. Once you have any coin, it's yours for life if you want it to be. You can look at it whenever you want, appreciating it, and maybe contemplating its history - what pockets, purses, tills or collections it may have been in. Same with all the coins you've got. Once in your ownership, they will never cause you any hassle, annoyance or grief and can only ever enhance your relaxed moments.

Yes, that really would be interesting to see.

So what motivates you to collect?

Keep it as part of the the rest of your collection at home. There are numerous unique and virtually uncrackable hiding places for items as small as a coin, which something so iconic as a 1933 penny, could be secreted in. But nevertheless still readily accessible for the owner who has sole knowledge of its secure location. It's not like the security options available for a rare painting.

Although I appreciate that it's very much more immediate and difficult for those on prepayment meters. Fortunately there are "warm banks" that people can use.

Is it somewhere in Poland, Ian? Never been there, but a few years, 2017 I think, someone I know did, and showed me pics on his phone of the trip - one of which I seem to remember, was remarkably similar to the one above. Tribute to pedestrians or some such? It is cold, but this is nothing compared to December 2010, which, with a sub freezing mean, was the coldest December since 1890. This one isn't yet in the same class. Just a bit nippy. What makes it different, of course, is the cost of energy. Personally I'd advise anybody to not go cold. There will be so many, that arrangements will have to be made for them.

I can see you are having difficulty psychologically processing the fact that most people favour the householder in these cases, and not the criminal. But even if it's not as high as 85% you can rest assured it will be a majority. Anyway, we've done this topic to death, so I'll let you have the last word (or three thousand - sorry, sorry.)

I watched the summing up which can now be shown televised. The maximum is 3 years imprisonment, and the minimum 6 months. We heard a lot of mitigating factors, and no reference to the fact that she absconded the country in such a cowardly way. Obviously any sentence is in absentia. I think it's very odd you use the word "sadly" in highlighting the fact that she was not automatically covered by diplomatic immunity in the same way as her husband.

Euphemism for "it's really not verdigris, just your imagination".

Again - same seller as before - this seems to be a great offer. But do I detect verd by the second N of Britannia? link

Anne Saccolas caused a death. Adam White didn't. Both were driving improperly and neither had intent to kill, but she gets off, and he gets a 2 year sentence inside. Sorry. but however you argue the law, that is not right.

No, they did - again you're victim blaming. It's the equivalent of saying a woman wearing revealing clothes was "asking for it", if she's raped. If they hadn't deliberately set out to commit a crime, the subsequent events, whatever their rights or wrongs, would never have happened. I can't see how you don't get that as it's basic common logic - and informs why I say you are on the side of the criminals as you place every piece of blame on White and appear to absolve the criminals of all responsibility.

Given that every single one of your posts has been to decry what White did, and offer no real understanding of how householders feel in these situations, I find that extremely difficult to accept. But whatever.

The post I made which you responded to was talking about right and left politics, not this case.

I think if your property is attacked/invaded, you are going to feel a range of emotions which are quite reasonable. The cold logic of the law does not sit comfortably with natural human emotion, which is why these type of cases cause so much angst. The actions in this case led to a genuine accident, not a deliberate intention to kill or injure - do you get that, or are you so much on the side of the criminals in this case, that you are subconciously blocking it out?

I agree, but it in no way negates the point I made. Just offers a theoretical viewpoint as to why it occurs. The second unemboldened part of you post drifts off into talking about the freedom of a homeowner to commit "murder", which nobody has suggested and which is not relevant to the post you were replying to.

To conflate that with a deliberate intention to cause injury or death is incorrect. As though he set out thinking "I'm going to do those two in", which is totally erroneous. You shouldn't make things up and repeat as though it's a hard fact The law takes account of instinctual actions made in the belief that they are the right thing to do - already enshrined in legislation.

Not sure what direct or even indirect relevance that has to the nasty personal insults dished out by the left to anybody who questions their mantra. My point was in response to Peckris's about the term "bleeding heart liberal" being a "right wing invention".

No they didn't. He was convicted of dangerous driving, not a deliberate intention to cause injury or death.

I'm not talking about newspapers. Even a high ranking member of the Labour Party, Front bencher Angela Rayner, referred to "Tory Scum" in a meeting where she didn't realise it was being recorded. What do you mean "experiment of human division" as though some great mind is behind dishing out the playground insults? Explain with hard evidence to support your assertion.

Why do you keep saying that Adam White intended to cause injury or death, when the way that incident ended, was also an accident? SOURCE