1949threepence

It was interesting, yes. Inevitably, collectors will think more and more in investment terms given the recent steep rise in coin values. Yes, interesting, but I couldn't help think of the three times previous we have "been here before" - once in the late 60s with all those "investment opportunities" involving mint-sealed bags of 1967 pennies etc, then in the mid-70s when inflation sent investors flocking towards alternative forms, and then again in the early 80s with that silver fiasco and all those auction highs for rare coins. I can't help feel that, like property prices, the "eBay phenomenon" (i.e. prices craze) won't last forever, and that it's always best to enjoy our collections, while at the same time trying to avoid paying top dollar during a rising market. Remember the long stagnation from the mid-80s to the late 90s? That's what worries me, assembling my bun collection at possibly the height of a coin bull market. Not that it dissuades me from buying ~ in the slightest. So it can't worry me that much

That has happened to me, Tom, and it was a coin I really wanted. It's easy to get distracted and forget all about it. Then you could kick yourself afterwards for being so stupid. What I do now, is to list the auction coins I'm interested in for the next week or so, together with the relevant times, and leave the list on the tabel by my PC. It's always in large font. I sometimes then set an alarm for about 15 minutes before the end of the auction, and always turn off my phone so I never get disturbed. It's astounding how the bloody thing rings at the most inconvenient times, whilst the rest of the day it's silent. If the end of an auction co-incides with work time, I arrange to swipe out and go home. I could swipe out and use the internet at work, but the connection is too slow to be reliable for last second manual bids.

Hmm, so the next time Man U are 1:1 at 90, and need a winner, they won't be able to give them 12 minutes injury time !!!

In my opinion prisons and longer sentences shold be for violent offenders like the two low lives in the OP. Non violent offences should be dealt with in the community.

LMAO. I was very sad to learn (especially having watched the old Captain as a kid) that "Master Bates" and "Seaman Staines" were just urban legends and never actually existed in any language edition of Pugwash. Although in football, it was no urban legend that Seaman was lobbed from 25 yards on occasions

lol at that Back to the OP ~ I believe there is also a football stadium called the "Wankdorf" !!!

I'd go for slate tiles as well. Much harder wearing and very easy to clean.

The main benefit is, and was, easier monetary calculations at every level. Politically, it was obviously seen as a primary pre-cursor for Common Market membership. I'm not sure that was a benefit.

It was interesting, yes. Inevitably, collectors will think more and more in investment terms given the recent steep rise in coin values.

Just listened to the programme in its entirety. Absolutely fascinating. Several things struck me. Firstly the broadcasting style of the day was slightly different to today ~ a tad more formal and patronising perhaps. The reference to a couple of actual individuals interviewed as "Mr & Mrs Average" would probably not go down well these days, as it might be perceived as slightly insulting. On the plus side the 1971 style was logically sequenced, easy to follow, with crystal clear voices and no hard to understand regional accents. Secondly, it was no surprise to hear that the switch went very smoothly in the end, making the build up look like slight overkill. I'm sure that the great majority of people would have had absolutely no problem with the conceptualisation of decimal currency, which obviously is much easier from a calculating point of view. Imagine the problems if the switch had been the other way round The inflation question was intriguing. Should they have gone for 10 shillings as the base unit, which would have meant 120 to 100, instead of 240 to 100 ? Was decimalisation responsible for 1970's inflation ? Edward Heath clearly thought it was, at least in part. Peter Jay put the blame on Heath and then Chancellor Barber, for massively increasing the money supply (quantitative easing, anyone ?), whilst I have always understood the primary reason to be the astronomic oil price hike in the Autumn of 1973. Always having been good at figures, I'd like to have seen that 1965 maths paper they were going on about, and had a bash at £sd calculations.

It's 8 + K, Dave. Freeman 89. J is the wide date 1876H.

I did do a bit of research on this, the concensus I got being that most people considered the garter to be part of the design rather than the legend. Since this bit wears so readily, if it was treated as part of the legend, there would be no coins (or at least the reverse of them) in Fine or Fair at all, the grading effectively dropping from VF straight through to Poor. I'm old school when it comes to grading Derek. It costs me money but I never get complaints or coins sent back due to overgrading. Even my grading seems very lax when you look at some of the graders from the old days at Spinks and their likes though! I can safely say that if Jim Brown at DNW saw this 1908 HC he would not give it more than Fine, if indeed it made it that high. I remember a Coin Monthly piece of advice (late 60s) given out to this very question of garter reverse halfcrowns. The questioner wanted to know if he could grade such items as 'Fine' if some garter letters were worn away. The answer given was that lower standards applied than to the main legend, but if more than a few letters were 'faint' it might be hard to award 'Fine'. How times have changed. Derek's book certainly shows the way, though we might all argue the 'fine points' to some extent. But judging by those pictures, I'd find it hard to justify not giving it an average 'VF' (though a long way from EF!). There's too much hair detail present - always an early casualty on Edw VII, and the reverse is pretty good apart from the high spots. I think grading standards have come down rather, but in one case I'm all in favour. 'Old school' EF said "wear so faint it is not detectable to the naked eye". Well, that argues that if it can not be seen without the aid of a strong glass, there shouldn't be a massive discrepancy between the prices for EF and UNC. But as we know, that differential can be MASSIVE - and it's no coincidence that it's opened up at the same time as EF has become much more 'noticeable' than strictly UNC. Who'd pay a massive difference in price for a virtually invisible difference in condition? I know I wouldn't, for one. Very interesting ~ maybe the garter halfcrown non legend reverse lettering, is even more vulnerable to early wear, than the pre 1881 bun penny convex shield. In which case, if you applied the aforesaid Jim Brown's exacting grading standards, such coins could rarely or never be mid grade. They'd pretty much go from EF straight down to fine or lower. Ah, I see this point has already been made. Just read it.

Thanks Accumulator ~ that is something I will really look forward to listening to Although I wonder if they meant the half crown, as the Crown was not a circulating coin in February 1971. Technically we didn't say goodbye to any of those 3 as florins and shillings remained legal tender, and commemorative Crown-size coins continued to get issued. Nor did we wave 'bye bye' to any coins on 15 February 1971 as that was D-Day 1 and the overlap period lasted until D-Day 2 (August 31?). And even then, the only things we couldn't spend any more were the penny and brass 3d. Yes, but Crowns weren't a circulating coin then, despite the commemorative issues. You most likely would never have received say, a Churchill Crown, in your change.

I'll tell you exactly what I think it is. 1967 pennies went on being minted at Tower Hill until 1970 I believe. I also think that Llantrisant (known locally as 'the hole with the mint') came on stream in what, 1969 or 1970 and until at least 1971 was only producing the vast quantity of bronze required for decimalisation. It therefore follows that Tower Hill was making everything else including the new 5, 10 and 50P coins. When the immediate rush had died down, the old mint would wind down and the workers at Tower Hill were faced with the choice of moving to South Wales or being made redundant. It is a time-honoured British tradition that workers thrown on the dole in such a way have a slightly cavalier approach to their work. They don't sabotage things exactly, but they certainly don't work quite as their employers would like. I think we can propose up all sorts of theories about proofs and trial strikings etc. but I am sure that what happened was that a disgruntled employee simply threw a 10P blank into the penny hopper and this coin is the result. Peckris has already said that 1967 pennies are renowned for the quantity of strange errors that occur (including his famous 'clunking' penny) which would tend to back up my theory. So, nothing complicated just a worker, soon to be made redundant, who had a few too many beers one lunch time and indulged in a very minor act of vandalism. Do I get 'Post of the Day' for that? Why not. It's as good a theory as any, Derek. I think I'd have been pretty pissed off given the choice of staying in London but redundant, or moving to Llantrisant ~ the hole with the mint. It probably was soon to be laid off workers, probably under minimal supervision, just messing about. 1967 though. At least there were plenty of jobs in those days.

Ah, now feeling a degree of embarrassment for that truly horrendous typo

Absolutely. Coins like that don't come along every day

I'd rate it an average of VF (obverse not quite there, reverse a bit better) I'd say just about VF as well. Note the rubbing to the letters on the reverse near 3 and 9 o' clock

ROFL! I'm struggling to see what's means to be so interesting about such a coin as that! and me......

Absolutely stunning. You really are getting your hands on some superb stock, Dave.

I agree, Peck. The actual price of copper might have a knock on effect with the bulk sale of low grade coins en masse, from any era. It would not explain the current craze for buns. However, apart from the very rare examples, like the 1869, 1875H, and to a lesser extent 1864 crosslet 4 and 1871, collectors are pushing strongly for the very high grades, which have a premium on them orders of magnitude greater than their pro rata value to lower grade examples would indicate. Maybe that's due to their increasing scarcity as more and more find their way into private collections and therefore permanently or semi permanently withdrawn from trade. You could argue that has always been the case, so maybe there is some other factor at work which we can only speculate on ~ or a combination of 2 factors only one of which we can readily indentify. That's a good point. I wonder if the same fever has extended to the commoner dates in high grade, i.e. 1887 - 1893 - anyone noticed? Not to the same extent, no. I found those dates much easier to obtain in high grade at a not too high a price. It seems to be from 1881 back, where the really steep prices begin. Interestingly, even the 1877, an UNC (40% lustre) example of which I bought last year for £75, has shot up, and buy it now instances of the same coin at the same grade, are being offered for over £200. That said, the 1882H, which I got UNC with about 80% lustre for £73 last year, was being offered for £325 in about the same grade recently. That coin has now gone, so I'm not sure what it went for in the end. It went for £325, I was the seller. You cannot confuse ebay auction prices with BIN prices. The auctions on there are so unpredictable that sellers sometimes end up giving stuff away. You also should not confuse ebay prices with market value. Some people only buy from coin dealers and are willing to pay a fair price, whilst others scour ebay in the hopes of building a collection on bargains. One thing you have to bear in mind with ebay is a sort of "peer pressure" or "blind leading the blind" when it comes to BIN prices. An example would be me listing the same 1882H penny today for £325. Mrs Miggins from the Pie Shop in old London Town finds one that looks the same in her dearly departed fathers sock drawer. She sells odds and ends on ebay and decides the coin is going the same way. She hasn't heard of Spink, Coin News, Coin dealers et al and doesn't know what it's worth. Rather than give it away she does the sensible thing and checks for like coins on ebay. She finds mine and decides hers is the same/better/worse condition and prices hers from mine. She doesn't know mine cost me £380 in auction with a halfpenny, nor does she know that mine is tip top Tommy, but I have now become the price setter for her and those that follow with the same coin. Look at something relatively common like 1927 proof sets. The price on ebay has gone nuts, the price in auction has gone nuts. Is it ebay sellers trying to buy in auction pushing the prices up, which in turn drives up the ebay/dealer selling price due to their having to pay more? Chicken and egg scenario. All that you say above, John, is spot on for the most part. However, it is still possible to net the odd real bargain, either as a BIN or at auction. Recently, I got a superb aUNC 1875 narrow date penny, really sharp strike, for just £53, probably because I took a chance on what was a really poor pic, which inhibited bids. In hand the coin is a beauty. I've also grabbed a number of bargains via BIN, probably through sellers who didn't appreciate the true value of the coin they were offering, combined with the fact that I got in before anyone else. Moreover, some non e bay dealers are still offering coins at bargain basement prices, and are either very ethical, or have failed to uprate the price of a coin which has been on sale maybe longer than it should, and still carries a 2009 price tag possibly. I got an UNC 1892 with about 75% lustre for just £35 last February (2010), from a private dealer. Even accunting for the rise since then, I still reckon that was a real bargain. Obviously, from all that is being said, many people are being blown out of the water at auctions, as silly money is exchanging hands. Will the bubble burst eventually ? If so, when ? Like the housing boom of last decade, nobody knows.

Hmmm, very unusual piece. Wonder how precisely it happened, and what happened to it after striking. I'd keep it as a curio.

The Midland is not a million miles from where I live, and I know they do the major fairs, quarterly. So I might well go to the next big one in March. "Closed shop" ? ~ hopefully, it will be worth attending.

I agree, Peck. The actual price of copper might have a knock on effect with the bulk sale of low grade coins en masse, from any era. It would not explain the current craze for buns. However, apart from the very rare examples, like the 1869, 1875H, and to a lesser extent 1864 crosslet 4 and 1871, collectors are pushing strongly for the very high grades, which have a premium on them orders of magnitude greater than their pro rata value to lower grade examples would indicate. Maybe that's due to their increasing scarcity as more and more find their way into private collections and therefore permanently or semi permanently withdrawn from trade. You could argue that has always been the case, so maybe there is some other factor at work which we can only speculate on ~ or a combination of 2 factors only one of which we can readily indentify. That's a good point. I wonder if the same fever has extended to the commoner dates in high grade, i.e. 1887 - 1893 - anyone noticed? Not to the same extent, no. I found those dates much easier to obtain in high grade at a not too high a price. It seems to be from 1881 back, where the really steep prices begin. Interestingly, even the 1877, an UNC (40% lustre) example of which I bought last year for £75, has shot up, and buy it now instances of the same coin at the same grade, are being offered for over £200. That said, the 1882H, which I got UNC with about 80% lustre for £73 last year, was being offered for £325 in about the same grade recently. That coin has now gone, so I'm not sure what it went for in the end.

There can be no doubt you are correct as of now, and hopefully will be going forward, John. With regard to your point about disposal of one part of a collection to bloster purchases for the denomination you really want, I did think about selling my shilling collection, but decided I was too fond of them

No pun intended over the bun, of course I agree, Peck. The actual price of copper might have a knock on effect with the bulk sale of low grade coins en masse, from any era. It would not explain the current craze for buns. However, apart from the very rare examples, like the 1869, 1875H, and to a lesser extent 1864 crosslet 4 and 1871, collectors are pushing strongly for the very high grades, which have a premium on them orders of magnitude greater than their pro rata value to lower grade examples would indicate. Maybe that's due to their increasing scarcity as more and more find their way into private collections and therefore permanently or semi permanently withdrawn from trade. You could argue that has always been the case, so maybe there is some other factor at work which we can only speculate on ~ or a combination of 2 factors only one of which we can readily indentify.