1949threepence

1/ Hmmm. not sure that really answers my question, except perhaps in a very non commital way. 2/ Your pricing policy is numerically obvious. It doesn't require further explanation or excuse.

Incidentally folks, I note that this coin originally went for £2,400 hammer at LCA in December 2021 - which would be £2,808 after buyer's premium - link Atlas are asking $14,500, which at today's exchange rate of $1.29 to £1.00 is £11,240 - link That's a 400.3% profit mark up - nice work. Emphasises the point I made the other day in relation to the 1797 gold penny mark up by Baldwin's over the DNW auction price, and that was only a modest 41% profit mark up. Buy at auction if you're at all interested.

Yes, but you're now in possession of the coin ready for sale. So can you confirm that its current appearance to the naked eye is the same as the one shown in the thread starter first post above (ie: blue)? Or not?

Yes, indeed. Over here in the UK we perhaps tend to be a bit more honest. For example, KB Coins may be expensive, but having now bought several coins from Keith, I can't help noticing that every coin I've bought from him looks way better in hand than on his pics.

A gross misrepresentation of the coin's true appearance. Has immediately made me very wary about buying anything from Atlas.

At which point we should allow the remainder of Ukraine to join NATO, along with Finland and Sweden. Taunt Putin with his bellicose, bullying words. I strongly suspect now that, apart from hypersonic missiles, which seem like the 21st century equivalent of the V2, the weaponry of the West is superior in every department to the Russians. Putin will be well aware of this. One thing that strikes me is that with very effective, long range and lightweight shoulder launched missiles, tanks are suddenly looking a bit dated and vulnerable as an effective battlefield weapon. Something a lot faster and more agile is needed.

and I asked you if you had a link, but you never gave one.......tut tut. ETA: still never mind, I've done a bit of detective work and found it myself. Turns out it was a facebook post by someone in the Communication Worker's Union, which in itself was "copied" - here IS a link. Doesn't say where it was copied from. I'll tenatively accept there was no anti government bias and that the source is a reliable one (ha ha)

The other odd thing was the lateral flow test. The second "covid" line doesn't just disappear overnight, it gradually fades over a period of about 7 days. I was testing myself daily to see whether or not I was fit to return for my two days a week in the office, or just continue working from home full time. In the end I went back after 4 weeks, even though I felt a lot better after about 10 days. I agree with you about Nicola Sturgeon. She obviously just forgot in the immediacy of the moment, and then remembered. Human error.

So why not just say "his wife" throughout? What was the point in "the woman he's sleeping with"? It's blindingly obvious he sleeps with her, so why mention it as though it has some special meaning? As for the rest, not interested, the world's moved on. There are massively more important things happening.

In the situation we were in at the time, mistakes were inevitable. If Labour had been in power there would have been other errors and cause for criticism - may not have been the same ones, but they would have cropped up for sure. The government's opponents will only highlight faults - that's their job. But if you look at everything in the round, they actually made a reasonable fist of getting us through what was always totally uncharted territory. You have my sympathy Jerry. I had it in January. The worst symptom was the horribly blocked nose, and throbbing head every time I stood up. Awful sensation. That plus a feeling of tiredness for a few days at the start, but not being able to sleep properly because of discomfort.

So just a phrase to somehow personally demean them both, after you'd already said "wife" in your first line. Thought so, but just wanted to check first.

Extra marital affair? Didn't know about that. Do you have a link?

Never knew that there were notes only printed one side, before. Interesting fact.

I wonder what will happen if they self identify as women, given that concessions are made in virtually every other arena, and for some weird reason. nobody seems to dare acknowledge they've still got a working penis and testicles? Sorry just playing devil's advocate.

Hmm, partygate. Again so many unanswered question, which for me is the elephant in the room. Chief question amongst which, is why the pictures and videos emerged suddenly about 18 months after the event? What the hell was all that about? Who took the pics and why did they hold onto them? Never EVER addressed by the media. Yet in any reasonable enquiry surely a very pertinent question. I assume not asked as we don't know who took them. Happy enough to cause trouble for others, but too cowardly to show their faces. Also, you can say what you like about Matt Hancock, but again, what in Christ's name was a CCTV video camera concealed inside a smoke alarm doing in his private office. Who put it there, and where was the live feed going? Who was monitoring it 24/7 to catch that little bit of snogging action amongst all the weeks months and years it was there? Again, who leaked it? This is highly relevant as it has deep security implications. Next time it could be a COBRA meeting with the feed going who knows where. Could be Keir Starmer's cabinet if he gets elected........ But of course it was just the tediously predictable "shock horror, dreadful vile Tory scum" circle jerk it usually is, with no attention paid to the deeper implications - notice it all went very quiet on that front. So we still have no idea what that camera was doing there.

As I understand the situation though, Sunak didn't withhold any information from parliament (unless you know different?). Consequently there has to be a reasonable limit on his moral/political/legal obligations. Or should he have kept reminding them to make sure it hadn't been forgotten? I'm not sure we any longer live in an age where logic and reason rule the day. We need intelligent, quality politicians and we're not going to get them if they are regularly subject to witch hunts of the most brutal kind. If you take Sunak as an example, he's already a very wealthy man. Many in his position would now think "sod it, I don't need this crap, I'm out". I do agree some reasonable degree of propriety is needed. No time for blatant, deliberate dishonesty. But if you are trying to carry out offices of state - often under difficult circumstances anyway - it doesn't help if you have a group of individuals on your back constantly and deliberately looking for the slightest thing to trip you up, and then exposing it to the world in an "outraged morals, shock horror" sort of way. It's like having a colleague at work who has made it their personal business to look at your work at every available opportunity in the hope they'll find something you've omitted/overlooked or done wrong, so they can then send an e mail to the entire office pointing out your errors and why you should get the sack for it - while neglecting to do their own job at the same time. By the way, this isn't a party political issue, as everybody, from whatever side, is human and makes unintentional mistakes. Account has to be made for that. If we punish the slightest thing with resignation expectations, there'll be nobody left, and nobody wanting to take their place.

OK, no problem. We must agree to disagree. Thanks for the debate.

Yet you gave Corbyn a free pass, whilst expecting different standards from Sunak. I realise it's hypothetical in Corbyn's case, but it's absolutely within the realms of possibility, and stranger things have happened. You can't expect the one to be morally responsible for the other's actions. Just as much as I couldn't be held to blame as a bad influence if my partner was caught shoplifting. I can hear them now - "it's that shifty bloke she's with. I always said his eyes were too close together"

No it's not absurd it's precisely the same principle. A partner is acting how they choose without regard to the political interests of their partner. You are operating under double standards and placing the burden of moral guilt on one, whilst giving a free pass to the other.

Yes. I do realise that Boris and Rishi have broken lockdown rules and got fined. But although it's irritating, I honestly don't feel it's a resigning issue. In the grand scheme of things it's very very low level stuff. As you say, the events in Ukraine are many orders of magnitude more important, and the PM is raising this country's profile in the world, for courage in standing up to a bully boy, without flinching.

It does - it has to. Nobody can be held legally or morally responsible for their partner's actions. Would you have expected Corbyn to resign as Labour party leader if his wife suddenly declared she was an arch Tory?

It just doesn't work like that, either legally or (often) in practice. Hence why so many have separate bank accounts and independently pursue separate careers. So if she had refused, anybody blaming him personally could and would be instantly accused of considering the little woman to be no more than a chattel, there to obey her husband's wishes.

It would be great if we could uncover some record of what went on at the time, just so as to clarify the situation. I looked at that link which was supplied recently, giving the Royal Mint annual reports from 1870 onwards. Sadly absolutely nothing about design and variety.

My own bet is that Heatons produced their own dies in 1882, just as they almost certainly did in 1874 and 1876. 1874 was a mixed London mint/Heaton mint year, yet reverse I was clearly unique to Heatons. Plus they were the first to use obverse 8 (Freemans 77 & 78), an obverse not used by the London mint in 1874. So did they produce this and London were sufficiently impressed with it to adopt it themselves from 1875 to 1879. Reverse K was also used solely by Heatons in 1876, and then only fleetingly by the London Mint in 1879. As you say though we'll never know for sure.

So let me ask you then - if she'd refused to give up her favourable tax status, would you have held him personally responsible?