1949threepence

As in, yes, to answer your question, I'm physically capable of passing the salt. If you actually want me to do so, you have to say the magic word.

Oooh get you

Looks genuine to me. Can't see anything about it which would arouse suspicion. The gunge on the obverse is typical of the sort of detritus you see on coins of that age.

Thing is though, Paddy, it's often very well educated people who are using the word in that way - Doctors, solicitors etc.

I've noticed over the last 4 or 5 years, that more and more people are prefacing replies to questions with the word "So", whereas traditionally, it's always been "Well". This was really brought home to me recently when we had a talk at work from someone, and in the Q & A afterwards she used "So" to preface every reply to a question - but conversely, when I listened to an online recording of a similar briefing from the same individual in 2013, she prefaced every reply with "well" or some other word. So it's clearly a deliberate change. Anybody got any theories as to where this has suddenly sprung up from, and why? Also, what do you use? I tend to use "well" as it's what I was brought up with. I do use "so", but as a starter to a topic, rather than a reply to a question, as in "So anyway, I did my shopping this morning, and then had a nice dinner". Maybe many haven't even noticed this, but as someone who is interested in the nuances of language, it's definitely caught my ear, since it started more widely in about 2015. I might start using "well so" as a reply to questions, as a sop to linguistic diversity - see if anybody comments on it !

Couldn't you keep them and let interested parties order the oddments they wanted, @Paddy ? You might actually make more money that way. Just a thought.

Sounds as though you got lucky. Have you still got it?

The April edition does make mention of an interesting article about pennies, upcoming in the May edition.

Can't beat a bit of fresh mackerel.

Sub fine. Between fair and fine IMO.

100% agreed. Great book for beginners, intermediate and advanced. Always a useful reference.

The 45 degree angle of the 4 in the date looks a bit odd. Not in a straight line.

Now got them all with the solitary exception of May 1967.

Indeed so. Cole added a chart of "expected" and "actual" numbers of a brass threepence sample collected. Although I'm not sure any 1946 or 1949 should be expected as they weren't ever issued for circulation here in the UK. Expected 1 = Scotland Expected 2 = Midlands Expected 3 = Southern England It would appear from previous surveys taken into account by Cole, that there was far less evidence of hoarding in Scotland.

Possible, but unlikely.

The RM definition of "valuables" . As far as old rare coins going by next day tracked delivery are concerned, the emboldened bits cover it.

I'm very pleased to say I managed to get another F176 for a very reasonable price. This time a CGS slabbed one. Not previously unknown, it's No 9 on Richard's rarest pennies site. I don't actually need two, and my other one is slightly better than this, so I might well put it up for possible bids at the June LCA. Although if anybody on here does happen to want it (who hasn't already got one), they've got first refusal.

Quite possibly. I imagine the period post D Day and beyond must have been quite a flat and depressing time as far as the modern market was concerned. All the prior enthusiasm was largely based on collecting from change in circulation, and that option was abruptly removed. With that said, there is another very interesting article from the October 1972 edition, on the subject of coin "wastage rates". This is something touched upon by Jerry @jelida earlier, and his opinion is vindicated by the research in this article. It starts on page 83, and is headed "A further analysis of coin surveys", by T.J.Cole B.A., B.Phil. Essentially, Cole concludes that there is a 2% per annum wastage rate on coins which have mintages exceeding 9 million, but this rises steeply for mintages below 9 million. So for example, if a coin had a mintage of say 20 million in 1945, by 1970, one would have expected the number of that cohort still extant, to be 12,069,286. I'm not sure I quite get the logic of why wastage rates due to pure loss (carelessness) should be any higher for mintages of below the arbitrary figure of 9 million. Cole seems to have established stats to support this contention, but I can't see why rates of loss should be any greater in absolute percentage terms if the mintage is lower.

Tried the Coin Monthly mags from that period. Have read them all up to the end of 1976, and found nothing on reclamation rates, save for what Court referred to in his first article.

Thought you might be going for that 1865 coroneted head penny, Blake. Did you?

and me, three or four times a week - usually oily fish like salmon, which is reputed to be good for you.

Absolutely.

Thanks Richard. I've been saving hard for this auction ever since it was first advertised, and still had to open a savings account. Been doing things round the house "on the cheap" recently, to economise, for that very reason. My F25. I definitely wanted this one, as F25's aren't that common anyway. Not many are sold, and only very rarely in grades above VF:-

Richard's must be penny acquisition of the year, but I'll just class my DNW wins as ordinary acquisitions of the week. The first is the F46, 1863 die No 3 under date. I've wanted a die No under date for a very long time. Didn't quite have enough dough for the die No 4 in the Waterbird collection. So when I saw this one, I just knew I had to have it. Well worth the cost:- (sorry, made a bit of a cock up uploading the images to start with)

Well done Richard. By a very long stretch the best F76 out there. Your photo is better than DNW's. The lighthouse looks a bit peculiar on theirs. The toning is superb, especially to the obverse. PS: you can get a new bathroom anytime, but an opportunity like this will NEVER arise again. Fact.