Peckris

I never did understand why they didn't call the album "Roger, Wilco .. not out". Perhaps too obvious?

I guess I'll take Madness's hint and take this to the Dog Pit from now on. However, as it relates to your post - yes, that's exactly how it was. De Gaulle applied the veto to all our efforts to join, and it was his death or retirement - rather than Churchill's - that was the removal of the stumbling block.

Before you write off all 'prog' as beyond the pale and unlistenable, try three tracks I've picked at random from my iTunes ...

Yes - I could have added Greenslade, also Henry Cow (though perhaps an acquired taste, like Gong!). I could also have mentioned Rush, but they don't float my boat. I detest ELP which is why I didn't mention them - I'd call them 'keyboard metal' rather than prog, especially as they do a lot of classical 'interpretation'; The Nice were better IMO, especially their version of West Side Story's 'America'. These days you have Porcupine Tree, Dream Theatre, Steve Wilson, Goldfrapp, Sid Arthur, Mercury Rev, Flaming Lips, Big Big Train, The Besnard Lakes, and many others .. and there have been plenty of other progressive artists over the years, such as Björk, Kate Bush, again too many to mention.

So much to choose from! My first love was Genesis and they still stand up. Yes I now find sterile apart from The Yes Album. An enduring love is the Canterbury Scene : Soft Machine, Kevin Ayers, Caravan, Robert Wyatt, Hatfield & The North. Of course you can't say Pink Floyd aren't prog, despite their mainstream status. Then there's King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Gong, and so many - but that's a start. No, I don't actually subscribe to the 'Paul is dead' conspiracy - there are more holes in it than a sieve! However, there are two puzzling unanswered questions : 1. What was Heather Mills' enigmatic remark about, knowing stuff about Paul that would put her life in danger if she revealed it? 2. Why did Paul wear a black rose when they descended that staircase in Magical Mystery Tour? (I do have my own theory about that one, and Paul's own explanation is absolute rubbish).

Very nice mix. Baroque, prog rock, and pop proto-prog. Of course, you know that's not the real Paul McCartney...?

I think you're being too harsh. That's at least AEF in my opinion. Remember, these 1787 shillings and sixpences weren't intended for general circulation so we don't often get to see genuinely circulated worn examples. Also remember that the more you enlarge a picture from its life size the more you will exaggerate any flaws. However I wouldn't argue too closely with your markups, though a few of your red circles might indicate die wear rather than coin wear. (Oo-er, 9999 posts. Getting on the edge of unwanted - and quite probably undeserved! - Legend status..)

The real giveaway (apart from the ridiculously oversized teeth and cartoonish appearance already noted) is that the portrait is the young pre-1874 one (possibly even from 1860-61 for those in the know?) which is quite impossible for an 1882. I'd suggest this isn't a forgery, more a replica not intended to fool the genuine collector.

Absolutely no way is that AUnc - the obverse could be classed EF but the reverse is more like VF. These are NOT RARE!! Hang about and you will see a nice one at a reasonable price.

Hmm. Is it just me, or can anyone else see an Owl and a (pussy) Cat in her name? I did have to use some oil, but perhaps you can just make out the Cat sitting on the Owl's head there. However, I haven't yet been able to see the beautiful pea green boat..

Thanks, Declan.

Just pass the ready rub

Yes, an embarrassment, a living endorsement

You're an embarrassment.

Hi Madness, Welcome to the forums . Trying to answer your questions as best I can: In relation to the 1787 shilling, you don't really need to worry about weak strikes. It was a limited edition strike using a revolutionary new method - compared to standard early milled - made available (at the time) only to BAnk customers. This is why so many exist in high grade; in fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen a worn one? Evidence of cleaning / dipping is either obvious, or it's more subtle and you would need to see the coin in hand, or else post good pictures here No, not personally. With or without semée of hearts makes little difference to me (I think my shilling is one type, my sixpence the other?) Yes There are members of this forum who will give you excellent advice on good sellers.

It's simply an exercise in tying you to them for a guaranteed 12 months. "12 times a lower price" is still considerably more than if you were to change supplier next month. They're simply buying your loyalty and guaranteeing a fixed income. It's the same principle as building societies offering a higher interest rate for a longer term bond : they can afford to pay out more knowing they have your money for a longer period. Whether or not you personally would ever have considered changing supplier or moving your money isn't a fact that accountants take into consideration.

That's Peter Nichols - possibly the best known of the modern era cabinet makers?

France did deserve to win, no question, but there is absolutely no way they should have gone in 2-1 up at half time : the free kick that led to the own goal was a joke - the Croatian player's hand lightly brushed the French player's torso - and the penalty should not have been awarded either - if there was any doubt after VAR (and there was plenty) then he should have stuck to his original decision, i.e. "umpire's call". England would have been hammered by that French team. How do you cope with Mbappé, and Pogba on song? (Let's hope that Mbappé fails to be signed by Man Utd.)

And if you're not like Trump (which applies to all of us? ) , i.e. you have at least minimum concern about the environment, check that your cabinet uses either recycled or sustainably sourced mahogany.

Wrong. They failed but not "as" they always do. They normally fail without playing creative enterprising skillful football. They made a lot of friends this time round, and got further than they usually do. They simply didn't look like any England side of recent years, not even Glenn Hoddle's 1998 side. Aren't you just being a bit cynical?

Define 'quality'? I believe Sweden may be ranked higher than England. And Colombia aren't pushovers either. I actually thought England played very well - a lot of one-touch play which found the man, creativity and pace going forward, a good goalie, and a very reasonable defence. The biggest drawback was their inability to convert chances into goals. As for Croatia, they put out Argentina - Aguero, Messi, di Maria, Higuain, Mascherano, and all - so can't be considered lightly. As it is, England could have beaten them - indeed were looking likely to in the first half - if they'd put away a couple of chances; Croatia snaffled theirs and in the end 2-1 was fair enough, though it could easily have been 2-1 the other way, such is football. We would most likely have lost to France had we made it to the Final.

Yes - the one single criticism I have of this England team is that they create lots of chances but put too few of them away.

Unfortunately one thing you've omitted - and this is important - is how poorly the 'big' teams did: Germany, Spain, and Argentina especially, and even Brazil. So before saying how easy it was for England (and yes, comparatively it was), there were so-called 'better' teams that did far worse.

The 1926ME (standard issue) penny is the only Modified Effigy mule. The 1925ME halfpenny came with a modified reverse, as did the 1926 farthing. The 1926ME silver is always paired with the older pre-ME reverse, but they are not considered mules as there was a whole new set of reverses in the pipeline, which were issued (mostly just as proofs) in 1927. The questions that have to be asked about the 1926 penny issue are: 1. Why was it such a small issue - 4m - after 3 years with no pennies at all, and a big issue planned with redesigned obverse and reverse for 1927? 2. Why are most 1926 pennies of the older type, with the ME mule appearing at the end of its run? My theory accounts for both questions, but will have to remain theoretical in the absence of Mint documentation.