Peckris

Forget it - since posting this, it's gone back to normal!

When I returned to predecimal, I started going back through unread topics, first the current ones, then ones listed under "Earlier" going back in time (a few at a time). When I got back to a topic from mid January last year, I stopped, and have been using that as a marker for "I've read everything recent now". However, today I noticed something odd. Several topics not marked as 'unread' were sitting above that January 2017 topic. I decided to click through them so they disappeared, which they did only to be replaced by others. In fact there is a total of 7 topics there, all marked as "read", and even if I go into them, the total remains at 7, though they are different after I've clicked in to make them go away. They are all dated after January 2017, and are marked as "Read". The 'Unread content' filters show I'm only supposed to be seeing stuff I haven't read, so why are there 7 read topics sitting at the top of the "Earlier" list? What do I have to do to make them go away?

Here's my 1862 - normal 8 but clearly forked 6.

You do seem to be in a severe strop today. However, the problem with CGS is not that they are newer arrivals on the scene. It's the conflict of interest between a TPG company (who should be 100% neutral) and its sibling company, London Coins, who are in the business of selling coins many of which CGS have graded. There's a disparity in the coins which they have graded for sale, and those which have been sent to them by collectors. Add to that one very rude and uncaring female employee who is the 'front end' of their business and it all adds up to something which has caused negative experiences for forum members.

Hey, give him his due, he did reduce it from $425 to $170...

It may well be because the 1897 dot and the 1946 die flaw were both mentioned in a Coin Monthly article in 1968, i.e. when both pennies were still current and collectors looked out for them. That interest generated price guide listings though it did take a while for that to happen (in fact, I take personal credit for Spink listing the 1946, which wasn't until around 10 years ago.)

Definitely the original! Shame - I like jazz. YouTube? HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1936-Great-Britain-UK-United-Kingdom-Big-SILVER-FLORIN-Coin-King-George-V-i63001-/232497968670?hash=item3621f5761e

It all gets very complicated around the time of the WArs of the Roses. Richard II was succeeded by Henry IV and there is some dispute there. Henry V of Agincourt fame was 'legitimate' heir to Henry IV (if you accept the one, the latter follows). However the following heir Henry VI (also Lancastrian) was a very ineffectual ruler, and his throne was taken by the Yorkist side, with assistance from the very powerful Earl of Warwick. Warwick then changed sides and Henry VI became king again, only to be deposed once more by Edward IV who despite being a womaniser and marrying the commoner Elizabeth Woodville, was considered to be a strong and able ruler. When he died, the remaining Yorkists were determined not to let the throne fall into the hands of the Woodvilles, which was main reason for Richard III taking (or usurping) the throne. Then Margaret Beaufort saw an opportunity for her son Henry Tudor - whose claim to the throne was extremely weak - to invade, which led to Bosworth and the start of the Tudor dynasty. However most modern historians would probably agree that the Plantagenets - as rulers - ended at Bosworth, and Henry Tudor and his son disposed of as many Plantagenet heirs and families as they could.

Yeah, possibly dipped, and I wouldn't have it in my collection either. As for the wear, the reverse photo is not in focus so difficult to judge, but the obvious bits of the portrait - finer hair detail, ear, nose, chin, edge of bust - show virtually no signs of wear so I'd have to give minimum "EF for wear" on that alone.

You could try sending a PM to either Flopsy, Mopsy, or Cotton-tail - they should know the answer.

Not true, surely? One branch descended from the Black Prince, the other from his sibling, but they're all Plantagenets?

I left that one alone in the end. I'll look for one worthy of keeping company with my penny and farthing.

That one certainly tempts me. Sadly it's in a plastic coffin so that rules me out.

Ignore that! It's minimum EF but the downside are the scuff marks on the obverse. It doesn't look polished as Peter suggests, but it may well have been wiped quite hard with an unsuitable cloth.

The last Plantagenet ruler was Richard III. If, as is possible but not certain, he had the Princes disposed of, it was because the Plantagenets as a whole had a mighty distrust bordering on hatred, of the Woodvilles whom they regarded as ambitious usurpers; one of the Princes, the uncrowned Edward V, was a Woodville, being the son of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. The Tudors regarded themselves as having a tenuous claim to the throne and set about eliminating all the Plantagenet heirs they saw as having a more significant claim than they did. This of course was one of the reasons that Henry Tudor married into the Yorkist family as it grounded his spurious claim more firmly.

Happy Christmas Gaz Alas, your interpretation is almost completely wrong. First, there was no large scale immigration by Celts - it was more of a cultural invasion, i.e. what we have of Celtic art etc is what was adopted by the indigenous Beaker People. Second, the Iron Age population was largely absorbed into Roman culture, of which a small minority were Christian. Christianity came partly from that source (Romans), then the Irish missionaries in Scotland, and quite a bit later by other missionaries from Rome (St Augustine etc). Up until then, the invading/settling Saxons were pagan. Third, the Iron Age peoples who lived and survived in Roman Britain had adopted Celtic culture which was not Christian at that stage. The horse, for example, was a symbol of fertility, see the White Horse (Wilmington?). As for what you're seeing as a tree is most likely an ear of wheat, as can be seen in more sophisticated form on Westerham coins. An ingenious theory but wrong! Unknown

Yes, it's very good in the sense of being absolutely complete (you so often see weak legends or rim / teeth or portrait etc.) It's not so good in being slabbed, a bit uneven in tone, and finishing at a most inconvenient time!

That one is VERY nice - almost prooflike in some ways. Real shame there is a complete lack of lustre and also that it's in a plastic coffin. I'll keep a watchful eye on it though..

One of my very very favourites Mike. Only one thing to follow that with - And now for something completely different...

Just a theory ... but for the 1926ME prices, do you think the words ", see App I" has pushed the prices far to the right? You have £20 F £100 VF £600 EF for the 1919KN, so would it be out of the question that you meant £30 F £200 VF £1000 EF for the 1926ME? At the moment, it shows £30 under EF, £200 between EF and Unc, and £1000 under Unc.

To look, rather than buy (at this stage), you could do worse than to study the auction listings of London Coin Auctions, where the lots are well described with good pictures.

My apologies if this was posted already, but I saw it on eBay and thought it was useful that someone had produced such an informative guide to eBay fakes and trickery. (Perhaps it could be put as a Sticky if anyone considers it worthwhile?) http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Fake-British-Coins-On-eBay-/10000000243393016/g.html?_pb=1

Not at all. You mean to tell me you've not heard of that brief denomination, the Corwn? Face value 4s 10d three farthings...

I'm not sure what the ultimate fate of the Taylor dies was?