Peckris

ROFL. What makes you think we all can even FILL our ISA allowance, or that there is anything left worth writing home about once we have!

My thoughts exactly. As for 'several hundreds', I think that would only apply to rare or particularly good examples. I can think of any number of coins priced in hundreds where provenance would make little impression. However, where it is 'thousands' that is a different matter. I've never spent four figures on a coin, and I'm not sure even if my most valuable specimen would get there. The number of collectors spending those kind of sums must be pretty small, and I would expect many of them to know each other anyway.

So what's half of death? The calibre of attendees at the Labour party conference....or maybe I'm too generous. Quite lively by the look of what I've seen so far. For FULL death just wait a few days until the Tories get going.

Typical Daily Telegraph article of the 'things are never as good as they used to be' ilk. I would however tend to agree about the quality of design, but why he picks the humdrum 1902-27 halfcrown is beyond me. And as for retaining the old l.s.d. system? Do me a favour. Bit Colonel Blimpish, that article. I do love the Ed VII halfcrown reverse, especially seen in mint state. But ahead of the standing Britannia florin reverse? No way! As for working out how many twopenny-halfpenny bars can be bought for £5 4s 10d - pffft. I for one am glad we went to the decimal system.

yup youre right .....ive seen some of those £2 polo mint coins on ebay, you take the middle out and claim its rare Polo? Strong royal connection there!

Cnut...The veiled head penny of the pre 12C series. Nice coins and 10 years ago £60 each at Colin Cookes in VF/VF+ Not quite in a Williams league. I remember that offer. I now wish I'd got one. As it is, I did get one of those UNC-with-bags-of-lustre 1873 farthings he had for £9

i think most here would disagree!!!!!! Oh I don't know - I've heard that the Queen's Xtra Strongs are subject to strict inspection

one of the funniest things ive read this year okay okay this month okay okay ............today..........funny though You're welcome

Well, you say that. But it's actually London Coins, a UK firm. Of course it shouldn't be too surprising given their interest in swaying us all to the benefits of slabs. But £80?? For a £2 coin? Will anyone buy do you think? There's a portrait of a prospective buyer on the reverse - on the right.

There's a portrait of the seller on the right of the reverse

may have caused a jolly old confusion there eh peckris with my poor spelling.....but not referee's so............................ 2 irishmen sitting in a pub having a beer. paddys doing a crossword.....and struggling. patrick says can i help?, give me a clue. paddy says "old macdonald had a?" patrick says " the answer is farm" paddy says " how do you spell it" patrick says " E I E I O". LOL Ok, here's my David Beckham joke. David and his wife arrive back at Heathrow after a trip to New York. The cab driver says "'Ere mate, aren't you that David Beckham?" "Yeah, that's right" "Where you been, then?" "New York. We went to a great restaurant there, full of celebs and the like" "Oh yeah? What was it called then?" David's brow furrows in thought. Then his eyes suddenly light up. "Give me the name of a London railway station" "Paddington?" "Nah" "Euston?" "Nah" "Kings Cross?" "Nah" "Victoria?" "Yeah yeah, that's it!!!" Turns to his wife, "Victoria, what was the name of that restaurant we went to in New York?"

it strikes me ( excuse the pun) that most here are in fact misled that hammered refers to the method of coin manufacture in this period. in reality hammered referes to the alcoholic state of the person producing the coins That would explain many a Premier League decision

Not sure I'd go along with this? Proofs are certainly not intended to be spent, but in fact there may be fewer differences between a proof of a common type, and currency varieties (e.g. if a proof 1902 penny existed and it was of the common second type, it would have more in common with its currency sibling, than of the LT variety). In any case, a proof is not a pattern - it's simply the pinnacle or "proof" of the regular issue. The grey area would be proof-only decimal issues, such as 1972 - are they strictly patterns, or proofs? Given that the RM have issued complete proof sets every year since 1971 - and purely for commercial reasons - I suppose they belong to a new category. They aren't patterns really, and nor do they exist for the same reason as proofs issued before 1971; they are simply commemoratives up for sale. But then again, you could also argue that the 1951 proof set is similar. As for the specimen BU sets, they really are currency coins, and can be spent as such (and probably have been, many times). The fact that they are flawless examples without production damage, doesn't really enter into it. After all, uncirculated examples from a bank may be flawless on occasion too. It's only their packaging that sets them apart, but once breached, the coins aren't any different from ordinary BU examples.

Only one of its kind? Pffft, my local hardware store has bucketfuls of them

Not to me!

I bought mine for 45p from a jewellers scrap tray.The same day I hit the jackpot with the current Peter girlfriend. Jubilee Head all around. Oh, surely Peter's girlfriend is better looking than that?

You THINK its overpriced David lol, its definately overpriced. 50 quid coin, Ticks all the boxes as a nice looking coin.Beautifully toned with a nice bust I thought that was Sharon from Romford after a couple of hours in the tanning salon?

Spink should be ashamed of themselves!

That's definitely the case IMO, some of the portraiture is far superior. And lets not get onto roads.... No, LET's get onto roads if they're Roman - we'll get there quicker!

"Do not store up for yourself coin treasures on earth, where moth and rust may corrupt ..." Bloody iphone spelling at its best yet again (honest) Interesting that the iPhone prefers "moth" to "month" !!!

"Do not store up for yourself coin treasures on earth, where moth and rust may corrupt ..."

I always took cash to the Midland, but I was never in the big bucks league so a few hundred in notes didn't bother me. Conflicting thoughts : 1. I would have thought the bigger dealers would have made the investment into debit card machines connected to a phone line (or wifi) as why would they risk many thousands of stock in what could be dodgy cheques? But 2. The biggest customers and regular buyers will be known to all the main dealers, so they would only be taking risks with flashy newcomers. You wouldn't be known Dave, so it might be worth while getting your main dealer / supplier to write a letter of introduction for you to carry around, so that Coinex dealers would feel safer with your cheques? (Alternatively, your existing debit card should carry some weight as A) it would still be in force, and C) they've only just recently withdrawn the cheque guarantee service)

How would we extend this argument / debate into the area of Ancient Coins e.g. Roman, where coins were struck using very similar methods, but on planchets that were much thicker, and in vastly greater quantity? Certainly there are many Roman coins - especially silver denarii - that have survived in what I'd call "near mint state" but which would probably be graded EF. (Though I was gobsmacked to see a late bronze on eBay that had been graded VF by the British CGS service but if you looked at it to see wear, there was absolutely none visible; it put me off buying the item as I ended up thinking "what's wrong with it?" purely because of the grade CGS had given it - an example of under-grading doing people no favours?). It is also a fact that Roman coins on the whole seem to be better struck than hammered coins struck maybe more than 1000 years later. It does seem there is a noticeable deterioration that occurs when you move from Saxon / Viking to Medieval.

The fact you got a few of these in one trip to the shops should alert you to the fact they are NOT rare! If the coins are worn - as I suspect they will be, 26 years is a lifetime in a fast-wearing alloy like brass - then the ' will have worn away. It was never very deeply engraved. But if you're developing an interest in these kinds of coin, you could maybe look to get a collection of £1 coins from 1983 in mint condition. None of them are rare (ignore what people tell you about 1988! touching upon scarce maybe, but not rare). You could build up a collection at an average cost of around £2 per £1 coin. Hiya,thanks for the reply.I did try add a pic in the last post but dont think i attached it.Lol It doesnt look like it has worn away.Where the ' is suppose to be still has the lines running up the coin.Like the ' has never been there in the first place.Ive tried to upload pic again but it saying file to big. Yes, it's a 150k maximum per post. Can you reduce or compress the image and try again? One other possibility is that the coin is a forgery - one estimate is that as many as 5% of all £1 coins in circulation are fakes.

Welcome to the forums coinandnote Thank you for your post - if you put up some pictures of your coins, they would be of interest?