Peckris

That is very true and very sound advice. Especially when you take into account the issue price for some of the coins. However, I do also think that for someone who does collect such coins that an informed decision needs to be taken at some point whether to decide to buy at issue price and be comforted in the fact that they will own the coin, albeit at an high price, than to have to pay a vastly inflated price in the future if a coin is found to be a scarce or rare issue. I do conceed however that will only occur in certain circumstances, such as the aforementioned £2 Trial Set, and that your advice is very wise indeed. So unusual are the genuine decimal rarities that what you would save not paying the full issue price of everything else would easily pay for the eBay purchase of the rarity.

That is so very true. lol I once saw a £2 coin described as 'Rare x 100 - L@@K!' I'm not exactly sure which rarity system the seller was using, but it looked like a common enough £2 coin to me. lol Hard to beat the late 60s Coin Monthly advert for "the rare 1951 penny" "investment opportunity" "we've acquired a limited number" "state whether you want 1, 10 or 100"

They were collected by his younger self. Pay attention now Peter..... He actually said "gathered up" - bit of a difference!! (Casually, as if not really interested) I'll give you a couple of quid for your 1968 penny. If it's in reasonable condition of course. And English.

You can keep Kylie. Just drop off her cute lil derrière on your way through.

Don't know what lighting he's using, or whether he has the colour temperature on his camera mis-set; but if you turn down the magenta in his pictures, they don't look bad Yes, my thoughts too. Pretty much most of his pictures look too red, so I'd say it's a colour cast imparted either by his camera or his computer. Reminds me of one of the sellers on Online.coins, whose coins are all way way way too red, and filmed against a red background what's more.

That's right. The 1997 issue was held back for quite a while then eventually released. In the meantime, the new Rank-Broadley portrait came out and was used from 1998 onwards. Leading to the public myth : "If you've got the £2 coin where the Queen is wearing a necklace, it's worth a fortune." The 1997 Maklouf £2 was only rare until it was issued, then it wasn't.

They are quite tatty but still good value. The £65 one is the 1960 edition. And pretty ropey as well. 2nd ed. 1964 is the one everyone wants, and they rarely go cheap. Interesting that for once the second edition is worth more than a first!! The same is true of Freeman. It's because these books aren't bought as 'collectables' by collectors, they are bought for their reference value, and both Peck and Freeman have major revisions between first and second editions.

The value of modern commemoratives plummets like a stone on the secondary (second-hand to you and me) market. NEVER EVER pay issue price for anything in the decimal era. If you wait a year or two you can pick them up cheap in any auction.

Very true. Derek's Standard Guide To Grading British Coins is a very good place to start, as it will help you loads when you come to assess any coins you see, and make good decisions. It's got pictures in 4 states of preservation of all major obverse and reverse types of the machine age.

The one that this thread refers to sold for 68 quid and looked in good condition Yes but it had no dust jacket. Pushes the value WAY down. No, I don't understand why either...

Bah. The pound is a johnny-come-lately, only 200 years old. It's the 2,000 year old penny we should be fighting for!!

"Yes folks, you too can pay five times face value, plus 4x face for postage, to own a former 20 pence piece, now impersonating a piece of crud!! Roll up, roll up..."

Possibly due to public sentiment Derek - like the decision to 'save the tanner' and get rid of the double florin?

DO NOT volunteer for VAT unless or until you have to!!! Keep your head below the parapet is a good operating motto. That's one agency you don't want to arouse. I have just one other piece of advice. If you've already decided on the value of your operating stock, then don't deal in low-value items. Yes, the profit margins can be good (after all you can buy such things for very low prices), but you will spend so much time cataloguing, photographing / describing, packing up and posting off, in the end it's just not cost-effective. I speak from experience! Better to make £200 profit on one coin you sell for £1200, than £200 profit on 50 coins you sell for £400.

First, I appreciate this is a genuine approach, unlike some of the spam we get, so thanks for that. But, it's not a question of "images not up to the standard we're used to" - it's just that as potential buyers we really do need to be able to "satisfy ourselves before purchase". Without good images (such as is nearly always uploaded on eBay for any coin worth its salt) we simply cannot do that. With good images of the higher value or better items, you might be surprised at some of the bids you attract. But most of us can't afford to bid on "the hope of a surprise or two"!

I really think that too much is made of the D Day February 1971 date. It's just one day out of : 1966 - announcement of decimalisation and all coins will be dated 1967 from now on 1968 - introduction of 10p and 5p and sale of the blue wallets 1969 - demonetisation of halfpenny and halfcrown, introduction of 50p, introduction of dual pricing August 1971 - D Day 2, demonetisation of penny and threepenny bits So February 1971 is just a tad overplayed IMO Youngster!! It was two bob (10p) when I started, though I believe mild was rather less. I could never get over the woeful lack of grasp of even basic economics that caused people to make such fatuous claims. Even if - as they probably did - shopkeepers 'rounded up' to the nearest 1/2p, that was for one month only, and you can hardly blame a few years of inflation on the fractions of one penny that occurred in one single month!!!

You're right, it looks interesting. But sadly the pictures are woefully inadequate for me to make any kind of intelligent bid, so I will pass on this occasion.

Or maybe WE imitated THEIRS? After all, those were the days of a pan-European culture, with every tinpot king or queen answerable to some pontiff in Avignon or Rome.

It was fairly dreadful at the very end of Alf Ramsey's regime. Failure to beat Poland and qualify for the 1974 World Cup was pretty grim. Going completely off subject, if you remember that superb goal scored by Bobby Charlton against Mexico in the 1966 World Cup, just cast your eyes up behind the goal he scored it in and you will see a small 11 year old boy picking his nose. That's me! Anyway, returning to subject, mediaeval Europe was not noted for its learning on anything other than ecclesiastical matters and the heraldic leopard/lion was probably just based on a folk memory of a big cat as almost nobody had ever seen one - especially a leopard. Wouldn't the 'leo' of 'leopard' indicate something to do with a lion anyway? Aye, but I am prepared to bet that the team that failed to score past "that clown, Tomasewski" (assessment of Polish goalkeeper by one B.Clough) would spank the pants off our present overpaid bunch of primadonnas. Just my opinion of course I will search for that goal on YouTube! There's one small fly in the ointment of that theory - the name "leopard" is not simply heraldic, it's the name of that particular beast! But yes - quite certainly named from Latin "leo" = lion. "Pard" being short for "pardner", i.e. from a similar stable as the lion (brought to you © Bullshit Publications).

I'm not sure if I'm honest with you Peckris. It is certainly a possibility that it may have occured in circulation. I did notice that the A in Victoria is not barred. I don't know if that is due to a die error or perhaps wear from circulation. It's not just the G - there is also damage to the linear circle at the same place, and to the field in between the circle and the border teeth, which also don't look as good as their neighbours. It is of course possible that some 'gunk' got onto the die and caused this damage at the time of strike, but this still differentiates the coin from one where there has been deliberate alteration to the die (which then becomes a collectable variety). On close inspection, the bottom bar of the E in REG is there, but it's faint - an example of a 'filling' rather than 'filled' die.

The 50p first went into circulation in 1969. Although if I'm honest Chingford I do not know if they were first made in 1968 or in 1969. I always thought that it was 1969. There is an interesting story here concerning the introduction of the 50p. In particular I liked the part about the 'Anti-Heptagonists' lol "Although a 50p coin will cost more to produce initially, it should have a life of at least 50 years" Make that "less than 30 years"!!

The first fifty pence pieces were dated 1968/9, as with the Coppers it wasn't legal tender until 1971, so probably would have only been included in the later sets. The 50 pences were introduced and dated in 1969, to replace the ten bob note which was withdrawn the same year. A much smaller mintage was done in 1970, and harder to come by in BU. There WAS a 1971 issue, but proof only, in the sets.

Are you saying our National team is falling to bits. Nah, that happened a long time ago - under Don Revie as I remember Been downhill all the way since then!

The damage to the G looks as if it could possibly be post-minting, i.e. during circulation?