Peckris

Definitely GVF minimum. There is very very little observable wear, and remember this is a sixpence shown at three times life size or even more.

Perhaps go for the penny if you're prepared to settle for a shade under EF. With the twopence, there's a gulf in availability between genuine EF and above, and GVF or below; the former are genuinely scarce, the latter relatively abundant. And IMO a NEF penny is not only cheaper, but also a nicer looking coin than its 2d counterpart in the same grade.

I thought Henderson, Sterling, Welbeck, Sturridge, Jagielka, and Baines (except when he had to cover two Italian players at once) all had good games, and Gerrard and Hart, while not at their best, didn't do anything much wrong. Lallana looked good when he came on, and Wilshere didn't get enough of the ball. The problems seemed to me that England didn't recycle the ball quick enough (probably the heat), and Welbeck should have driven forward more often. I think whoever said it's a wide open group is dead right. It only takes Uruguay to beat Italy, and England to beat Costa Rica, and who knows how the group will end up? Certainly losing to Italy 2-1 in the heat is arguably a better opening result than drawing 1-1 with the USA.

Just because you can't get Bayern Munich players...

Sold for near £600 in the end Abso-bloody-lutely ridiculous.

I think your comments are grossly unfair. England played well, except on the left in their own third when Italy were attacking (which is exactly where Italy's second goal came from). As far as not moving the ball quickly is concerned, the heat in Manaus was crippling. Once Italy were ahead they could afford to sit back in possession, slow the game right down, and get their breath back. Having said that, they've got their work cut out now, but don't forget that Uruguay also lost their first game.

I'm the one on the right. Oh, really? Who'd have an anchor tattooed on his chest, me or peck! Peck's the one on the left! Ok, ok, I'll be blondie if you insist ... but ... what's he doing with his right hand??

I think it's kosher Yes, I agree with Rob. It would be silly to run a fake with a) such an ugly stain c) may have been dipped too.

I'm the one on the right. Guy, that is. (I'm not talking bollocks. No, really, I'm not...)

You're both talking about penis pennies, aren't you?

I cannot Tell a lie, a friend Pointed it out to me, stand up Peckris and take a bow p.s, i'd go with superglue or clenched arse cheeks to hold that in place I'm happy to take a bow anytime ... but why??? (Sorry, getting senile - memory not what it was)

The Jubilee medal is exquisite! A really nice piece - I'm jealous.

Private listing - I wouldn't go near that auction with a bargepole. The three commonest Vicky copper pennies are 1854, 1855, and 1858 (despite all the latter's varieties). In that condition? £200 max I'd say. (Don't quote Spink at me - they are often overpriced...)

William Williams’ London (Middlesex) copper Conder halfpenny token dated 1795. Obverse: The arms of the City of London with legend: “FEAR GOD AND HONOUR THE KING 1795”. Reverse: A portcullis surmounted by the Prince of Wales’ crest with legend: “W. WILLIAMS LONDON”, “RENDER TO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CAESAR’S”. Plain edge. Issued by William Williams who was originally a grinder and latterly a button manufacturer with a business at 103 St. Martin’s Lane, Charing Cross, London. It is thought he was Welsh by the inclusion of the Prince of Wales’ crest. I wonder if it's also a subliminal message to the future George IV, Prince of Wales in 1795 and already a 'bad sort'? HONOUR THE KING and RENDER TO CAESAR seems like a pretty clear advice for a wayward Prince. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour 1765-1795...4o years wonder when the word honvor first appear in token,i think it is british word,not latin or french like honor. Not a 'British' word, more a Norman medieval scribes' word, as they tried to make sense of marrying a basically Latin/French system of words to an existing Anglo-Saxon (Germanic/Norse) system.

I'm not going to read the other comments yet, as I want to give you an unbiased opinion. For me, the 1818 is a clear winner. It doesn't have the scuff striations on the obverse, as the 1819 has. The reverses are probably level-pegging, as each has areas stronger than the other, but I like the legend better on the 1818.

Actually, the Big Power job Vectras were ok - I remember driving one for the Vauxhall fleet, and you're right, it was absolutely in sheep's clothing apart from the alloy wheels. I had a moment of puzzlement why it wouldn't shift from 3rd to 4th gear getting onto the motorway doing 55mph - because it was still in 2nd, that's why! Then I snuck up on unsuspecting drivers in 'fancy' cars, and watched them sneer and start to put their foot down; I 'tried hard' to overtake them, watching them smile as I 'valiantly' pulled level, then I put MY foot down and watched their smile disappear as I did too.

Brilliant. So 179 days after receipt of a coin, you can file a claim that you didn't receive it?

Technically the question has already been answered : - we may not be 'post decimal' but we ARE 'post decimalisation'.

William Williams’ London (Middlesex) copper Conder halfpenny token dated 1795. Obverse: The arms of the City of London with legend: “FEAR GOD AND HONOUR THE KING 1795”. Reverse: A portcullis surmounted by the Prince of Wales’ crest with legend: “W. WILLIAMS LONDON”, “RENDER TO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CAESAR’S”. Plain edge. Issued by William Williams who was originally a grinder and latterly a button manufacturer with a business at 103 St. Martin’s Lane, Charing Cross, London. It is thought he was Welsh by the inclusion of the Prince of Wales’ crest. I wonder if it's also a subliminal message to the future George IV, Prince of Wales in 1795 and already a 'bad sort'? HONOUR THE KING and RENDER TO CAESAR seems like a pretty clear advice for a wayward Prince.

No evidence of cleaning that I can see. Note that a lot of 19th Century currency silver has a 'mirror finish' when UNC. This can always be told apart from polishing (even without seeing faint striations): 1. Mirror finish always survives between the legend and the lowest parts of the design where wear is last to reach. The highest parts lose it first. 2. Polishing is the reverse of that - the highest parts will show the polishing effect, whereas the lowest and between the legend won't.

Haha - you obviously don't remember the legendary Edsel. (Nor do I, but its reputation has endured...). Also, the last Escorts were nothing to write home about apparently. But at least when Ford did get rid of the Escort name, they replaced it with the Focus, i.e. something worthy of a successor. Which is a whole lot better than Vauxhall did when they replaced the still in-demand Cavaliers with the Vectra, surely the most foolish decision of all time?

Post decimal? Do you know something we dont? Sorry I'm lost now? Post decimal as in after decimalisation? Post 15th February 1971... Or late 1969 if you're talking 50p's... Or 1968 if you're talking 10p's and 5p's... Or, in this digital day and age, post post

Really? I didn't know that. . . . . . Sorry, where am I?

No, I think you're absolutely right! (Sorry not to give you a good argument...) Having said that, most of the designs aren't attractive enough in anything much less than UNC. The halfcrowns, florins and sixpences especially look rather shabby as soon as they start to wear much, same with the obverses. Oh I agree that they go 'off' very quickly. That's why I'm happy to collect in EF and upwards, but I'm not too concerned to go for the nirvana of UNC. I'm primarily a collector and so value/investment is secondary but not completely ignored, and for this reason I can see that Liz II coins in particular are very unlikely to command investment prices in my lifetime, even in the top condition. Hence, I don't see paying top prices for a common and unremarkable coin, even if it is unusual for that date to be found in UNC.For me it's always about pushing the boundaries and, if you can't keep an eye out for the TOP in E2 coins, then where else can you put together a quality collection?It totally depends on your focus and, having agreed the E2 coins go 'off' with barely a rub, I can't see why someone wouldn't want the very best? There are few monarchs where you can pursue this at such little cost! As I said before, for me at least, the E2 coinage is a happy drug, which still gives the buzz if I'm compiling it diligently, and without compromise! I mean, why would you spend one pound on something ordinary, when two pounds buys you a bit of jazz? Just my anal, pedantic, perfectionist self, coming on...it just wouldn't interest me without this detail and focus! To each their own! Happy daze! Hmm. When you compare £40 upwards for a genuinely BU 1954 florin against £10 for a BU 1945 (silver) florin, I'm not sure I'd entirely go along with that. But yeah, for type collectors, there's always 1966 and 1967

Perhaps we should recognise a new class of ancient coin - the Anglo-Saxby?