Sword

"Prime minister asks Speaker to nominate 'acceptable' new PM". BBC news! And I thought it was impossible for Boris to develop a guilty conscience. Then I realised the headline was actually referring to the very serious situation in Sri Lanka.

I agree that cabinet friction is just a diplomatic term for slight wear however caused. I think it is often used when you have a coin without many contact marks to make it more believable that it was caused by storage. The term "athlete's foot" sugars the pill for someone with a foot fungal infection. Most people with the condition are definitely not athletes!

https://metro.co.uk/2022/07/08/nadine-dorries-could-join-tory-leadership-race-16970021/ Seriously? Might be running for cover would make a lot more sense ...

Indeed. Even a decent VG example of F169 is well over a thousand. But sometimes you see a worn rare silver variety with less than a handful of known examples selling for less than a hundred.

I agree with you. But I think it is fair to say that bronze / copper collectors are more into rare varieties than silver collectors. A rare variety penny grading fine can worth many thousands, but the market is not quite the same for a rare variety silver in my view.

If it is a choice between collecting high grades and rare varieties, then I would go for high grades.

It is not a design fault or an error. The coin looks like it has taken serious abuse to cause the centre to drop out.

I have never looked into this in detail but it is likely enough that different alloys were used for casings. Cupronickel coinage of 75% Cu and 25% Ni is already white in appearance. Hence 40% nickel would definitely not result in a copper colour shell which are common in WWI. Could it be possible that a certain amount of copper was mixed with the silver depending on the composition of the casings used to ensure some sort of consistency?

But "sold" on eBay doesn't necessarily mean that money has changed hands.

Davies (British Silver Coins since 1816) has a discussion on alloys. 10% Nickel and 40% copper was achieved by using discarded bullet envelopes. But this caused a number of problems such as higher fuel cost (due to higher melting point), discolouration, flaking etc

It was "sold" but relisted. Then it is "sold" ...

I was under the impression (wrongly it seems) that you have only started serious collecting relatively recently. The number of varieties in the series is so large that there will always be examples to chase.

Sounds like your collection is really coming along Bruce. 😀

Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBt8AoLBCoo

According to the papers, Boris Johnson appeared to shout "not even a flesh wound" in response to the jibe. You just got to laugh!

Video clip of the Black Knight.

I am not a fan of Ian Blackford . However, I did find his comparison of the PM to Monty Python's Black Knight really funny.

I was thinking specifically the difference between a matt "specimen" and a matt "proof". In my mind, a specimen coin is generally not quite the standard of a proof coin but accept the line between them can be somewhat blur. As far as I can tell the 1935 matt specimen medal looks to be to be struck to a very high standard and I would not say it is an inferior in quality to the 1902 matt proof.

I admit I am somewhat naive in this topic. My understanding is that a proof is sharply struck (done with multiple strikes using special dies) on specially prepared flans. The flans were handled carefully to ensure that there are no contact marks. The question is whether there is a requirement for the flans to be highly polished for the item to count as proof. I think the answer started off as being "yes" to "normally yes" after the 1902 matt coins appeared. This would be consistent with the 1902 matt being initially described as "specimen". With regard to the 1935 Jubilee medal: a) was it struck with multiple times using special dies? In my mind, a definite yes. The obverse details are amazing. With such a large medal, the force of strike would probably be too great if only a single strike was used b) was it prepared on specially made flans? Undoubtedly. But the flans were matte rather than mirrored. If one were to accept the 1902 as proof (and I assume this was done by 1935), then I think it would also make sense to call the 1935 medals also as matte proof also (unless the matte finish is somehow not judged to be as high standard as the 1902). If a 1935 crown was made in the same way as the medal, would we consider that a matte proof?

I did meant the matt specimen. But what exactly is the difference between a matt "specimen" and matt "proof"?

They do make a real effort in those days for coronation / jubilee medals. All of them were attractively designed (except for the 1935 reverse which I am not a fan of). I do particularly like the 1902 showing the majestic portraits of KE VII and Queen Alexandra. I remember my Art teacher telling me that the reason Queen Alexandra wore pearl choker necklaces was to hide a small scar on her neck. The matt proof finish on the 1902 and 1935 was a nice touch too.

I agree with Copper that the current spike in price is temporary. It was selling for much less previously. I have never got round to getting one. The big medal take up rather too much space for me.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/05/23/prince-william-appears-on-new-5-coin-to-mark-his-40th-birthday-16690511/ A good likeness and a nice change from the elderly royal portraits. I think the eyes are particularly well done, and have no objection in the designer giving him a bit more hair. I think the inclusion of his monogram was a mistake and the coin would look better without it.

Sorry, you are right. Only past catalogues are available but not featured collections.

It's working for me now.