Colin G.

Yes it does resemble the 5 used on Charles II farthings, there are a few different dies that are recorded as 3/5, see items 712 & 713 http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/ccc_charlesiicurrency.html

No, 4 weeks in the Philippines A couple were already in the watch list!

No matter how it is dressed up, it is pyramid selling, it relies on additional layers of sellers beneath you for you to recoup your costs. The people at the top of the tree, and the odd good seller will make their fortune, and use the evidence to convince those further down to join. Inevitably it doesn't take that many layers before the numbers of people required to continue the pattern becomes mammoth. The last ones to hop on board have no chance of convincing others and the bubble bursts leaving them with products for which they have overpaid. The names may have changed but it is the same principles that have been used in previous schemes.

I agree with Peter, Spink is way behind on farthing varieties (and I am not including the smaller "micro" varieties). I am talking about known published varieties and undisputable die combinations included in Peck and Freeman, for example 1881 4 berries, 1880 3 and 4 berries, which are not even included. There are numerous discrepancies in the pricing of the series, that should have corrected themselves if based on recent auction data, but they still lag behind. However these are the areas where knowledge in a field gives an individual a clear advantage, it is what results in coins being underpriced and overpriced by dealers (who realistically could not be experts in each individual time period/denomination. I would argue that it is impossible for any price guide to be accurate, and that they should only be used as a safety net of sorts for areas where expertise is limited. Don't get me wrong, I use price guides for areas outside of my field of collecting as an indicative guide of varieties and rarities, but I would always double check that data where time allows against actual sale figures from several sources. As Rob says I can not really remember the last time I looked at a price guide for farthings, I tend to rely on knowledge of prices I see, and now know instinctively what I would snap up if offered at book price!! Also bear in mind all of the above is caveated by the fact that I am still using the 2009 Spink they might have put it right by now

I agree!!

Colin Goode (Aboutfarthings) has promised a definitive list of 1672-1724 the rate I am going, you may have another 20 years of darkness before I get around to that period in time I have my hands full as it is, come on Peter take up the challenge

20 years for arson hmm? He'd have been released just in time ... to be conscripted for WW1 What about the other guy that got 8 months for stealing flour Depends how much you stole I bet a few lorry loads could get you in some trouble

Yes I used the website address rather than his personal e-mail, but my friend said he has one bounce back as well I will try him on his personal e-mail just to check all is okay. Thanks chaps

Just wanted to see whether anyone has been in contact with Paul Withers recently? I e-mailed him a while agao and have not received a response which is unusual, but I did not want to harass him about the e-mail, but someone else has just e-mailed me to say they have also not had a response from an e-mail to Paul they recently sent.

Ahh yes I can see that now

Oi jock what has Walsall got to do with anything, a couple of shootings and our name is mud and you could at least spell Walsall correctly "A couple of bites would be amazing. We are a network, those 2 bites may set on two, and those two may set on two etc" sounds a bit like a pyramid scheme to me

One of my many side collections is the British West Africa 1/10 of a penny coins, for some reason they appealed, and I now have a near complete set, it allows me to satisfy my collecting tendencies on a cheaper level

There were quite a few colonial "shaped" coins, squares, scalloped edges, all sorts!! And some nice designs as well. A great budget series for any collector, some very nice examples can be picked up for peanuts. Have a look at the British West Africa coins, British India coins, Ceylon coins etc.

I have just noticed the lighthouse, is that meant to be a shampoo bottle or something a bit more.....intimate

Rob, Just to be clear, this is your personal e-mail address and not your @rpcoins address you are having the problem with? If you do not have the same issues with your mail servers at RP coins create another mailbox on that account rob@rpcoins or some other and then you will be using the same mail servers.

Agreed, Tom. I use my hotmail account for serious e mails, as I know I can always rely it to do exactly what it says on the tin. I can also pick them up on my phone. All the crap goes to my outlook express. I use this for online orders/general enquiries and I don't care who gets the address. There's no spam filter on it either. Not sure what BT do, but I would certainly be irritated by any spam filter that was beyond my personal control. My ISP is Virgin Media. Agreed Virgin let everything through, and then you sort it, the best way to be!!

Rob you could always try Mozilla Thunderbird if you don't want to use a web based e-mail program, also free to download and use.

Fascinating piece and skilfully executed

All the model coins are out today, it is a model sovereign produced by Lauer

The model coin is as it should be, you can see a farthing example in the link below. They are tiny and can often be found in such cases/tins. Some of the tins were official issue, and included a full set, but I think many ended up in similar cases just because of their size. I have previously sold examples of individual coins for about £5-10 http://www.aboutfarthings.co.uk/Model%20Farthings.html Example of set in a tin. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/F840-1848-Prince-Albert-Husband-Victoria-Box-containing-Model-Coins-Rare-/350561661171?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item519f1a70f3

Fascinating stuff, thanks for sharing!!

To respond to your response to my response to your points 1. I think you give current employers less credit that they deserve, I would much rather employ someone who can perform the job to the best of their ability regardless of their demands, I am not naive enough to believe that this is a view taken by all employers, and yes I agree it is going to be much harder for a disabled persons to seek employment, but things are slowly improving. 2. Apologies for any offence caused, that was not my intention, I am just trying to explain that taking a definitive view on an outcome is in effect to give up hope. Yes things may get progressively worse but you should never say never, that does seem like a defeatist view, although I very much appreciate that my position is one of an outside persepective looking in. My intention was never to get into the nuts and bolts of dicussing individual illnesses or disabilities, but just to discuss the generic topic of accessibility and benefit claims. 4. I agree with your statement, and I have never said that people should have to PROVE themselves, I am talking about an assessment by suitably qualified individuals to review cases, and I can not see any reason why this should not be undertaken. Yes the current system of assessment may be shocking, but surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility for a suitable system to be created. And finally DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT TAXPAYERS - agreed, that was a sweeping statement that was not intended to be interpreted that way, I just don't understand the current approach of moving people into a low income tax free band, in my opinion there should be an increase in pay and everyone should pay income tax, even if it is a minute amount. It gives people a sense of contribution, and would stop a lot of the issues around classification. Do not apologise for being passionate about your response, that is the way discussions and debates should be. Also do not take my comments as a dig at disability benefits in isolation, I would have quite easily have taken a similar stance on other benefits. I know we will never agree on a way forward, nor should we the world would be a very boring place if we did.....so we will just have to agree to disagree, and please do not feel offended by any of my comments that was never my intention

Peck the comment that I am not disabled and therefore will never know, is a bit of a generalisation and in my opinion a very negative viewpoint. Hopefully I will never know, but I would much rather it happen in today's society than the ones that have gone before. In fact I would also it rather happen in this country than any other as well. The Building Regulations are formed following extensive consultation with numerous bodies incorporating a wide range of views and opinions in an attempt to ensure the guidance is relative, current and provides the maximum benefit for the greatest number of people. They don't always get it right, but Groups such as the former DRC and disbility organisations across the country, are included in the process, and with the British Standards also running in conjunction, I would personally argue we are in danger of "over provision". Of course provision can not cater for every individuals needs and as I previously said there will never be a "one size fits all" solution because of the unique nature of many disabilities and the way they affect individuals. In response to your individual points: 1. I find that response quite staggering, why should anyone, young , old, disabled deserve a job more than another person without determining the potential of the candidates to fulfil that role. If an individual has made that decision prior to going for a job what chance have they got. Yes there may be obstacles, and I am not advocating that every disabled person should be forced to work, but they should be fighting for the jobs that are out there like everyone else. 2. I agree with your comments, but you can never say that anything is definite, and I think that would be the wrong approach in all but terminal cases. What sort of outlook would there be for any individual without hope. Society is always changing, as an example I probably spend 3 days a week working from home via a remote network. Working from home is now common practise for many people and would surely overcome a substantial amount of the obstacles faced by many individuals. Yes the career options may be restricted, and the number of available jobs would be limited, but at least there is an option and it gives a certain level of inclusion rather than the isolation many people face. Blindness has historically been perceived as a permanent disability, but Mr Blunkett certainly did not let it obstruct his career, he did not accept a life of being told that there was no hope 3. They always manage to pick on the innocent and let the fraudsters get away with it, that is government for you But it should not be a reason to stop the regular audits/reviews. Lets get the process right not stop it because we cocked it up 4. It may be one of the benefits least subject to fraud, but it is happening, there are people in my locality who bend the rules to suit them. In my opinion all persons should be regularly reviewed when claiming benefits of any kind. If people are choosing not to work or are not able to work due to individual circumstances then the obstacles that stop them should be regularly reviewed to ensure they have not been removed by a change in individual circumstance or a societal change that has removed the barrier in question. In my mind this is as much for the benefit of the individual, although it also sends a signal to the tax paying population. Benefits should not be taken for granted they should be handed out only when all other options are exhausted. As for reading the red tops, I am not a newspaper person, never have been never will be, I hat the bleeding things!! The thing is if the system worked you would not be going through the stress you are because only those entitled would be claiming and therefore the persecution would not exist. Now who started this post, we will be attracting passing trolls with topics like this!!

to buy food and marijuana Yes the normal procedure is the other way around!!

Well, that depends. There are 2 kinds of detector finds, the genuine ones and those that are actually fake coins and people implying they were detector finds so as to fool a buyer into buying the fake coin, so yes, do be wary of these.and if in doubt, ask first before you potentially lose money Many responsible detectorists also record via UKDFD or PAS, so whilst it does not guarantee authenticity of the find, or the accuracy of the information contained in the record, if it has a UKDFD ref or a PAS reference, at least you have a bit of potential provenance, and the find is likely to be from a responsible detectorist