Leaderboard

Well I have achieved another upgrade to my farthing collection today, so here it is - 1882H 7+F (nothing fancy I think).

New addition to my Short cross collection. Cheap at £40 inc p&p from California 😃 King John Class 5c - Struck roughly 1206 - 07 AD. Moneyer Beneit at London mint.

We prefer to deal in real hard currency on this forum. I don't have any trays that will accept cryptocurrency.

"Im not a coin collector ... i dont know anything about coins ..." translates to FAKE FAKE FAKE!

I'm really surprised at this - I find the book absolutely invaluable for all dates post-Victoria. I suspect that people don't know what they're missing.

If it's that good why are you touting it on a coin forum? surely something so epic would need a national platform would it not? Jog on sonny not all of us just swam up the thames

A mystery solved. Thanks Bernie, and thanks to your friend who goes back all those years.

Is this some of the worst coin-related journalism ever? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5504579/Rare-2p-coins-sold-ebay-14k-one.html It claims the 1971 two-pence is "rare" (over a billion were made). It talks about coins being "printed". And it is completely uncritical of what the sellers are saying.

Just like the Hitchikers guide to the galaxy (second edition) said the earth was "Mostly harmless" The mail is "Mostly bullshit"

In otherwords the mails full of bullshit

Wikimedia Foundation office in San Francisco, US. Photograph: Eric Risberg/AP Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”. The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors. Wikipedia – an unplanned miracle Clay Shirky Read more The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”. The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia but does not control its editing processes, said in a statement that volunteer editors on English Wikipedia had discussed the reliability of the Mail since at least early 2015. It said: “Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist’.

sorry its a crap pic but its from webcam actually it looks better than the coin lols

another fake slab looks like someone is about to get stung

I did voluntary work once in a charity shop. Some of the other volunteers and staff were like vultures rifling through bags for the good stuff and keeping it themselves to sell online. I imagine it's commonplace in other charity shops.

I think they must dispose of the decent stuff somewhere else, pretty much all the coins they have at the mo are mingers or slingers.

Wonder if people just bid rather than donate direct as the coin is Rang and only worth 1p

Yes thats the one Peck a big thing in a box It would probably sell on ebay Stuart for £20 all in but not worth anymore Mr Gouby has been selling them for years ,the more expensive one is much better and although only goes up to 1901 all of the dates after are covered in other books.

Well if that is the case it's even more damning . Wikipedia banned the daily mail for using unreliable information and sources are now found elsewhere.

They wouldn't be allowed to call themselves MailOnline and use the logo, if they weren't part of the same group. They'd have been taken down or sued long ago.

Whilst browsing Ebay I also noticed Benjamin Britton and Johnson dictionary 50p's were being listed as rare and for silly money. I checked my change pot and out of approx 30 50p's I had both. I wish the BNTA would issue a statement with the facts on all these face value tat decimal coins.

Indeed.I think we can safely say that the entire article is a complete crock.

I would certainly say that any listing claiming any bronze coin dated 1971 was "ultra rare", is neither reliable or trustworthy. In fact, it's a downright untruth. Any journalist who accepts such garbage on face value, is a fool.

I will ask him next Thursday if he recalls the blue boxes.

I was speaking with an 88 year old coin dealer earlier today and the subject of 1951 crowns was discussed. This dealer told me that he got married during the Festival of Britain celebrations in London. He explained to me the reasons for the two different colour boxes that the Crowns were issued in, Green & Magenta. The Green boxes were sold only in the Festival Hall, The Magenta boxes were sold in the Festival Pleasure Gardens on the opposite bank of the Thames.

How about this 70mm medal from the Vienna World Fair in 1873, featuring an extraordinary portrait of Franz Joseph I. The words over the top of the reverse apparently mean "For Progress". Edge is blank.

I'll post this here seeing as my original thread got ganked by a business tout I only know of 1 other that is because I owned it. But sold it on a few years back. Been actively searching for another in a really nice grade but alas so far have not found any and this one is the only one I have found in the few years gap. Unlisted variety and should really be confirmed as I owned this and 1 other. Obviously quite rare 1826 Half Penny with Roman I for 1

Thanks Mike, this post may have saved me a pointless drive in the snow, they clearly don’t have my current email address. Jerry