Leaderboard

The only thing that's gEF about that is the verdigris, which appears to be virtually as grown

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sunken-Treasure-from-the-Reign-of-George-III-Collectable-Coins/153209388800?_trkparms=aid%3D888007%26algo%3DDISC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140328180637%26meid%3D73c456db147f4c449f037f63bf0ba545%26pid%3D100009%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D1%26sd%3D253921574872%26itm%3D153209388800&_trksid=p2047675.c100009.m1982

It's incredibly biased, which is not surprising considering the author's political leanings. He looks for every opening possible to highlight Kavanaugh's potential guilt. Not necessarily saying that his ultimate conclusions aren't correct, as we still definitively don't know, but they are certainly not impartial, and for that reason, I can't find it convincing. If the article had been titled something like "Is Brett Kavanaugh guilty or innocent?", then proceeded to impartially examine both sides of the story and form a conclusion based on what was considered more probable than not after weighing up known facts (balance of probabilities), I'd have been far less sceptical.

Kind of understandable if accused of something he's not done. We're all human. Maybe he meant then in a different way. Yes and no. I'm not sure that someone coming out of the woodwork at an opportune moment for the democrats, to sling out an accusation, should mean that all other factors relating to job qualification are put to one side. 36 years later and at a critical juncture in the career path of the accused? Tad convenient don't you think? There's only been one other actually appointed by Trump, and it would have looked too obvious if they'd tried to discredit all the potential nominees. So to bring this down to ordinary level and applying the same standards would mean that anybody's job chances could be ruined by an individual who didn't like them, and made up a story in the hope of discrediting them. *************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Sorry Peck, I'm playing devils advocate to a certain extent here. I do see both sides of the story, but whilst I think Kavanaugh should get nowhere near the post if he is guilty, such guilt is going to be impossible to nail down, especially given that Blasey-Ford is hopelessly vague when it comes to hard facts such as dates, times and locations. At least Kavanaugh has actually got diaries from the time. We all know that the mind plays tricks when it comes to long term memories, and that maybe the actual guilty party in a traumatic event, might be substituted by entirely the wrong person in recall. All of this makes it extremely unwise to automatically believe one party's account of events and subject the accused to trial by media, usually causing them great and prolonged stress and worry, as well as their reputation being permanently damaged. Incidentally, of course, it's not just Kavanaugh. There are other well known cases of false accusations - Cliff Richard and Bill Roache come immediately to mind. What makes those cases worse is that the accuser basks in anonymity, even after the accused has been found to have no case to answer.

Example overlay using the method described in the previous post: The two coins compared are a September proof and the coin in the post above. They seem to be in the same matrix family of"17--". The first two digits of both coins are spatially equivalent as there aren't two versions of each evident. The "8" and "7" are in different relative positions as can be seen by the ghostly overlay or "double-vision". Obviously different dies were used to make each coin, not that an overlay comparison was necessary with a proof involved.

Ok, I don't expect to get caught in the stampede given it has only had 57 views in a week and no replies. The appearance of this https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/baldwins-of-st-jamess/catalogue-id-srstja10031/lot-3b393123-8bdd-4927-9e94-a94c00d6b2d5 in tomorrow's BSJ sale prompted me to revisit the reason for the large cross to the right of the bust, which is something I have long had on the list of things to do. In his article on the coins of Williams I & II, P W P Carlyon-Britton noted the following varieties for the sword type. Var. A - a modified reverse at Ilchester; B - two pellets one side, and a large cross the other i.e. the above; C - two small crosses to the left of the King's neck - these two at Dorchester; D - annulet by face; E - cross by face - these two at Wareham; F - a variety of crown seen at London. I am sure it is no coincidence that of the above locations, Dorchester and Wareham are adjacent mints separated by only a dozen miles. The question therefore is why do coins from these two mints have the symbols by the bust when no other mints striking in type 6 have them? Despite their proximity, North only gives one moneyer common to both mints (Godwine), but Oter is unquestionably the resident engraver at Dorchester for a considerable period including this issue. This would indicate the marks are not the work of an idiosyncratic moneyer. The fact that more than one moneyer is involved says it is done for more than a whimsical reason. The next nearest mint locations striking in Sword are Chichester, Shaftesbury and Ilchester, with Ilchester the closest - again a location for a variety. What happened in that area to warrant unusual die features? There must be a link somewhere. Sword type is thought to have been struck in the period Michaelmas 1080-1083. My initial thoughts were directed towards a connection with Abbotsbury Abbey, which is reasonably close to Dorchester. The case for a connection was stengthened when I discovered that it was founded by one of Cnut's thegns, Orc, in the early years of Edward the Confessor. Orc and his wife lived at Portesham which is between Abbotsbury and Dorchester, however, it is not close to Wareham. It would be appropriate to celebrate their largesse, and with a timing that is about 30 years after the abbey was founded, could be related to the passing of a major benefactor. William was in France for much of this period and before, leaving his half-brother (Bishop of Bayeux & Earl of Kent) in charge of the kingdom. The latter outstripped his authority by hoping to succeed the Pope, which wasn't in William plan, causing him to return whereupon he intercepted him on the Isle of Wight. Again, geographically separated from the two mints. Thoughts anybody? Fortuitously, I have ticked the Dorchester box with a coin of the same type, but as you can see, mine has the much smaller crosses to the right (var.C) and is a completely different die pair. So we have different moneyers at separate, but relatively close locations adding features only seen at the two locations, with more than one die with additional features cut at both locations. Sword is the second rarest type for William I after Profile Right. The search for plausible reasons goes on.................