Peckris 2

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Victorian-1862-Penny-In-Good-Collectable-Condition-R63-/325160503448?hash=item4bb5138898%3Ag%3Ak-EAAOSw7A1iY93V&nma=true&si=Rxbv5INqUmg1Ders9n0juMr1c2k%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

My own estimation is that it's scoring - if graffiti I can't make out anything that makes sense.

AU - but nothing special, a bit shabby in fact. Perfectly average, I used to sell those for £1 and there weren't many takers.

Wants me to sign in to AOL where I don't have an account, nor want one.

OMG. How many coins in it? Well, sort of... if I'm right, that's the standard obverse used in most years. However, most? of the 1970 proofs use the scarce obverse from 1956 and 1968 where I of DEI is to a space and the rim is wider

I don't need to look very far. As someone who has used Photoshop extensively, I'd estimate that any combination of Unsharp Mask, Smart Sharpen, and / or High Pass filters have been used on that image. As a picture of a genuine coin I'd always go with the London Coins image. The blue is a joke. Reminds me of nothing so much as Coin Monthly's Year Book images at the head of each type in the Blue Pages - the isolation of the main design, legend, and rim, with the fields just a blank blue. But they weren't selling coins, just illustrating the different types.

That definitely looks like a new 1953 reverse, presumably from a VIP set?

Really? "Just photography "? Even Photoshop's unsharp mask doesn't paint in lines that aren’t there to begin with.

From the two stains (coincidentally botth adjacent to different I A ), it's obviously the same coin. What I don't understand is that there is flattening of the hair above the ear on the LCS picture, but the Atlas picture shows all hair strands - especially the 1st and 3rd below the ribbon - which don't look retouched.

I think you can probably ignore the mintage figures. This was the final year of the large 10p's, outside the BU and proof sets. My thought is that the Mint overestimated demand and minted far more than ever got issued; possibly a large proportion of the strike was melted down? Michael Gouby has a couple of high grade currency examples for sale at high prices. Certainly, you don't see 1981s offered for sale otherwise, so they are presumably much rarer than the mintage suggests. Other rarities include the very rare 1983 NEW PENCE 2p, and supposedly recent 50p's such as Kew Gardens (not as rare as thought, really), the 2012 Olympic 'swimmer' 50p with the waves across the swimmer's face, the 2008 'no date' 20p though again, its rarity is exaggerated. I don't think the 1981 10p is possibly as rare as those, but it's telling that the ones on sale on eBay are all proofs (even the one described as BU UNC) and cost between £15 and £18, which is far more than proofs of other years.

A great April and May - I rarely ever left the grounds here, but I was out in them nearly every afternoon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the pound originally a pound weight of silver?

It's not certain!! Apparently Schrodinger might still live there. Or he might have died. One or the other.

I believe iOS 15 will translate from one language to another by voice, then translate the reply back to the first language? I'm sure I saw it somewhere.. Here: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/iphone/iphd74cb450f/ios

Makes my upgrade from a forum member - EF with gorgeous toning - seem a real bargain!

Sorry, but if we are going to debate on this level, then I feel I must stop. But before I leave it, I'll just say that in Corbyn's case - in the irtually impossible scenario that his wife converted from socialism to become a Tory - then Corbyn couldn't be held to account. But for the reasons I won't repeat again, it's not the same in Sunak's case. If you can't see that, then as I say we are going round in circles and I don't have the energy to keep repeating myself. Sorry.

Not at all. I'm holding both morally responsible for each other.

Sorry, but that's absurd. It isn't in the realm of possibilities. But if on some planet somewhere far in a distant galaxy, it had happened, then the answer is No, you wouldn't. But I'm sorry, someone in office may be held MORALLY responsible for a partner's actions IF they related directly to the political post he or she held. For example, Sunak could have said to his wife "Your non-dom status is entirely your business, of course it is. But it puts me in an awkward position as Chancellor. Please, just think about it, ok?"

I'm afraid that just isn't a factor in politics. "Caesar's wife" and all that. It was equally the same when Denis Thatcher got up to anything remotely dodgy, so "the little woman to be no more than a chattel" line simply doesn't hold water. If you're Chancellor, you're entitled to be married to an obscenely wealthy woman, no-one's denying that. But when you're making economic decisions that affect the poorest in society during a cost-of-living crisis, and your wife hangs on to non-dom status in order to keep millions safe from the Treasury, it's not a good look.

Never mind hammered. How much would you say a circulated 1949 brass 3d (F/GF) should go for ? £10 (plus juice)? If you're lucky? DNW estimate was £60 - £80. "Aha" I thought, "an obvious error. Just see what it actually fetches, and observe the faces with egg on..." IT FETCHED FIFTY QUID!!! Plus juice... WHAT??????

Clearly Heatons didn't design the pennies themselves - they must have used either matrices or punches supplied by the Mint (I'd love to know the technological trail behind the 'farming out' of issues to subcontractors). Might it be possible, with designs not used by the Mint until after Heatons, that they were using their subcontractors as guinea pigs to try out new designs, using dies supplied by the Mint? Though it would seem odd, considering the changes involved were - to the layman - rather trivial and not something the Mint would be afraid to experiment with. The alternative is to suppose that Heatons had their own engraver(s) - which they certainly must have, considering they produced coins for other customers. However, there must have been liaison with Leonard Wyon or his successor, in order to make the necessary (quite small) changes to the designs.

I think, as a married couple, they are jointly responsible for financial decisions they make.

I believe only one die was produced for the 1882 London penny, so that the new electronic presses could be tested? They picked up an obverse die from what had been used for 1881, perhaps preferring to reserve the new obverse dies to send to Heatons; as for the reverse, maybe they sent ready made 1882 dies to Heatons with just the mintmark to be punched in - in which case they could use one of those for a limited strike before sending it off to Birmingham for an H to be added. One thing's for sure, we'll never know!