Peckris 2

Hi Jack - Welcome to the forums What you call a 'pattern' is actually a 'type' - and you sound already like a type collector rather than date runs (we all start with runs, some of us don't stay there forever!). There are also coins that really are patterns - those are strikes of a new design that is not actually adopted by the Treasury for currency coins. For example, Queen Anne farthings, many late 18th Century copper coins when they were experimenting with machine-produced base metal coins (there was a serious shortage of 'small change'), George V double florins, etc etc. If you've got Grading British Coins then you're well on the way to being able to grade coins with reasonable accuracy. That plus your other two books are a great start. If you end up wanting to collect scarce shilling varieties then Davies and Groom (2 separate books) are two very useful additions for silver varieties. Don't rush. Read widely. Coin fairs - at which you will find reputable dealers - are a great way to explore the hobby and learn more.

There's nor business like Schnorbitz-ness? (Sorry!) I have met and conversed with Al Stewart, Hawkwind, Kevin Ayers. My 2 biggest claims to fame are 1) being patted on the head by Suzi Quatro when I apologised for the small attendance at the Students Union 2) watching MOTD (Liverpool were on... he'll be turning in his grave now) with John Peel when he guested at a SU gig.

I seem to remember there were two distinct obverses from 1968 - 69. One had a slightly flatter appearance and a satin finish, the other was mildly 'dished' and had a glossier finish. There were subtle differences in the portrait but I cannot now remember what they were. Both types can be found in the blue wallet sets.

doesn't look cleaned to me.

I bought a GEF 1862 with a very very dark reverse with a wide rim that was specimen-like - but it was only £1 from a Yank seller at the Midland!

I'd definitely dispute "great" being applied to Bernie Winters. Those two were the only showbiz act that made Little and Large look good..

The reverse border teeth are an especial giveaway.

They have been machined post-production - the 'workings' on the face of the smooth side are a dead giveaway.

Yes, those links are fine for me.

No, the Lifehouse album I have is an unofficial compilation based on a fan blog: "This is a long-overdue upgrade to one of the very first reconstructions on my blog: the doomed rock opera Lifehouse by The Who, the next in a series of alternate Who albums. Originally planned as a double concept album and the soundtrack to its accompanying film, Lifehouse was too technically complex and conceptually baffling to all except Pete Townshend. After a nervous breakdown while making the album and the lack of support from manager and producer Kit Lambert, Lifehouse was scrapped and paired [sic] down to the single LP Who's Next, which became one of The Who's crown achievements, critically and commercially. This reconstruction attempts to pull the best sources of all tracks associated with the Lifehouse project recorded by The Who and assemble them not only in a pleasing and cohesive track order, but to follow the storyline of the film." The track listing is Side A: 1. Teenage Wasteland 2. Time Is Passing 3. Love Ain't For Keeping 4. Going Mobile 5. Baby Don't You Do it Side B: 6. Baba O'Riley 7. Mary 8. I Don't Even Know Myself 9. Greyhound Girl 10. Bargain Side C 11. Naked Eye 12. Behind Blue Eyes 13. Too Much of Anything 14. Let's See Action 15. Getting In Tune Side D 16. Pure and Easy 17. Won't Get Fooled Again 18. The Song Is Over To which I have added 'Join Together' in my own iTunes, as it's basically a Lifehouse song in my opinion.

Eh? What album are you referencing? The first is from Odds & Sods (isn't it?) while the second is from Lifehouse, or Townshend's first solo album.

Yes - David Hepworth has a 'big thing' about 1971 and rates it as one of the best 3 albums of that brilliant year.

No sadly - Quadraphenia is a good album though would be better if remixed. My favourite(s) are The Who Sell Out and Who's Next.

Oh that reminds me of another one - "loose" instead of "lose" !

I saw the Mick Taylor Stones in Birmingham in 1973 - they were good yes, but compared to The Who live... well, they just weren't!

I've seen it's pulled .... but 0 bids? How do you explain that given the above posts?

Quite possibly the best Who concert I attended - though 1969 would run it close. Both featured 'Tommy' extensively and it's not even my favourite album!

Great idea. Unfortunately due to various things like incontinence and severe fatigue I simply don't travel out of the county

Early 70s. Any particular reason for asking? 1. Awful Americanism. 2. English grammar! It was the execrable Reverend Lowth who, in the 18th Century, "decided" that - following Latin principles - you couldn't end a sentence with a preposition, nor split an infinitive (among other things). The latter is especially ridiculous as an infinitive in Latin is a single word and therefore cannot be split anyway! That's also one of mine. Derived from hearing "could've" and assuming what was heard was "could of". I remember practising my modern Greek on a ferry around the Greek islands - the barman asked me - in English - to speak English so he could understand me better! Another Americanism. Aaaaargh.

Why would they strike millions of coins then overstrike each one? No, as Martin says, it's the die that gets recut either to reuse it or to correct an error or to recut wearing characters.

That's a VERY expensive pine plank!

1968, 1969 (opening night of the UK Tommy tour), 1971?, 1974, 1975, 1976 Charlton, 1989

I wish! Unfortunately I'm not mobile these days.

Alas poor Yorick, I knew him HORATIO ... amazing how many people get that wrong! I assume that's what you were referring to? Yes, the word criteria used as a singular (like phenomena) is almost as annoying as 'attendee'. It also trumps my degree in 'Roman and Hellenic Studies' from Birmingham University! But at least we were taught modern Greek by a Communist refugee from the Colonels.