Peckris 2

No-one I know quarrels with the idea of equalising pension ages for men and women. But that process was begun with a gradual postponement of womens' pensions until the Cameron government decided to speed it up hugely. The result of this is that women born a month later than others had to wait more than a year - sometimes 2 or 3 - compared to women born a bit earlier for their state pension. There's nothing fair about that, and the "cost" is only relevant if you calculate it from the loss of savings from that unfair rapid process. Even then, the "thousands of billions" mentioned is utterly laughable. I agree that Corbyn was a major factor. However, if you look at where Labour lost seats (mostly the North & Midlands) they were nearly all Leave seats. So to that extent, i.e. statistically, it WAS a Brexit election.

Virtually all the seats captured by the tories in Labour's North & Midlands had voted Leave in 2016. This really was the Brexit election. Apart from those captures, and Scotland, the results everywhere else were little changed from 2017. The TOTAL Tory vote in the entire UK only increased by 1%. If ever there was a clear indicator for PR that was it.

It refers to the apostrophe (probably why it's listed as ONE ' !) and when I got them to include it around 2005 that was the only variety known. I used Gouby's 'Bronze Penny' as supporting evidence, along with references to Peck and Freeman's footnotes.

It's not a clear cut issue I guess. Certainly the 1928-36 wreaths can't be classed as any kind of commemorative, but I did hear (where? can't remember..) that they were struck for collectors only hence the low mintages. They would not have circulated, as crowns hadn't been struck for currency for over 25 years; the worn examples are almost certainly due to excessive rubbing, or to being kept in a purse wallet or pocket. The 1927 set on the other hand was obviously struck as 'record proofs' of the new designs. Most denominations in it would go on to be currency, but not the crown. It therefore follows the same pattern as the 1937 and 1953 proof sets which both included a crown which - though also struck as non proofs - were clearly one-off commemoratives. Earlier, there were proof sets for the 1887 and 1893 redesigns but the crowns in those were also currency types. Before that there were the Gothic crowns and the William IV rare proof-only mantle crowns. The 1831 set didn't include a currency crown nor did the 1853 set. Arguably (if you accept the Young Head crown as currency) the 1839 set did. It's a can of wriggly things!

I got the apostrophe added to Spink in the mid Noughties and it's been in ever since. In the 2018 book it's listed as "1946 ONE ' die flaw.........75 225" (£, EF BU)

It would be very odd if CCGB included the dot but not the far more well known apostrophe. I'm 99.9% sure it refers to the known variety, even more so because the mega rare dot wouldn't (yet) have a price.

Wow. I'd never seen even an image of one.

But RCL35's post - which I was responding to - clearly refers to the 'apostrophe'!!

You're using "commemorative" in a very literal sense. In the coin world they are often just designs created to be sold to collectors rather than as currency. I would class the 1951, 1953, and 1960 crowns as such, even though there was no specific event on them unlike the Churchill. As for wreath crowns being issued for 9 years, that was only because the 1927 was very popular with collectors and the Mint saw an opportunity to make money (hey, what a concept!), which accounts for the very low mintages; why else do you think so few were minted? I've read that the 1927 was originally planned as a one-off, which indeed makes it a "commem" or whatever you want to call it.

The 1946 dot has been published for a long long time. It was a footnote in Peck and later Freeman. It was included in Gouby's first "Bronze Penny", and I was instrumental in getting it into Spink about 10 or so years ago.

Is that the missionary position, or just that you've posted the picture sideways?

I'd go AEF (as a cautious minimum).

Not at all - it was an entirely new design so nothing to be nostalgic about. 'Commemorating' new designs, in that sense.

Agreed. It's not "one in a series". Like my 1964 filled die sixpence with the I of GRATIA missing - unless others turn up and it gets recorded, I'm not going to make a fortune from it.

That will teach me not only to go back and look at a missed picture, but read the rest of the page as well! That makes your example possibly unique? And therefore sadly undesirable as a collectable though a very interesting curio.

I think it may well be because 1911 fell between the death of the crown as currency (either 1901 or 1902) and its rebirth purely as a commemorative (1927 and after).

I hadn't seen your picture (I often reply to a topic without noticing there are more pages, unread). That dot is somewhat elliptical though not the apostrophe it clearly is on other examples. Two hypotheses: 1. It started as an ellipse which 'grew' a tail due to deformation. 2. It started as an 'apostrophe' but the tail - being rather thin and fine - got filled in.

The 1946 have never been a 'dot' but more like an apostrophe.

Did they meet at a dansak?

True story: my late dad's bladder complaint was operated on by a surgeon called Dick Pocock.

Try reading my post out loud...

I wish I'd bitten the bullet and bought early milled in the 90s. I'm not saying I could have easily afforded it then, but compared with now... Mind you, I do have a representative type of William III crown, shilling and sixpence in at least VF. "All" I need now is a halfcrown to complete the set but the prices of them are a bit ouch.