Peckris 2

Yes, I've certainly heard of 1944 undarkened, but they're very scarce. 1946 come in both flavours, but the mint darkened type I would say is more common. Here's an interesting one - a 1940 penny that appears to have been darkened, which is unheard of in my experience. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1940-George-VI-Penny-Bronze-Coins-KM-Coins/173869777932?_trkparms=aid%3D555018%26algo%3DPL.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D57477%26meid%3Db06794f45fd54bc19020d9507f8e7f09%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D192893122637%26itm%3D173869777932&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851 I've just taken a punt on it (made an offer which was accepted) - I'll see in hand if it actually is Mint toned. If not, I'll have a standard 1940 penny to sell.

It was the late Colin Cooke who told me how rare they are. In the mid-90s - when Spink didn't list the two varieties and had a general price of £6 for 1940 - he advised me that my Unc example would retail for at least £20... ... so £25 for an Unc example is a damn good price!

Yes, absolutely. We can now safely establish there are 2 kinds of coin collector, operating in ever-further apart worlds. The only thing I'd say is that "coins" not for currency are not coins at all really. Patterns and proofs are also not for circulation but at least they connect to currency in real and interesting ways.

I think they have probably worked it out: low numbers means high prices for the issue and greater profit per item more than that though, they are establishing a market for rarities and counting on collectors being stimulated to snap up every issue within hours or days; an ever repeating cycle only limited by whatever spurious anniversary they need to make the damn things.

Some Amazon reviews are worth their weight in gold. Here are the first few for the canvas print of Paul Ross, before it (or they!) were pulled... (I've tried loads of times to post these including converting the whole caboodle to plain text and removing all links, but I keep getting a "403 Forbidden" - WHY???)

Of course, England was actually more or less France back then.

Plenty-ISH. Michael Gouby rates them as one level of scarcity rarer than the 1926ME.

EF with plenty of Mint toning - I'd be happy enough with that.

The 1937 are probably the least exciting (to me) penny varieties - none of them is rare and they are micro varieties at best. The two 1940s are a different matter; the 'common' one is fairly elusive in BU but the other one (rated N in Freeman) is a bugger to get. I was lucky enough to get mine from John Dunkerton of Windsor Coins in the late 70s when collectors weren't too bothered about them. The 1944 is - as you've found - surprisingly hard in genuine Unc; mine is AUnc only but I've never been either enthused to upgrade or seen one at the right price. I cannot find a high grade 1946 O N E ' for love nor money. Should you find two in your search, let me know!!

Disgusting. If the RM had issued a commemorative set in 1990 (they didn't) you could understand that packaging. But not the price. I hope no-one falls for it, and instead goes out to buy a BU 1940 silver set for less than £100.

$300 for the second or third most common coin in UK history??

"You seem to deny..." is quite clear. No paranoia here. No misinterpretation. It's why I wondered what your "rebuttal" meant as it then got contradicted. Maybe it was clumsy wording on your part? In which case you could understand any misinterpretation which - if it existed - was not wilful at all.

That is good value. You will find F191 well struck up more often, as the head is shallower relief allowing Britannia to be fully struck up, and much less ghosting.

It came from this, towards the end of your first paragraph : "You seem to deny the “working classes” the ability to come to the same reasoned decisions with the same access to media as the rest of us, which ever way the individual verdict was. It seems a popular remainer conception that the outcome of the referendum was determined by a protest vote by the ignorant, despite the “working classes” having exactly the same average IQ as the rest of the population."

I actually said "dispossessed" not ignorant. But the Northern areas of neglect (former Lancashire mill towns, Yorkshire wool and coal, Northeast shipbuilding to name but three) were pretty fed up with Westminster deciding their fate ever since Maggie T oversaw the running down of our traditional industrial base. Many of them - outside the bigger cities - felt ignored, sidelined, even trodden down, by the comparative wealth of the South. Why wouldn't they protest? General Elections hadn't made much difference to them from 1979 on, so a referendum where the government of the day was "advising" them to vote Remain was a prime opportunity to make their voices heard. I can't speak for you obviously, but yes, there is a definite contradiction between 'hating Westminster' and voting to hand London even more control over their lives. But I guess we'll have to put that one down to emotion, which has been the dominant factor on both sides - increasingly so since 2016.

No. The dispossessed working class northerners were about thumbing their noses at the Westminster elite, which is what many Leave votes were about. Sure, The Mail et al claimed we had lost sovereignty - we hadn't. Nor self-determination, as our policies on defence, welfare, education, housing, industrial stratgy, defence, broad taxation, prove clearly enough. It's probably something we will never know. What we do know is that Dominic Cummings came up with the slogan "Take back control", BoJo with "Independence Day", and the Leave campaign was sold the social networking targeted adverts app. Then there are the more shadowy figures of Cambridge Analytica, Steve Bannon, Arron Banks, etc. I think you'll find that though those things WERE mentioned often enough, the customs union wasn't. I watched most of the TV debate s and analysis and didn't hear it once. And the stuff about "taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders" are soundbites that sound much more rooted in reality than they are. May's deal actually does include the prospect of a permanent customs union, just not in so many words. Good points, well made. It doesn't matter how many times Brexiters repeat that "everyone knew what they were voting for", the clear and only answer is "Leave the EU" or "Remain in the EU". The implications of both have been made clearer in 2019 than at any other time. Not during the campaign they didn't. Yes, the Single Market was mentioned, but more often in the terms of "Who on earth wants the UK to leave the Single Market? It's the EU we plan to leave not the SM."

Hence the need for proper, informative, full and accurate campaigning, which both sides can agree was not the case. Yes, that is odd. Cameron didn't expect to win the 2015 GE outright, but having done so, and seen off the UKIP threat, there was no particular urgency. Indeed he apparently told the EU heads - when asked why he had promised a referendum - that he didn't expect to win the GE and that the LibDems would block it. Perhaps - his majority being decisive but hardly massive - he was being threatened by the ERG that they would vote legislation down if he didn't deliver?

Even then it's not a sure way to proceed. There can be many reasons why some sales do better than others at the same auction house: - competing sales elsewhere - other types of events in the vicinity - whether there are certain lots that will pull in the punters, or just a so-so catalogue - even the weather and time of year can affect things

1. MPs voted for an advisory referendum 2. I still don't understand why so many voted to trigger A50 before there was even a plan in place 3. MPs have to subscribe to their manifesto, but they're not consulted on what goes in it - and ask yourself, how many voters plumped for Tory or Labour because of the party stance on Brexit? A GE is not a referendum. Most of them are, even Remainers. The question is one that no-one can answer, least of all the barroom attorneys so quick to put their two-pennorth in, viz HOW? The worst scenario is a hard Brexit, even the government says so. However the ERG are doing their damnedest to ensure that happens even though many of them claim it's not what they really want.

Interesting. Sometime in the early 70s, the Royal Mint changed from a 'satin' finish (commonly seen on most Unc CuNi decimals from 1968-73) to a mirror finish. True BU specimens can look 'prooflike' in that respect, but otherwise lacking the crisp detail and sharp edges of a true proof.

So Alfred Hitchcock was following a long tradition!

Not the full story. We already have heaps of trade deals with other countries due to being in the EU. All those and more would have to be renegotiated from scratch. And why would any other nation give us - with a population of 66m - more favourable terms than the combined Single Market of the other 27? Also, the ECJ would only be able to rule on trade deals and tariffs if we were in a customs union - all other regulations would be outside their jurisdiction. It IS a fair market place for those who are in it. No lobbyists have the power to deal with 27 or 28 separate heads of state. Agreed. Winston Churchill said all MPs have three priorities in the following order: 1. National interest. 2. Interests of constituents. 3. Political Party. I think it's extremely insulting to call MPs traitors when they are trying their best to avoid what would harm the nation for who knows how many years ahead.

There are some very suspicious abrasions beneath both '8's. Someone lend me a bargepole please, so that I have something not to touch it with?

Lions and lambs, anyone?

You get a 'feel' for Obverses 1 and 2, and Reverses A & B after a while. I could see that was the second obverse even without checking the teeth.