Peckris 2

It appears to be an antoninianus (a silver washed coin which was a debased version of the denarius, and used in the later Roman Empire; worth less than a denarius). Emperor is almost certainly Carinus (reigned 283-285 AD) and the obverse legend therefore reads M AUR CARINVS NOB C AUG. The reverse is harder to determine but may be PIETAS AVG C (not sure...). I've no reason to think it's not real.

AUnc, or GEF at the very least. Beautiful coin. (There is the usual reverse weakness probably caused by the boldness of the portrait).

Agreed. Nothing wrong with that. My gripe is with the term AUnc being used (even with a lowish number that reflects the true grade) when a coin has had enough wear that it cannot be used in the same sentence as "Uncirculated" (except perhaps with "not"!) Photobucket... so no, it's exactly the same size!

Just as bad is the insistence some have of referring to a team in the singular, as in "England is struggling here, and is lucky to be going in at half time only one goal down". And the increasing disappearance of the word "of" after "couple", compensated for by its unnecessary appearance after "outside". Not to mention the growing habit of referring to a date as (e.g.) "February 3". Still, let's be thankful that we still use the logical DD/MM/YY format. God forbid we should ever descend to the utterly illogical MM/DD/YY.

Trouble is, the slabbing terms (grades) are American. I have no quibble with their numerical scale - which allows for much more precision than 5 alphabetic grades - but I do get irritated by the use of AUnc to apply to preservation that's even below a UK EF.

A UNC??? Sorry guys, but basic grading here... there is too much wear even for EF, though NEF would be fair perhaps. I stand by my GVF though possibly it's a bit better. None of which should detract from its being a very attractive coin which I'd love to pieces if it was in my own collection. But it doesn't even approach Uncirculated.

That makes them as rare as the 1951 penny, which as we all know has proved an extraordinary investment since the 1960s...

You don't seem to have read my previous post at all Rob. I quoted plenty of facts and figures there.

The worst thing is the blatant polishing - the rather unnatural blue lighting only makes this more obvious!

I'm old enough to remember the first news of Bloody Sunday coming in; even though I was only a student (in Birmingham) at the time, it caused me real fear and depression as this was 'on our own doorstep' unlike the Arab / Israeli wars. Then two years later came the Birmingham Pub Bombings and it seemed - sorry to be emotional about this - as if 'darkness had settled over the land'. The point I'm making is that the Good Friday Agreement is the best thing to have happened on our two islands in decades. We should never - EVER - risk going back to a situation where the "Troubles" might flare up again, and if the backstop is the best, or even only, method to prevent this, then Brexit is a tiny and insignificant price to pay.

Cooper didn't pass - that would have got Parliament to reject No Deal (i.e. legally binding). What passed was the non-binding Spelman/Dromy equivalent, which May will probably ignore with her usual obstinacy. Brady passed, which has already been rejected by the EU - which we knew in advance. All tonight's votes - with one exception - were party political, i.e. party before nation. As for Britain acting independently, name me one law we've not been able to pass because of the EU? Name one aspect of YOUR life that's been negatively affected by the EU? As for 'no say', we'd have plenty of say if we remained, as we have had for 40+ years. As for them 'cherry picking access to our markets', that's what British business wants! It's a win- win.

I'm not that keen on the Moore patterns - I don't think they are anywhere near the quality of the late 18th Century copper patterns.

Hopefully some of you watched the programme about Europe (1st of 3 parts) last night? It made some things very clear : the EU is not the monolith many people think - it's 28 separate states, who often don't agree Tusk, rather than the monster some portray him as, was very helpful to the UK - when Cameron faced opposition from East European states to his emergency brake (denying migrants access to benefits), Tusk stepped in and helped persuade them to support Cameron the UK had been granted opt outs not available to other members (Shengen, membership of the Eurozone, rebate) Next week it will be on the Greek crisis. That should be interesting!

Not as barmy or insulting as the egregious John Humphrys suggesting that Eire should leave the EU and join the UK. As for putting in a hard border, it's not been decided yet whose responsibility that would be. And the backstop was the UK's idea as part of the negotiations.

But, does Santa exist?

There's also damage to the adjacent N which looks as though it's been sheared bottom right, nearest to the Y. Not possible to see if it's pre- or post-production though.

I think you are describing the beginnings of a new divide in the UK - not on the traditional left (Labour) versus right (Tory) lines, but along newer lines which Brexit may not be actually causing, but certainly highlighting. On one side you have the 'chattering classes', the internationalists, the younger, the liberals, the Greens, and many Scots - (quite a mix), while on the other you have traditionalists, nostalgics, working poor who feel ignored by Westminster, Tory 'Shires', the more elderly - (also quite a mix). It's very similar I feel, to the divide between Trump supporters and Trump haters in the US. I'm not sure the divide would be the same if was a different situation, i.e. non-Brexit, but the old divides are definitely beginning to be replaced with new ones.

You might try Croydon Coin Auctions? They do have a reputation for dealing with bronze varieties. Their last sale http://www.croydoncoinauctions.co.uk/Catalogue/00_CURRENTCAT.pdf didn't feature either (only F177) but if you look back at previous sales maybe you'll see if they have sold them before? Unfortunately they don't have a search facility for auctions which would be a real boon.

The problem is that No Deal would be bad for everyone. We're very close even to being thrown out of WTO trading, so that would be a total disaster, though even WTO would be the second worst economic outcome. But if what you're saying is that merely threatening No Deal would improve our negotiating position and force EU hands, then I do understand where you're coming from. The danger is that the EU could see through the ploy and call the UK bluff. I understand what you're saying, but the implications of leaving SHOULD have been properly explained before the referendum, so that people knew the true basis of what they were voting for, rather than some of them being swayed by the rhetoric of Boris Johnson and the constant drip drip drip of Europhobia spread by the likes of The Sun, The Telegraph, and especially The Daily Mail and Daily Express. You could probably split Leave voters into three broad groups: 1. Constant Eurosceptics who would always have voted Leave, come what may 2. Those swayed by the rhetoric outlined above 3. (Probably) a small minority who thought seriously about the question and voted accordingly. I don't know for certain, but statistics seem to suggest that 1. is the biggest group, 2. are the floating voters who probably swayed the result towards Leave, and 3. may not have made much of a difference. Yes, there are now dangers enshrined in all forms of action from now on, including crashing out with No Deal, to a second referendum, or May's deal. Probably the least harm would be Remaining as our membership didn't actively harm the UK, and we got far more back from membership of the single market than it cost us, as I hope the attached graph shows (the cost, that is, not the benefit): (Bear in mind that most of that chart is expenditure wholly under UK Government control, not the EU's).

To quote Winston Churchill (who may have been referencing Edmund Burke): There are three duties of a politician: 1. to act in the national interest without prejudice or reference to any other factor ..... 2. to represent constituents, remembering that he/she is a representative not a delegate ..... 3. to act in the interests of political party. ALWAYS in that order: nation, then constituents, then party. And to view the EU as an organisation that is out to spitefully diminish the UK (when the truth is that they have bent over backwards, without bending their strict rules of membership) are the words of a hater spoken without any regard for facts, and with no sources to back up those angry words.

Blimey, I knew Madge was small but not that small! I dare anyone to ask her what has happened to Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, and Mick...