Peckris 2

Agreed - that and winning back up to 4m UKIP voters (who were the only people actually CALLING for a referendum) to the Tory cause. Is this separate from "why we should remain"? If so, the answer is short and easy: for all the benefits and advantages.

At that stage of wear it's difficult to rule on things like overstrikes - look at the damage to the I for example.

Parliament is our constitutional democracy, elected by the People. The Executive - which used to be the Crown and is now the Government - is separate from that. So, this is the complexity we now have: the Referendum Act passed by Parliament made it advisory only, i.e. not legally binding. The Executive, with no Parliamentary authority, decided to make the result binding and stated so on the ballot paper. That has created a divide where the legally passed Act has been modified by Government without the consent of Parliament, and it's the same divide as caused the Civil War, i.e. who has power, Parliament or the Executive? You can insult Parliament all you like, but they are your democratic representatives, not Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Jacob Ree-Smogg acting from their own interests.

I think that is a good idea, as long as the voting is all done at the same time. By the way, you don't need 3 - Deal means May's, No Deal means WTO. The choice of three options is also fair, but it would have to be written in that the winning margin couldn't be - for example - 34, 33, 32; the winning vote would have to be a clear % ahead of the next most popular, or it's No Decision and would have to be rerun. If the rerun was also No Decision, then lord knows what would happen next, it would have to go to a penalty shoot out...

Apart tfrom the dodgy link, you're quite right - I just needed to scroll down! My mistake was clicking one of the buttons higher up.

The bulge in the exergue above the 7 is the most observable difference. Looks like a different variety.

Aren't they still in Europe? I know we are - Bayern in the Round of 16.

These were possibly struck to test out the new electrical pressing equipment the Mint was converting to, probably the reason why Heatons got the exclusive contract for pennies that particular year.

When I said "not working", I meant not here - however it does work if I copy/paste it into the address bar. Most links people post in these forums act as direct links when I click them. Yours is blue and apparently 'clickable' but it doesn't open a new tab, doesn't do anything. But those items showing above don't appear anywhere I've gone to on their site - plenty of other cr*p but not those 50 years of 50p sets, though you do get the information about the set from the original link, but not anywhere else on the site.

Your link (which didn't work, by the way!) takes me to the set on the RM site - however, "Buy Now" brings up many things but not that set. Certainly no "sold out" message.

"This listing was ended by the seller because there was an error in the listing."

slightly better than GVF for me, but I wouldn't argue with NEF.

ANTI-logger. Ok, that makes sense now. You'd install anti-virus software but not a virus!

Oh I don't know - it might well be Unc under all that corrosion

Presumably marginally more gullible than people who buy the genuine coin?

So why would @ozjohn install one?

So they now freely admit a lot of their output is shite?

Not so sure? The orb doesn't look FULLY struck up, and the thistles top and left also don't look fully struck, nor do the diamonds on the crown. And the hair detail on the obverse doesn't convince me either. However, this likewise is merely opinion.

Especially if they're selling a shilling...

Never seen its like. Privately produced?

Very very nice Mike - and very rare, possibly as rare as a 1926ME in similar condition.

I think it's an illusion caused by how the lustre has worn?

To my mind it's a thin planchet, though how is another matter. It's clearly not post-Mint as it's fully struck up. Interesting.

You waited 9 years to ask that?

Yes, a good bit of research that. It does, however, beg the question of how much notice did the collecting community take of these articles and letters? Serious collectors in the 1960s were only buying top grades pre-1937 and the recessed ear was not published in official catalogues and guides, and very much less noticeable in EF and above. I remember that the 1946 ONE' flaw was described in a beginners' page in Coin Monthly early '68, soon after I started my own interest in coins - it didn't lead to any widespread dissemination of the variety for years though. I think people read those things in magazines and thought "Ooh that's interesting, I must look out for them", but due to a lack of follow-up (which of course would occur rapidly now in the internet age) soon forgot or lost interest.