Sylvester

I'm sure many remember pretending to be a shopkeeper/customer as a child. My cousins and i used to act out these roles (helped us figure money out!) Practical mathematics i'd call it. Sure we used decimal coins. The old five pences came in handy for that, they hadn't been out of circulation long at the time. But we also used to do it in predecimal. Caused a bit of confusion, i eventually got the hang of it!

Another reason why i like florins, only predecimal coins i ever spent (legally). I think i may have passed some old shillings of as old five pences which was perfectly legal, unfortunately i didn't find out that shillings had still been legal tender in 1990 until 1992. (So i'd been hoarding alot and disposing of the odd one on the quiet). If i had have known better then i could have got shut of alot of shillings too, but i don't ever remember getting any shillings in change during the late eighties so i thought they were no longer legal tender. As for George V florins, i've had exactly one in change.

Looking at that, erm yes.

I've got a few thousand pennies... ... i really must take them to the bank sometime! 2700 halfpennies is quite impressive though, i'm guessing they date from Victoria to Liz II, what's the longest run of dates you've got without a gap? I have about 100 silver Washington quarters only a few dates are missing. And the majority of the left overs are 1963/4 dates.

I've just finished watching a programme on the Industrial Revolution (not usually my thing but i felt a bit like it today). You may well have known that Trevithick was the first person to build a steam engine (and a steam car) back in the first decade of the 19th century and that he helped pioneer the shift from using low pressure steam to using high pressure steam. Well as it turns out not only does he have a connection with the coinage due to being honoured on the 2004 £2 coin but that he was despised by James Watt and Matthew Boulton who held the patent rights on the low pressure steam engines they had pioneered. The very same two that had led to the 1797 copper twopence's existence. How they'd shudder at the thought of Trevithick being honoured on a medium that they had help to progress. Interesting no? Infact Watt suggested that Trevithick should have been hanged because he was a menace to society, at the time it was considered that high pressure steam boilers were extremely dangerous (they were, but of course Trevithick stuck on the one thing most people had forgot, a safety valve), so Watt probably though he was protecting people from a suicidal maniac. Than and he also wanted to ensure that Trevithick didn't outperform their technology and nick all of their customers.

I disagree i think the size is just right on the farthing, it's why i like them alot more than say pennies... pennies are just too big for my tastes. Decimal pennies are preferable. I find medium is the best size for most things.

Nice timing for me personally. I just hope i'm gonna have enough money left! Otherwise i'll have to come back with an Edward I penny...

What i meant JMD is what denomination as a whole? I expected you to go for farthings though, mind you i was brought up on them.

I would imagine it is electric also, can't say for sure though.

Oops yeah I skipped one! Answer 5 is wrong? Then how come we had an Edward VIII? The answer to number 5 is actually 11. Edward's I-VIII, plus Edward's Elder, Martyr and Confessor.

Interesting answers, some right, some not so right. The first two are definately correct. 3) and 4) are interesting questions because it supports the Scottish argument that they have to play second fiddle to Westminster. As far as i can remember Scotland had one king William of it's own, William the Lion sometime back in the 13th century i believe. I never know the dates of Scottish kings. England of course had two king William's prior to 1603. Which means that William III and IV were II and III of Scotland respectively. Thus Prince William would be William V of England but only William IV of Scotland. Of course the authorities would probably ignore this. As for James', You nearly had it right, James II was James VII of Scotland. Which means that a James III of England would be James VIII of Scotland (this is ignoring the claim of James Stuart the Elder Pretender who was declared as King James VIII by the then king of France Louis XIV). Now should a James turn up any time soon it might be the case that he would be referred to by both numbers, as James VI and VII were. It might also be nice to point out that Elizabeth II really is Elizabeth I of Scotland. The answer to question 5 is wrong.

I should add, we are concerned with monarchs that reigned in their own right, not queen consorts.

I don't think it's purely because of we expect them to know where our coins are from, but as an educated guess i'd figure it to be two reasons why we have never bothered issuing country names and denominations on the coinage; 1) For the majority of the hammered series there was no indication of value on the coins (this is the same for most countries i should think) Okay Elizabeth I-Charles II hammered used to stick values on but the older system of not bothering was reimplemented when we switched to milled coinage in 1662. The reason for this is that countries issued coinage primarily for the native population and the majority would already know what value a coin of any given size was.* *Another reason for going back to the practice of abandoning face value on coins in 1662 may have been to do with the fact that during the twilight years of the hammered coinage you'd have shillings and sixpences circulating stating their specific value (at issue) XII or VI, but due to clipping, holing and general wear the majority in the 1670s and 1680s would not have been circulating at the value inscribed on them. Can you imagine how confusing recieving two hammered groats in change would be, one circulating as 3 1/4d and the other as 2 3/4d based on weight value whilst both said IIII on them? Perhaps the authorities were just playing it sensible by not putting denominations on the new milled coins, afterall the guineas were floating on the bullion market and thus their value changed from day to day, no point putting 20/- on them in 1663 when by 1693 they were circulating at say 30/- was there? Particularly with regards to stamps why bother putting a country of origin on? Surely the postmark would give that away if the letter was going abroad anyhow, and i doubt very much that internally people would need reminding what country they were in. 2) Thinking of the Victorian Empire here another reason for perhaps declining to put on face values on coinage was because doing so might seem exclusive to the Empire. If the coin didn't have a face value on and was issued in Britain i suppose it could circulate anywhere in the Empire in theory, without causing confusion. If the coin stated 'Great Britain' would it be accepted in say Malta? Think about Guernsey and Jersey coinage, shopkeepers are often reluctant to take them because they are clearly issued somewhere else than Britain, if the coins did not state a country of origin on most people would just take it as another one of those one off designs from the UK that turn up from time to time. Therefore perhaps not putting on the country of origin was about ensuring that the coins were seen as inclusive rather than exclusive to the rest of the Empire? With the decline of Empire in the 1920s-1940s it's interesting to note that this is the period when the stated denomination on coins makes it's big comeback. The country name still eldudes though because it's just not essential. Glad to see we haven't stuck 'stupidity labels' pointing out the obvious on quite everything yet... Like that recent newstory about a shopkeeper being complained at because his candles did not say "caution, these candles are flammable" I kid you not...

Actually there was a system in operation in the UK for how the denomination was expressed, that's if you can call it a system. Now i'm a bit rusty in these areas so here goes; The Gothic/Godless florins had 'one florin, one tenth of a pound' the reason for this was the florin was a new coin and they had to explain clearly what it was worth whilst coining a 'new' name for it (or rather a recycled one). They chose to express it as 'one tenth of a pound' rather than as 'two shillings' because it was a time of heightened interest in decimalisation, thus the florin was introduced as a step towards decimalisation in 1849. Hence why they raferred to it as a tenth of a pound. All the other coins before 1936 (including florins after 1887), stated the denomination thusly; Crown, Halfcrown, Florin, Shilling, Sixpence, Fourpence, Threepence, One Penny, Half Penny, Farthing, Half Farthing. However by 1937 it was decided that it was time to modernise, the '20s and '30s being a period of 'art neuveax' (sp?) and new streamline styles and modern looking things. This new style of returning to basic and arguably blandness spread to the coinage. Terms such as Crown, Florin, were considered archaic and too dressed up, thus they decided to describe the coins in the barest terms possible. thus from 1937 onwards we get; Five Shillings, Halfcrown (this one lingered on, but 'Two Shillings and Sixpence' was a bit of a mouthful!), Two Shillings, One Shilling, Sixpence, Threepence... So the answer to your question lies in fashion.

Wonders never cease... I think the immortal lines from 'Allo 'Allo sums this up LeClerc (in disguise) - "It is i, LeClerc" Rene Artois - "I never would have guessed..."

They certainly are supposed to do what the population want. Here's a few other random points to consider... Whilst the communist militia may well have practised this, it's not my period so i cannot say, there is a fundamental problem with communism as i see it. Indeed perhaps socialism as well. I think to gain the best out of an individual that person has to be allowed to be an individual and act in ways that are good for them (so long as it doesn't encroach upon the general will of society). Communism with it's collectivism is at odds with freedom because whilst it levels out the social playing field it is one that has to be maintained by force and a small elite (which means that it's not strictly communal as there's still a simplistic hierarchy which makes communism actually impossible). Plus making everyone behave and act the same is paramount to brainwashing and goes against individual freedom. Socialism whilst not as bad if used in a positive light (i.e generous charity from an individual, or from a government with the majority of the people's consent) to those that are deserving is okay. However socialism still has a doctrinal issue of making people conform, society over the individual, hence where all the political correctness twaddle comes from. I think perhaps the best way of running a society is to do it upon an individual level but to ensure that there is some balance so that the individuals are encouraged to work co-operatively rather than conflicting against one another. I think this is best summed up from a Chinese theologian whom stated that Heaven and Hell were as follows; Both Heaven and Hell had three things in common, 3 foot long chopsticks, a big table and lots of rice bowls. In Hell the people suffered miserably because they were all sat around the table attempting to feed themselves with the three foot long chopsticks but they could never get the food to their mouth and thus there were starving. This was due to their selfish nature. In Heaven the people had exactly the same setup, but instead of trying to feed themselves each person would feed the person opposite. They flourished because they realised that by helping others they themselves could recieve help also... in a capitalistic sense looking after your customers per say. Constructive individualism that acknowledges their part within the community is therefore good, some capitalistic ventures are rather good in this respect because they further themselves whilst aiding the community around them. These are the businesses that remember their regular customers and ensure that they are looked after. Negative individualism is when people get too greedy and go all out to screw the most money out of everyone possible and stuff society... and some capitalistic ventures take this approach, where it's 100% about the shareholders and so what if the customer comes back? This in my opinion is not so good. Sorry for having gone off topic there, but perhaps the best society is one where individual and community are in harmony with perhaps emphasis on difference and individualism? There is a tendency in this country to group people, "they are Asian", "they are Chinese"... leading to "you must not call a blackboard black because it might be insulting to black people"... hence the new terminology 'chalkboard' This as far as i am concerned only shows the inherent racism of the powers that be, they feel the need that they have to point it out! If they wanted an integrated society then why not treat everyone exactly the same regardless of skin colour/language differences, and abandon all this targeting them as 'groups' nonsense. Whilst ever the government think of them as distinct and separate groups and treat them as such (especially around election time) it to me appears as though they are seen as being external to the rest of the British population, which for a multi-ethnic society is a bit contradictory is it not?

The Coincraft will open your eyes to how much you didn't know... ...trust me nothing comes close with regards to the information available.

That's got a very nice portrait actually! Be warned though hammered coins are addictive... and you'll not see it coming.

Jury service hey? That would be both a very good method and a very bad one. Problem is with it, is that power might shift hands too much, too quickly meaning you'd not get much done, plus you'd have to have an administration system set up to ensure that the 'government' didn't take advantage of it's new powers and decide to try an keep them. Hopefully though most people will see it as an absolute chore (like Jury service) and would just go along with what the population at anytime wanted so that they could get the hell out of there as fast as possible and back home to their families.

Correct.

Much cruder in style but in the same price range are Henry III Pennies of the mid-thirteenth century. Either long or short cross types. Here is a long cross type that cost me about £25 or so, i think it was class Vg (5G not as in the grade VG just incase that confused you, it did me to begin with, i was looking all over for the class number!) These are a heck of alot cruder in style than the recoinage types of 1279 onwards, but i kinda like them. I love the guidelines for the halving and quartering, i'm sure this could cause problems if the coin, like this was off centre though! These coins are often available with a very dark grey almost black tone, not unlike Edward VII farthings. I have every reason to suspect mine's been cleaned at some time. Which in hammered coins isn't so much of a crime because afterall most of them are dug out of the ground and you have to clean them so you can identify them!

Class 10A Edward I Penny, CIVITAS CANTOR (This was my first hammered coin), I must have had it about 11 years now.

Here's one i never managed to suss out; Edward I Penny, CIVITAS LONDON, Seemingly of Class 4 or thereabouts, Class 4 what though is anyone's guess... (Chipped flans i might be able to live with, but ghosting is something i generally try and avoid where possible, but this had such a colourful tone with it that i had to buy it)

They do often sell below book price in my experience, or at least below Coincraft prices. But the prices vary according to quality of strike and clipping/chipping issues. Most mints are pricey in the higher grades. The most expensive ones of the lot are actually from the London mint, the first issue from the mint are very, very pricey indeed. I like Edward I coinage, it's good fun to identify, near impossible sometimes, but still fun. Now the Henries on the other hand... now they are often a nightmare to identify to a class or sometimes even a monarch.

Or we could all take turns... That could be good. Individual from a community puts themselves forward to represent the community (much like one of those voluntary magistrate people), if they get a certain percent of the town's popular support behind them (character witness type thing) then they can run for office in any particular town. All the town leaders then put themselves forward for leader of the city and the city population picks the best candidate, he or she becomes mayor of the city. All the city mayors go together to pick county mayors and you keep going up until you have a guy at the top running the whole country with advice from the other leaders etc. below he or she. No party government system. The law then requires that person to hold office for two/four years and then they must step down and allow a successor to take over. Make it compulsory that eligable candidates must pass certain exams to get to each level, kinda like driving tests, the usual, advanced etc. This should stop the system from falling into the hands of say a drug addict off of the street.