Rob

Oh sorry, a crown. I've got other denominations though. Will have to look at what I have as I only know of a shilling and penny for certain. Might have a halfpenny still, but no farthing as I was asked for one yesterday. Sixpence and threepence are possibilities too.

Sorry, just one in a decent EF. Beautifully toned though with gold and green highlights, so probably stored in lambs wool for much of its life. Dealers don't list them because demand is relatively slow. There are other things that will sell much quicker which take priority.

Well, all I can suggest is that you harangue your MP to put pressure on the government into restricting RM activities. That would be a win/win situation for both of us. No nasty private profits from your perspective, and less modern tat from my perspective as a result of the restricted distribution. I really don't understand why you are opposed to private enterprise. It provides jobs, government revenues, virtually everything you will ever own, and going to work provides people with a sense of purpose. It isn't only the taxable profits of the private company that the government benefits from. It also receives tax under NI and PAYE from the employees of the private company, plus VAT and other taxes from their purchases out of their taxed income. We all rely on private businesses to provide the necessities of life.

The mint is making profit on the back of collectors, be they casual or numismatist. Westminster is making profit on the back of almost entirely casual collectors with little numismatic knowledge. There will always be profit from the end user otherwise nobody would be in business. Everybody in the chain takes a bit of profit, but by and large they are an essential part of the distribution network, so can't be dispensed with selling only from the manufacturer. The internet will have some effect on that, hence the downward pressure on prices for many consumables. Do I think RM products are overpriced? Yes, but no more so than the latest fashion accessory or the latest Apple product, or the top end large cars that half this country seems obsessed with driving. Those are all incredibly profitable for the people who make them and their distributors.

Obviously the numbers are hypothetical, but if the mint sells a pound (that costs say £3 to produce) to a company such as Westminster for example at £26/unit, then the mint has made £23 profit. Job done and the Mint has no further input. If Westminster then offer them on at say £35, then they will make £9 gross profit if and when they sell. If the mint is selling them at £40 to the public then they are making £37 profit per unit, but would receive delayed gratification dependant on how long it would take to cover their costs, having foregone the opportunity to quickly offset manufacturing costs by selling them in bulk to the coin trade. At no point is the third party selling them back to the Royal Mint to make a profit. The profit comes from the retail customer in all cases. It is no different to any other commercial supply chain. It is why you have showrooms and don't communicate directly with the manufacturer in most instances. This discussion is going round in circles and getting nowhere.

Using third parties also spreads the risk. What happens when the mint takes everything under its control? Who covers the cost of a bad commercial judgement when they make 100K and only sell a few thousand pieces? Unsurprisingly, it is you and me. By selling in bulk to third parties, the Mint's manufacturing costs are recouped much quicker than if they had to stockpile and then sell enough to cover expenditure. Having moved on ten thousand pieces and received payment, that money can be put to good use. Economies work best when the velocity of money is high. The shorter the time between expenditure and recovery, the quicker you can develop the next product. I'm sorry, but you are living in an ideal world where everything is under state control, commercial profits are banned and we all live thanks to the benevolence of our political masters. Many people in this country earn money on the back of government activity, and yes, they profit from it.

It does serve the public. It made a profit last year, the proceeds of which went to the treasury. The fact that it has an arrangement with a private company is neither here nor there. Sure it is on the sales ledger rather than the purchase ledger, but either way a private company is benefiting from government activity by providing their services for a slice of the cake. That's the way the world operates. Personally I would like them to stop making so many commemoratives because they will flood the market and kill it just as philately has suffered. But that would mean less income for the mint. You can't have it both ways. Either they make profits in whatever way they can, or they don't produce them in the first place and the cost of coining this country's currency is covered by the taxpayer. Commercial activity is not an exact science, but one theme runs throughout all businesses - the cost of tooling is fixed and a sunk cost. The first priority is to cover that expenditure in whatever way you can. Time is money, so you need to get the goods to the end user in the fastest possible time with the greatest market coverage. Profits are a trailing bonus once capex has been covered - economies of scale and all that. In this case Westminster obviously have a large customer base that the Royal Mint can exploit - for a fee.

Unless a contract is in place to price things uniformly across all outlets, the discount given to distributors does not have to be covered. It is no different to Spink selling their tome at £30, whereas coin dealers will be given a discount for bulk purchases i.e. you have to buy them by the box. They then price according to what they think they can get to move them on quickly. Personally, I sold the last issue for £25, but was also prepared to split them into decimal and predecimal if required, with the combined price being somewhere between 25 and 30. This is exactly the same situation and normal business in the commercial world. If everything was priced the same, then the populace would then moan that everything was operating as a cartel. Can't win.

They do sell them themselves also. It is about reaching the widest audience. Why do some people insist on shopping at ASDA when there is a Sainsburys closer? The shopping basket is the same wherever they shop, so it is down to the individual's choice to use one shop over the other. The Royal Mint is a stand alone operation that made (if I remember correctly) £11m profit the last time I looked, implying your taxes have not been used to support the mint.

Westminster isn't the Royal Mint. The former is a private company which is a distributor and also makes its own products which are usually only worth their intrinsic value in the secondary market. The Royal Mint is a company engaged in the manufacture of coins under contract for this country and many others. Logically it is a separate legal entity to the government which would otherwise leave the country potentially liable for unlimited claims if someone sued them. It is the usual way of limiting liability, so I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Someone called Philip Dinn springs to mind

If it is owned by the government, then any dividends pass to the treasury.

At the risk of stating the obvious, 7/6 seems the most likely candidate given what appears to be a trace of suitable curve to the right of the downstroke. Not the commonest date, but there should be enough around to find a better example. Nothing in Coincraft.

Prior to Victoria, higher denomination milled things that had their value indicated were very much the exception. The BoE tokens and the 1804 5/- Dollar spring to mind as probably the only issues to bear a value. The 1799 farthings and the small silver were marked, but again, hardly a case of universal adoption. Obviously there was far more extensive marking of the Tudor and Stuart hammered coinage.

Get a set that you can calibrate and buy a few weights. Given the variation in weights for what is the same item, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it yet. Equally, the other one could be light. Dodgy ones tend to have detail differences which become obvious in time.

Looks ok to me, but what makes you think it is wrong? If you have purchased it (presumably from an image) and then ask if it is iffy, I would question your rationale. Why not do your homework before spending the money? Unless money is no problem, in which case.............. You can always use a known good sovereign to calibrate your existing scales. It doesn't matter if the readings are out as long as they are consistent.

That doesn't look like any 6/5 I've ever seen. This is 6/5 as you can see the vertical bar of the 5 on the right of the 6 tail which thickens at the bottom. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=1746+lima+6d&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO3p_cg5HWAhVkKMAKHRw_BYoQsAQIJQ&biw=1920&bih=948#imgrc=odmP7sa_bGGF6M: Contrast that with Here the 6 tail is fairly uniform in thickness. On the 1745 you have something closely resembling the image in ESC. Not for the first time the latest revision of ESC doesn't inspire. I still use the old one because it was proof read, unlike the latest incarnation.

Yep. That's become a stock response. At least three times a day without fail.

1p

1d

Looks like a straight 5 to me.

Too many auctions this month with lots of boxes that could be ticked. I badly need a lottery win - yesterday.

Unsold

If you exit after posting and come back in you can upload another 500k. More importantly, trim the image so that the coin fills as much area as possible. OK, you are still stuck with an image that has a maximum of just over 78.5% coverage with the subject material, but it is a vast improvement on the 7.5% you are currently utilising. All foreground and background detail as posted is wasted image space.

Why not? The respected organisation that is the BBC produces programs like Eastenders and a whole raft of other s***e in its chosen field. Why should the RM have a monopoly on public service mediocrity?