Rob

Not so much that what you own is devalued, rather that the going rate for it should increase in price - only if it doesn't increase has it been devalued. If the physical assets remain constant and the money equating to those assets becomes a bigger number, then it follows that the prices of those items should increase to take account of the additional money in circulation. If the money supply has been expanded and some prices don't increase, then prices of other assets must rise proprtionally more to compensate. Cue an above average increase in the price of 'safe' assets. People involved in areas of the economy which see no upward movement in prices are effectively being devalued. The idea of increasing the money supply to kick-start the economy is a red herring. Even if banks aren't willing to lend to smaller businesses, there are sufficient numbers of individuals with large amounts of capital sitting there doing little and looking for a greater return. Those assets are held by business savvy people who would provide some capital if the idea was a good one. The lack of dynamism in the economies of the world is not due to a shortage of capital, more the reduced returns available due to the internet and global economy. It is very difficult to set up a business providing a premium product generating above average returns because business models can be easily copied, and there is sufficient manufacturing capacity installed for a competitor to rapidly nullify any first mover advantage. The modern world is too efficient to provide the large returns necessary for wholesale private investment, despite interest rates being at or around all time lows. So in answer to the OP, I think that money injected into the economies of Europe is likely to result in an increase in the price of assets that provide diversification, just as it has in the US over the past few years. Coins amongst other things would come into this category.

Probably, but for all the wrong reasons.

PM sent

Has it been mounted in a ring or some other holder? The rim looks to be too smooth and even for what I would expect. It may have been turned down to fit. Does the diagonal graining still remain on the edge? Uncirculated is clearly nonsense, with glasses and appropriate educational material badly required by someone. It's somewhere near the gVF mark, with the obverse maybe slightly below that. Scratches(?) on the laurel don't help.

And for good measure, an EF or slightly better example to demonstrate where the wear hits first.

This is a reasonable example of a shilling with minimal wear. As you can see, the finer detail is better on the larger coin, so lions' faces etc are often less well struck on the smaller denominations.

Difficult to say what the grade is because the top one is out of focus and the bottom has too much glare. Not the most attrtactive toning, but this has virtually no wear. http://www.rpcoins.co.uk/c8%20pics/00330.jpg

Is it not the same font? Looks it.

The left one now looks like a blocked R, or more specifically a broken R as it must be raised on the collar.

Have to confess it doesn't look at first hand like a blocked R as the milling goes right up to the bottom of the P loop.

link Just trying to think who is a regular seller of such items. Expert advice to vendor was probably "list it without mentioning a copy because you should find some gullible person to buy it".

Castle Cary and Ilminster aren't mints, the other three are correct.

Can't make it out.

Dear me, the labour and material costs must have been greater than £20

You need to find multiple examples with the same profile to have any hope of convincing him. They might all be lozenge shaped, but that still provides a myriad of identifiably different pieces. Arguably, you get so many rusted/corroded/pitted things on ebay that it almost looks normal when you see a cast, even if if you know better.

You have 4 discrete die pairs with the oval reverse shield (3B-3E). The obverses are also different in each case, but still given a single number based on the design with the tail behind the rear legs. Obverse 2 has the tail between the legs and is known for 12 discrete die pairs. Again, the obverses and reverses are slightly different in each case. The flaws appear to be where a previous die was engraved as you can discern details which agree with other dies. It is this that leads me to believe that the cylinder press theory proposed by Besly in the 1984 BNJ doesn't hold, or at least only for the obverse 2 shillings and possibly the threepences. The above and the other halfcrowns are individual die pairs used on a rocker press, and are struck from diestock that is of a greater diameter than that of a halfcrown.

It is the laxity of the TPG that should be the concern. To make not too fine a point, it's bleedin' obvious.

Do you mean where the page loads and then a second later drops down a cm or so? If so, I get that too sometimes.

Warminster? Wrong thread old bean. Anyway, it is in Wiltshire.

Correct chaps. Given these are always struck from discrete die pairs which are never muled and I have never seen one without perfectly formed letters in the legend, plugging looks to be the right option. A lower grade piece but with the reverse flaw at a later stage says it all. I don't think the grader put much effort into his assessment.

This sold for $1400 hammer in the Heritage sale tonight. http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-charles-i-1-2-crown-nd-1643-44-au55-ngc-/a/3038-34717.s?x=21&y=12 Plugged or not? It looks fairly clear cut to me, but other opinions are invited.

I don't think the quality material is available full stop. We are all scrapping in the same bull pit.

The gold piece is the one I mentioned. The bust is of the same general shape, but not comical unlike yours. The reverse is completely different as you can see, with no MR divided by the shield. The legend is also different to the dated gold piece. The portrait on the 1st widowhood testoon is superb and superior to the efforts of the English engravers of the time. Copies or replica coins are often made by casting, with the raised line being the point where the two faces came together. You will probably find the remains of the casting sprue if you look carefully.

Oops. Should be gEF with a bare trace of cabinet friction to the highest points. I can't remember now but suspect a copy and paste generated inconsistency again, 3 coins before that on the list was a 1953 proof set, so I presume I copied the description and modified it, being in the same section. Thank you for pointing that out.

The latter definitely has to be true because however good a coin is there could always be a better one round the corner. No coin is likely to make 100, whether currency or proof.