Rob

It's actually politicians perpetuating the status quo through a combination of inertia and vested interests. The classic example of this is the land tax issue which has been kicked around for more than a century. More than one analyst has calculated that if land was valued and taxed according to (1) its location and therefore the services invested in it (the City of Westminster being the ultimate example) and (2) its yield towards the 'common good', no-one would have to pay income tax or National Insurance (and possibly VAT). Individuals working in offices would pay a tax on their home, but less than they pay currently in tax/NI, farmers would pay proportionately very little in relation to their land ownership as their land is productive. In contrast, 'buy to let' landlords, the Duke of Westminster, the Duchy of Cornwall, etc etc, would at last pay their fair share towards the society they live in and to some extent sponge off. The overall income from land to the Treasury would be greater than the current haul from taxation, but no politician will ever preside over its implementation. Why? Vested interests. That's where the true power lies. (And let's hear no more about people on benefits - all they do is provide headlines to help sell copies of The Daily Mail, and to boost Channel 5's viewing figures. They have no real power). Based on points 1 & 2, the question of a land tax would be a very politically motivated and loaded topic. Obviously those in favour of a land tax already view buy to let landlords as not contributiong towards the common good, but since 2008 it is these same people who have held the housing market up in the country at large, apart from central London which is in a parallel universe. Income is taxed just as with any other business. Most people across Europe live in rented accommodation and are happy with it, so why should the same not apply to the UK? If that money wasn't invested in property it would most likely be in a building society - who would lend it out to people to buy the same houses. All buy to let does is bypass the bank funding system which in any case was very reluctant to lend money to anyone for a while. Shortly after Northern Rock went under I approached the Halifax with a view to going halves on a buy to let. I wanted to borrow 30K which would obviously be secured against the property. No lending for buy to let property was the immediate response. In the same week, the same Halifax sent me a flyer inviting me to take out an unsecured loan of up to 25K for any purpose I wanted, including the holiday of my dreams. So I could borrow to p**s it against the wall but not to invest in an asset which could provide a return on investment. Brilliant. It's little wonder the country is in the current hole. People buy to let because the return is far better than having money on deposit where rates are currently held artificially low. If the returns were better making buckets and spades instead of renting out properties, then people would start a bucket or spade manufacturing business. Higher interest rates could help to rebalance the economy in my view as the options for diversification would be expanded. The view that they are sponging off society is just another angle on the old chestnut of the have nots resenting success however it may come, though it is worth adding that many buy to let landlords are also 'little people' of which there are a few on this forum. If someone wins on the accumulator at the bookies it is pints all round; if someone reinvests all their income to build a successful business he is a capitalist exploiting the working class man, even if he stands to lose everything in the event of things going tits up. i.e. class warfare is alive and well. On the question of benefits, few would argue against a safety net for a short term, but to be economically inactive when physically and mentally capable of working and thus on them permanently can not be the way forward.

It's rather a case of the politicians screwing up the system in the first place. In the case of individuals, they have wealth which they are able to move around the world utilising the various tax breaks on offer which works because they have sufficient amounts of spare capital to play with. Corporates in the same way use the systems set up by governments to maximise their returns - That's the job of a company's board of directors, to trade within the law, be solvent and maximise the returns for shareholders. Though it should be noted that there tends to be insufficient shareholder pressure to reign in their personal ambitions and returns. As an individual, you will move your capital around and park savings in an account which gives a higher rate of return. Same principle. I very much doubt that we have any members who fall within the top 1% of wealthy people on this planet, but if we do, I don't begrudge them their wealth, nor would wish to apply a different set of rules just because they have more than I do. Anyone complaining that they don't pay tax should also cash in their ISAs and put the capital into a taxable account. People will never be equal across the board. There will always be the haves and the have nots, only the defining parameters change with the system. As long as someone's wealth has been earned by legal means, then that's reasonably theirs.

99% of bankers don't have a clue about what? It can't be interest rates because they would be drawn from the general population of homeowners. I think people get too hung up on this banker thing and need to take a bit more responsibility for their own lives. Damian's comment about heads in the sand is entirely appropriate. Interesting program on the box tonight about the super rich. The one thing that struck me about the many statistics thrown around is how these are nasty people and are sucking money away from the poor. The truth is though that even if you deprived the people holding the top 50% of the entire wealth of the world and divided it up, it would still only equate to a windfall of less than 20K per head amongst the other 99% of the world's population, which whilst offering the citizens of third world countries a huge boost in living conditions, would do nothing to address what I feel is the main problem of western society which appears to be economic inactivity in too many cases - the monetary sum involved being less than some already receive in benefits each year.

I suspect the US TPGs are slabbing some prooflike coins as proofs. I've seen a few in the past which were so described, so I would want to see the coin in hand before committing a large amount of cash, unless I was familiar with the raw coin in question.

I'm not sure that it won't be considered a filezilla problem. Anyway, I'll take your advice and see if they provide help for people who will need a translation service. Thanks chaps.

No good. ftp looks a distinct possibility though, as when combined with 1and1help.com the server refused access with the error message ECONNREFUSED. Something must have been recognised. using 1and1.com without the help timed out

Does anyone on here use filezilla or is familiar with it? I had to have my system rebuilt just before Christmas and unfortunately the shortcut which logged me into the 1&1 host for the uploading files to the website no longer works. The help files are gibberish to me. FYI I tried putting in the quick connect boxes the host I've tried 1and1.co.uk with and without www. before it - but gives the error message can't find server and times out. I've used the username and password which previously applied. Sorry, but I've spent a day or so on this and all roads lead to a brick wall. The home help is currently sitting in a boat off the Shetlands.

It was ever the same. I didn't know where mortgage rates were going when I had one. I just made sure that it was never too large with a huge safety margin. House and other asset prices ought/have to fall. Claims that it is different this time are nonsense - they never are in the final call. Reversion to the mean says they have to adjust to an affordable multiple of income for the masses. Prices are buoyed by all the buy to let landlords who get returns considerably in excess of what's on offer for deposits, which in turn are held down by artificially low interest rates. Nothing will happen until interest rates return to sensible commercial levels. So all this QE has gone into assets and their inflated prices rather than kickstarting the economy. The economy will look after itself if the potential rewards are great enough, because you will always find someone willing to try under the right conditions, but the 'free' money issued in the past 6 years has ensured that no risky long term ventures needed to be contemplated.

The winning bidder had a feedback of 604! Hardly a novice to ebay, though one might question their numismatic knowledge.

I concur that it is always difficult to define what constitutes a variety. I think you have to consider each feature as a stand-alone and assess it in the context of the day. Hammered and milled clearly operate under different sets of rules. Milled coins being struck using dies that have been produced from a multi-stage process involving matrices and master punches are always going to be different to hammered coins where the details are hand-cut on the end of a piece of die stock by a man who may have had his own set of punches, each set being different from the next man's. Away from the main centres, a single moneyer was often the norm in Saxon times. In the Civil War period, some engravers had to follow the troops around because they needed the ability to coin in various locations. The wholesale reworking of old dies was the norm before milled coins, but since then the ability to produce a consistent product has resulted in dies of the same design being used for many years with only a date change required for the most part. I think we all agree there is no right or wrong definition, but this is in part due to the fact that we don't have all the facts. It is also driven by the collector's desire to have more boxes to tick. Various people have written articles categorising coins of a type of reign down the years, but very few have been able to tie in the stop arrangements or punches to certain individuals or events. As I have shown elsewhere, I can do that for a couple engraver on Civil War coinage but most coins defy analysis at present. As hammered dies were rubbed down and re-engraved (by hand), it is illogical to treat traces of the former legend as varieties, nor can the placement of letters be of any importance. With milled coinage, the latter would be significant because of the way in which dies were/are produced.

A lot of the estimates were too high and unsurprisingly quite a few lots passed. I was looking at the P924, but this sold for 3600 hammer. Clearly that was due to the number on the slab as it was graded 65 by NGC. 3 years ago when it went through CNG it was in a NGC 63 slab and it sold for 2300. Previous to that it had been through Heritage. This piece wasn't a patch on the nice one that CNG sold just over a year ago, so obviously the 2 grade hike worked wonders for someone. With regard to question of auctions resembling a fixed price sale, this was noted before when discussing a recent Baldwin offering. I think the estimates are a reflection of the efforts the auction houses are having to put in to attract custom. Yes they have a lot of material, but the perennial shortage of quality persists. If they are offering 105% of hammer to some people, that has to be reflected in the reserves which have to be effectively fully valued. There are too many people chasing too few quality pieces and too many auction houses offering too many lots that people don't really want, but losses aren't crystalised until a sale takes place. So the seller protects their investment by ensuring no loss takes place by using a high reserve. This in turn puts people off bidding because they subconsciously want a bargain, irrespective of whether a bid at the reserve level is a reasonable price to pay. It's probably all part of the wheels gradually coming off the bus. Too many people are in for too much money, reflected in the prices paid for the not quite there pieces rather than the best knowns. With unrealistically low interest rates available to borrowers, it will be interesting to see what happens when they once again exceed inflation, which is where one would expect them to be.

Although books can be very expensive, the average collector doesn't need them until a decision is made to concentrate on a specific field and to dig deeper into the topic. By that time they are usually spending a reasonable amount on the collection and so the cost of literature relative to that of the collection drops significantly. For your basic references, the cost will rarely exceed £20-30 whatever the country concerned as these will be aimed at the casual collector - many will be considerably less. If you decide to specialise, a set of books for the next level up will rarely be over £100. At this point is actually isn't that big a relative expense compared to the information at your disposal, and if you decide to relinquish collecting a specific field, you can always sell them as you aren't likely to be the only collector who needed books. Reference material tends be superseded by volumes containing more information. The basic info contained in old volumes is still relevant with few exceptions.

2x2 flips are ok as long as the material used for the window is mylar. Long term storage in pvc is not good as the plasticiser leaches out leaving a sticky residue and in addition reacts with copper based coins to leave a green film (copper acetate?) on the coin. As this is usually dissolved or suspended in the plasticiser, it can usually be removed by dissolving the residue in an appropriate solvent, but the best thing is not to be in that position. Obviously it will adhere to the coin's surface because it isn't flat, so you will still have a green tinge to the colour unless you remove all the contaminant. People who spend more on their collections tend to look after their coins better, but for the typical casual collector of coins from circulation for example, long term storage is not always considered. For rummage bin material it isn't going to affect the already low value, but best not to get in the habit of storing coins incorrectly in the first place. Many collections are offered to me having been grandad's coins etc and they have often been stored for the past 40 years in sticky pvc holders, which are themselves contained in pvc pages. All in all it can get very messy.

Can't help. Sorry.

It's only one negative in nine ratings. Easily done if you have a buyer that got out of bed on the wrong side.

They look like casting sprues, but could be the remnants of mount marks given the lack of clarity to the images.

There wasn't anything wrong with the lightweight in my opinion as you can't have a well circulated coin without marks or scratches unless it has been polished flat. Nor is there a problem with the numerous Saxon coins that get rejected by the US TPGs for having peck marks. Nor is there a problem with the numerous Saxon coins that get accepted by the US TPGs despite having peck marks..........

Yep. £250 max now. Which if you remember Dave, I said the shilling you had recently was either a silly amount, or 250 insured and cross your fingers.

From where to where? Shipping overseas to some places is horribly expensive once the sum insured exceeds the royal mail max. If you have to ship something insured with a courier then most internationals would be starting at £30-40. Freight by lorry within the EU can be cheaper than Royal Mail however.

When the 1869(?) penny in a previous thread was rejected for corrosion, the consensus was a roughened patch in the reverse field as the reason because the problems didn't exactly leap out at you. In this instance, the only bit that isn't corroded is the P of penny and the datal figures. 1869s are available in reasonable quantities, 1882 no H pennies aren't. I rest my case. Peter is going to have to start giving that Centisles bloke a bit of credit soon. At least his overgrading is consistent.

Yes, but that merely helps to make the case for it being the lottery I think it is. On the whole I do believe they try to be consistent, but when the person looking at the coin and giving it a grade has a bad day, that decision stays with the coin until someone cracks it out. This is where the whole list of reasons for rejection needs to be rethought. At what point do they reject for scratches? Maybe anything shorter than a given length is ok because every coin that isn't as it left the mint will have them to some extent. I can think of several cases where I have rejected the coin in the slab on the grounds of the obvious verdigris present. I can't see why any coin should be rejected other than for being counterfeit or tooled. Wear is a fundamental part of the process; scratches are made as part of circulation. To reject for these reasons is illogical. Over time, a metal mix with high concentrations of copper will go green in a moist atmosphere, but still won't affect the level of wear which is what a grade purports to be - so why reject some and not others? Needless to say, you are the one with the difficult decision because they will happily assess a coin and freely give a rejection. I know that doesn't help you, but that is part of the whole 'experience'. The question of rejection criteria is somewhat nebulous and the undue deference paid to grade and grading organisation is on a par with the vacuousness of celebrity culture. Sorry, but that's just my view.

That first one is especially nice! Oxford mint - wouldn't mint that for myself. Good, keeps you on the right side of the fence.

Probably because rejection is not only a case of having the faults outlined on the label, it is also subject to the desirability test. A common penny would probably be rejected, but a rarity like an 1882 no H needs to be slabbed come what may, to fix a price for a slabbed item and act as an advertising feature. Look in the next Heritage sale and you will see a Briot milled halfcrown with a load of scratches around the shield. They didn't stop it being given a grade rather than rejected. The considerably lighter marks on the lightweight shilling I sold to Paulus ensured it was only given a details grade and rejected for scratches. Charles I shillings are not rare and available in higher grades, so they could afford to reject it. Had they bothered to weigh it, they could at least have attributed it correctly, but that isn't the name of the game. Briot milled pieces are considerably scarcer, aesthetically more imposing, and I suspect, treated more leniently as a result. All things in life are not equal. Even raised die polishing lines have been used as an excuse for rejection as scratched on some of the commoner milled pieces.

It must happen occasionally, but I suspect that far more are lost due to their not having reached the desired price.

This has been discussed before. http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/8777-lost-in-space/#entry103633 There are ways to apply a little pressure, and even if not ultimately successful you have have the pleasure of giving the guilty party an uncomfortable time. Some you win and some you lose, but unfortunately too many problem sellers are unwilling to accept the latter.