Rob

No he was getting in some time on limestone when he b******d some tendons in the left arm. Serves him right as he had a broken bone in his foot when he got there, so was probably compensating by using more upper body strength. Doh.

Good news. Number 4 hurt himself climbing in Majorca and had to come home early. He has sorted out and shown me how it is possible to save files in a different format, so now there's no need to get google mail to do the job. Thanks for assistance - I'm sure there will be more questions to come.

There is the Barton airshow up here, but normally the closest we come to an air display is the nightly patrol of the Police helicopter, shining a light on all those naughty boys on the estate - a near daily event.

A picture of the obverse would help. The drapery around Britannia's left shoulder is ok for the 1841 coins. Accumulator's 1841 with no colon shows a similar tail to the helmet plume and the drapery at the point where the trident shaft meets is quite similar. The asymmetrical ornaments to the trident head are seen elsewhere. This makes most of the detail known with only the twin raised lines an anomaly. The two raised lines on the saltire are a feature of the bronze shields, so maybe it was an early reverse by LCW as opposed to WW? He joined the Royal Mint in 1844 and worked under his father, so if there are any more reverses of this type (and crucially they were engraved by him), it would have to be on coins from 1844 onwards. There are undocumented reverses elsewhere in the copper series, so a new penny reverse whilst unexpected, would not be impossible. Humans are creatures of habit, so if he used double lines in 1860, it would not be unreasonable that he used them before. Any medals attributed to him with a similar type of shield detail?

I presume you mean 1.75cm (17.5mm) as 1.75mm would be ridiculously small. It is likely to be toy money, probably made by Lauer of Nurnburg a hundred years ago, give or take a bit.

Seeing as it has 'COPY' clearly impressed into the reverse, you'd have to be a blind idiot to buy this for £300. Maybe the seller meant £3? It's a shockingly poor example, surely the seller isn't so lacking in the area to know this!Even my wife instantly filed this as fake! Good girl! X You've been spending too much time talking to the missus. Mine also seems to be increasingly well versed in the minutiae of numismatics. Nerd alert! I must learn to stop wittering on about dies and punches and engravers and mints and catalogues and sales and latest purchases and ..............................

That was the Adams coin which then passed to Peter Simon, so in the Alderly collection http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/alderlypennies/196.jpg

I don't have a problem with multiple email addresses as I already have a couple with BT courtesy of the person who set it up in the first place, rather it's the multiple providers that are a potential headache or compatibility with existing programs. When my eldest reappears in the middle of August, he can sort it out and make any necessary changes to the settings.

Horses for courses as said before. If you want something badly enough you will save the money elsewhere, dig deep and take the plunge.

No idea on value, but I suspect very little if any - just scrap. These are usually made by machining off the detail, so not even worth the original 2p face value as you can't spend it. To have a genuine uniface requires the mint to use a blank die in place of the usual one with the design. i.e. they have to make a conscious effort to produce a uniface and it doesn't happen by accident where the mint forgets to fit a die to the press. You can add a picture using the more reply options when making a reply.

Too late, just got back from York. Chances are there would have been one somewhere, because for sure there was b****r all else. Didn't buy anything today.

Sorry, I like simplicity. Hopefully one of the kids will make an appearance soon to explain everything.

Wishful thinking.

Thanks, but I've got too many contacts that would have to be told of the change in address to go to another email provider. That's not going to happen because I guarantee that someone currently really important would be left out of the loop. Ditching the current provider would also leave me with the headache of how to deal with the 6000 odd emails in my inbox, a considerable number of which I would like to keep. I think some form of PDF program will be sorted once one of the offspring turns up. Someone said you don't necessarily have to use Adobe Acrobat, which could be good if it saves me spending 70 quid on something I would use infrequently.

Sorted by Colin. Many thanks.

Thanks anyway. It failed on the second step as I don't appear to have the relevent bits for 2007, nor those for the 2003 version as follows. Office Button | Word Options | Advanced: Show document content. Bl**dy nuisance. Having just sorted out the chronology for the W/SA threepences in a concise 3 page article, I can't produce the results.

What Aardhawk means it that it is illegal for a business to trade with liabilities greater than assets on the balance sheet. This is where the murky area of intangibles pops its ugly head above the parapet in times of trouble. The P&L can operate at either a profit or a loss as long as it doesn't create an excess of liabilities as above. Hence writing down goodwill (essentially overpaying for an asset) can have fatal consequences for a business in the worst cases. As for the question of whether it is 45p or whatever is irrelevant. The important thing for any business is that a job must be fully costed to assess viability. Whether you decide to cross-subsidise with a parallel operation is discretionary, but it is best that you ensure any operation is stand-alone viable, because somewhere along the line it will have to be. That is part and parcel of a business model being self-sustaining. All this started because I moaned about eBay saying that postage charges were too high, yet equally say you should start lots at 99p. They also expect you to send by signed for postage. All this adds up to doing everything at no, or very little cost, to which the various parties concerned have not signed up. These are the cost which I highlighted earlier. If you have to pay the minimum eBay fee of 35p to list an item which sells for £1, eBay's take of the £4 total rises to £1.09, or up from a minimum 19% to over 27%, with the balance and more being absorbed by incurred expenditure. A wonderful way of paying to dispose of all those stock items which didn't cost you a penny to acquire (if the numbers are to have any hope of balancing).

I don't have a suitable PDF program (Adobe?) as far as I am aware. Only the reader version which you can download. Looking around, is acrobat pro at £67 suitable? Anyone with experience of PDF programs? Any cheaper equivalent, as it ought to be a common enough requirement for someone to do a free, or nearly so version.

Buying the insert again. Oh well, (hopefully) less money to spend wisely.

Sign of the times I'm afraid. We live in a world filled with paranoia. Governments love sweeping legislation and the concept of having anything outside their control is anathema. Big brother arrived years ago and in fact has probably always been here. You can't even fart these days without being Gas Safe registered.

And the coins are bought and sold through the business, hence the pricing has to include VAT and mileage allowance which is a cost to the business. Obviously taking two parcels to the PO will halve this element, but doesn't negate the fact that you effectively have to give away an item if it sells for a pound. The point I'm making is that selling to the public has to include VAT and as a business you have to cover your costs. Unfortunately eBay's recommended method of selling has taken a leaf out of the Gordon Brown/Ed Balls/Labour Party school of accountancy with a one sided balance sheet that only reads income without any allowance for costs. If we can't all make a butty, the party which is losing out will run away. I can throw things in the bin for free and the council will collect. I can (and do) scrap coppers, bronze, brass, silver etc as this generates net cash without having to worry about eBay/paypal. Many times the amount sold gets melted because there isn't the market to absorb this quantity amongst collectors. Very simply, unless you can persuade buyers to bid to the sort of level you would get on the table at a fair, scrapping offers a better return.

Your best bet is to test the market with one or two pieces before you list everything. I don't think selling through a dealer would realise much of a premium unless you could find one with a customer for them because they will be too cheap to generate much of a return.

Ebay probably. All these 'errors' are simply due to die damage from extended use, so not strictly errors as such and only worth a premium to very few people.

I think ebay may have opened up the collectors market for a few years now but I think they peaked a while ago and are now on the slippery slope. Once you can no longer get a bargain interest will wane. I concur with both posts. The interest in ebay listings is definitely on the wane. The wife had 4 sales and 89 unsolds go off at the weekend despite a broad mix of things starting at a quid, some higher and BINs, some also with best offer. The only best offer was a generous (not) offer of less than melt for a sovereign which was just plain stupid. Maybe 10-15% had watchers, but I'm sure that was only to monitor the item to see if it sells because most items get only one or two views irrespective of price. It is and always has been difficult to wean people off ebay and get them to look at a dealer's list or site. For some reason a £5 washer from a dealer is deemed a rip-off whereas a £50 eBay washer isn't. There is very little crossover between the two populations considering the tools are identical to access both, which implies the ebay market is in serious decline. At the fairs, the 50p/£1 bins do quite well, but that is a market which is unaffected by prices in general - people just want to feel like they have a bargain. For better quality, Gibbons have been the major buyer in the market for months now but the individual purchaser is quite elusive. The market has definitely moved away from rare varieties unless in top grade, though that is denomination dependent. This can't be down to a lack of liquidity as money isn't exactly restricted by government edict. Maybe people need to realign their perspective of what constitutes value for money? Anybody who has collected for a reasonable length of time is in danger of always relating to the good old days when everything was affordable, but I would surmise, failed to appraise whether this base cost was reasonable at the time.

5/- to 1811 and 5/6d thereafter until demonetised following the the recoinage. In the case of the countermarked pieces, the values of the coins changed because the price of the raw metal caused the intrinsic value to rise above face. According to reports 2,325,099 countermarked dollars were issued (face value £552,211/-/3d) before 1804. In the case of the Australian holey dollar, the need was to provide and retain currency within the local economy. Cutting out the centre ensured that it could only be used in Australia because elsewhere it would only be worth its (lower) intrinsic value. Just the same as our token coinage today which is worth more as circulating currency than it is in the melting pot - otherwise we would all be melting coins and the economy would grind to a halt.