Rob

People who phone you up to confirm an appointment, but won't divulge any details of said appointment before they have your inside leg measurement, bank details & what you ate for tea last night. Three of these today and I'm rapidly getting p'd off. Like the bank person who had previously sent me correspondence, made a phone call out of the blue just before the New Year, but wouldn't discuss what she phoned about because I refused to give security info. I said that she could send it by post if important - nothing has appeared 5 weeks on. What a surprise. And this forum's search facility. I typed in Room 101 knowing that was the thread title and yet it gave me three pages of answers before appearing as the last item on the list. You would have thought that a specific title would show up first - or is that too obvious. It's been a bad day, and it isn't getting any better. Humph.

Thanks Richard

Looking at CCF, I doubt whether it would get past the site censors considering it would be a new member posting an image of something that looks like a knobhead. What a crazy list of things you can't do. Can't contact people, can't post images as a new member, can't link to sites (which b****rs up any link to photobucket), can't advertise things for sale. The coin looks above average for what is normally posted, so presumably you would get busted for that too. What constitutes a 'quality post'? What a waste of space. It just reinforces the opinions of people on here that this is one of the better forums on the web - now, if someone would answer the original question............ Oh, and Peter. The comment you made about the 1925 halfcrowns. It wasn't a few hundred, but 4011 of them in 11 lots in the Noble sale. Rare not, not even scarce in that grade.

Maybe they are in a rush to complete their registry set? Who knows? We don't know the reason for the bidding pattern. Maybe they knew each other and one was determined to stop the other buying it for personal reasons. The prices were way too high even for the label, so I'm sure some other factor was involved.

Having given it a bit more thought, I think both like or dislike should require reasoned qualification. Liking something by accident would be difficult. The button is marooned in outer space, or at least a long way from the text. Of far more use would be a better search facility. One that accepted fewer than 4 letters would be good. If it would permit you to search a phrase rather than a single word of at least 4 letters, I would use that too.

Whilst I think this is an example of silly bidding given the universal availability of the type, it is still important that you don't take the prices in any reference too literally. CCGB, Spink, CMV etc are all approximations to the truth. A factor of two with reference to the prices contained within the various tomes is not unreasonable. Most collectors are willing to pay a little bit extra for a coin they really want, and in any case, a yearly price guide is inevitably lagging the market. All prices need to be put into the context of the buyer. I know I'm not the only person on this forum to have paid multiples of book values for something I wanted for whatever reason.

Things have changed. I liked the last post and now I have the option to 'unlike' it. Silly phrase - should be dislike. More to the point, both options should be available from the beginning to enable all opinions to be voiced. All of this is totally superfluous.

'Ere. What have you got against the Daily Mail. They are a long standing manufacturer of Britain's finest branded toilet tissue. Anyway, all you lefties need a target, otherwise you would be rebels without a cause.

I imagine that there will be a few members who will be sorry to have missed those Rob. Edit: Sorry. I meant " .. will be few members .. " of course. Members have been spared an ordeal - none of the above has happened, nor is likely to happen.

Thankfully it states that I have reached my limit of quotes for the day. Phew.

I believe you failed to spot two men with a large void between their ears. That's stupid. However, I have a huge supply if the underbidder wants another example.

Or is it a token for a mineral Bath? I can't find anything on it either. Given the remit includes the suppression of vagrants, street beggars and imposters, I can't see it being anything to do with the baths even though they are less than 100yds away. The latter were frequented by the well to do of Georgian society and were unlikely to be affected by the lower classes

Both games on Saturday were quality viewing

John Croker

At the risk of being castigated as a dinosaur, if it's Facebook related, I can see me not liking anything. I don't need Facebook and I can't see why I should have to get p****d just to post a few obligatory pictures of myself mooning on Ibiza High Street.

Unsurprisingly I was familiar with the Devon version for many years before I realised there was a second one.

Superb? Date, monarch and denomination are correct though.

I think the 11008 is their in-house sale number whereby all sales are given a year (11 for 2011), then a 3 digit identifier for the sale. This allows them to include stamps, medals etc in the running total. The 207 is a hangover from pre computing days whereby coins and medals were numbered from 1 upwards following Spink's decision to hold their own sales.

There is a list of prices on Spink's site, but you will have to register/log in to access it.

Further to the above, if anyone has any examples of a 1st coinage Warham halfgroat with a clean(ish) mint mark on the reverse, I would like images of the whole coin plus a close up of the mark please. It can have either a pomegranate or long cross fichee mark

Sadly no. Till's stock/collection was sold post-mortem in four parts at Sothebys on 6/1/1845, 28/7/1845, 20/4/1846 & 12/5/1846 plus the library went on 15/5/1846. Henry did not have an identifiable sale. It is on my list of catalogues to acquire.

That's probably it, Nick! I'm glad you found an article in the DT, not the DM…. Peckris would never forgive me! LOL - the DT is pretty poor, but compared to the DM it's on a par with The Grauniad What do you name? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Surely in the interest of open debate, it is only worth 'liking' something if the name of the person doing the 'liking' is attached? If I say I like A, B & C, then a person agreeing should be identifiable in order to expand the discussion, or am I missing something?

Mr Perkins is nothing like Mr Perkins.

Here's the obverse mark, which is quite clear, but the reverse mark looks nothing like in the hand due to the inability to vary the direction of the illumination.