Rob

That's very kind of you Gary, but when I look at that particular page all I see is gaps and coins that need upgrading. The years after 1869 are definitely stronger. I guess we're all far too critical of our own collections! Good job, or we would all rest on our laurels. It also helps the individual to grade.

I concur. The few examples I have images of all show the same. A flaw.

The one thing you can guarantee is that any reform of any benefit will produce a mixture of winners and losers. This will be no different. I think it may well be a transitional arrangement simply because life expectancy is increasing quicker than anyone could have imagined even a decade or two ago. The rate of increase in life expectancy has ticked upwards in the most recent years and pension review has been ongoing for many years too, irrespective of the party in power. All of which suggests the politicians are playing catchup (again) due to their innate unwillingness to confront politically unpopular issues head on. The increase in retirement age was long overdue. When pensions were originally introduced, the average worker lived a few years before he popped his clogs. Today that number is certainly 15 with many cases over 20. As the state pension was always funded from current receipts, it should not come as a great surprise when an attempt is made to narrow the period between retirement and death as the whole thing depends on current workers paying for the retired. If you want to provide a state pension, simplification is a must, in common with the whole benefits system in general. There are too many parallel benefits which should be rolled into fewer systems. It is also important not to get carried away too much worrying about who will win and who will lose. No system will be considered perfectly equitable because any two individuals will nost likely have different circumstances. Simplification with flat rate entitlements are much easier to administer too, which means there should in theory be less scope for abuse. On this basis I think it will be a step in the right direction. However, the benefits will have to be reconciled to the income to be distributed. Given the demographics and standard of living to which everyone has become accustomed, this might end in a nasty shock. A universal entitlement is not as bad as either party would have you believe. Those who need any allowance will automatically claim, but some well off people will not, thus generating a saving on the total expected bill. From my point of view, I think a state system should be predicated on the assumption that it would provide a basic, but sustainable allowance for 'Mr Average'. People that take steps on their own initiative to save for a rainy day should not be penalised for having planned in advance as this is just the other side of the coin to those who fritter away every penny and more, then expect others to clean up the financial wreckage they leave behind. The pension level should be based on the price of essentials such as subsistence, power, water, and not discretionary purchases on luxuries such as tobacco, consumer electronics or holidays.

OOOOPS, mistake on my part. I have checked the tomb and this one has been mis-identified by NGC (Not Grading Correctly). It seems they can all mess up equally as badly as each other Bob. NGC have the edge over PCGS for mis-attributions.

Can't make it through the rain band No rain, too cold. Actually, it's positively brassy. Mine fell into the skip today.

I think the weather took its toll on York today. Had an email which said no one had turned up. Did anyone go today? Sorry, just realised this is in the nothing to do with coins section.

Virtually no snow in Manchester. A sprinkling last night and a few flakes today, but no problems. Re-roofing a house at the moment which is not the ideal job for this weather.

They are very expensive ~ I'd only bid on a Heritage item if it was something I really wanted and had long been unable to get elsewhere. Keep your eyes open and you can get lucky because they do attract decent quality. It also provides a sales outlet for those ex-pat coins that have passed through auctions that were previously off the radar until the internet. In 2006 I bought the (unique?)F689A in an incorrect slab which had been in the US since the Freeman sale in 1984.

Good, thanks Peter - that makes me feel better - I only paid a fiver for it. GVF money would have made me feel guilty! Ignore our resident pessimist - those aren't so much 'knocks' as 'faint taps, almost inaudible' I have to confess it never leapt out at me either. In all honesty i don't think I'd be unhappy if I'd bought GVF blind and your coin arrived! I'll give you a fiver for it, Declan, then you won't have to feel guilty about it anymore! A deformed rim/edge is an imperfection, however obvious. I'm on Peter's side. Me too, the eye is drawn to it, so a negative in the eye appeal stakes, still a bargain though! Well I'm just going to have to jolly well go and get my PC out then in that case! That's because eye phones attempt to do what they say on the label. Wrong sensory object to use for making a call, nor is the phone very well adapted for visual reception. Use the right tool for the job.

Good, thanks Peter - that makes me feel better - I only paid a fiver for it. GVF money would have made me feel guilty! Ignore our resident pessimist - those aren't so much 'knocks' as 'faint taps, almost inaudible' I have to confess it never leapt out at me either. In all honesty i don't think I'd be unhappy if I'd bought GVF blind and your coin arrived! I'll give you a fiver for it, Declan, then you won't have to feel guilty about it anymore! A deformed rim/edge is an imperfection, however obvious. I'm on Peter's side.

Farthing

The obverse looks like an Austin traders token.

Thanks John

Does anyone have a reference for the HRH Albert Prince Consort b.1819 d.1861/National Memorial medal in presumably tin. Weighs 15.81g. Approx. 32mm diameter. Thanks.

If it is the JS & AB Wyon medal it is BHM 2702 (believed struck c1872). Thanks John, that's the one. Presumably common and of little value? Having said that, I couldn't find any listed on ebay or elsewhere though - hence the question.

It isn't a case of non-portrait pillar dollars being uncollectable in isolation. The BOE issues as a whole are unpopular probably because there is not much variety of design and in the case of the countermarked pieces you would be collecting what is primarily foreign coinage. For countermarked coins there is a choice of two countermark shapes and two varieties of design, portrait or not. You have a few mints represented but it is the Spanish American equivalent of say lighthouse type or leaves and berries in the wreath. The average collector of British material won't be clued up on Spanish American coinage to differentiate between the types of finer detail. The oddballs such as the French and US currency countermarked pieces are so rare that most would never see an example for sale, let alone in the hand. Then you have the 4R pieces which are suspect as to whether they actually circulated or not, having no proclaimed value unlike the 4s.9d of the pillar dollars. Then you have the 5/- dollars (one basic design) plus the large number of patterns - the latter never as popular as currency. Finally you have the 3/-, 1s.6d & 9d bank tokens, but again only 2 obverses and 2 reverses. You also have the problem that they simply don't fit into a denomination collection with the exception of the 5/- dollar. As a contrarian, I quite like the diversity these issues provide when compared to standard RM output of the time. Every unfocussed collection should include an example or two.

In auctions, probably one every couple of years. There wasn't one in the long run of BOE dollars sold in St. James's 18. They are unquestionably rare, but relatively uncollected.

There's a slight difference in the chin and mouth profile, but that could just be the lighting. Looks good to me. Doubtless Seuk will be able to quote chapter and verse about the different copies or false countermarks in existence. I saw one about 9 months ago that could be identified as dodgy because the truncation was straight but the rest looked ok. Presumably the weight and edge are ok?

I'm not sure about the countermark (which is the bit that gets added to the basic coin to give a x10 uplift in prices). The only one I have is attached. It is slightly different in detail, but not obviously iffy. A better resolution image would help as the existing one gets pixelated.

Depends on whether it is the portrait or non-portrait type. The latter are rare in genuine, relatively common in copies. There are copies of both, but the number of genuine examples of the portrait type makes them easier to spot. The problem with shifting them is that the countermark might be EF, but the host is frequently only fine. An as struck example of both host and countermark is definitely worth the money.

If you ship on a temporary export licence, there is no duty payable if the returning item matches the exported item. People travelling abroad with equipment for their job (tool kits etc) do this all the time. Contents have to be itemised, but customs are pretty realistic and flexible when large quantities of items worth pence each are involved. The problem arises with the Royal Mail or whatever courier acting for HMRC. In this case you will probably have to appeal against the costs and provide the evidence within the time allowed to avoid charges.

I have to confess that I haven't looked at any auctions since Davisson's sale in November, so I couldn't tell you. Too busy tied up renovating a property, so funds are a bit tight at the moment as I have to buy a new roof, kitchen, CH boiler, windows and all the internals such as plumbing, plastering, wiring etc. Not to mention a couple lots of university fees and accommodation due this month. On the plus side, many repossessed properties (as this is) have the contents trashed and gutted by the evicted party so there is relatively little clearing out to do.

Notice how the bidding went from £255 to £333 in one leap? No-one is going to tell me that's not suspicious! No reason why a leap of that magnitude should be any more suspicious than small increments. If I bid on a coin at £200 and put a max of 400, then it will go to the next bid up from 200 (205 or 210 or whatever it is). If a second person puts in a bid of £450, then it will go to £400 + one increment with the second person winning. Far more suspicious is the anonymity issue where a shill bidder can beat the high bidder repeatedly without third parties being able to identify the person responsible.

Despite having done my homework by finding out which pieces he had struggled to find and which were the best examples he had found, I still dropped out too easily and came second on far too many in that sale - sometimes you need to be bolder because you will certainly regret it later on. Pieces that spring to mind are the pair of numbered field YHs, the 60/59, a few 1797 Soho pieces, a couple of Moore patterns, one of the 1806 currencies and the P1299 was another I really should have pursued being the only one available(?) to collectors. :( :( :( :( :( On the plus side, I picked up Adams 36, the P1133A with raised dots on the rock for £200 incl. in 2008 from London Coins against a sale price of £500 incl. in 2003. That's because it couldn't satisfy those who pray to the number god, only being a CGS 78. Personally I couldn't give a s**t. Having never seen better in the hand, it'll do.

Begs the question why he quotes the VF and EF price, calls it EF and then prices it just over VF book. Could ask the question, though you are unlikely to be given the correct answer of 'I've overgraded it to make it sound more attractive than it really is and underpriced on the quoted grade to give the impression of a bargain.' Honest grading on ebay mostly results in no sale and pricing correctly at around book means sellers need to buy really cheaply to make any money. Both conspire to produce listings of overgraded and overpriced crap.