Rob

Robbing bar stewards. The whole banking system needs better regulated, but just like goverment, they do as they please, rip off customers with a £35 bank charge for going a £1 overdrawn, charge £30 to make an EU bank transaction, its free in Germany. Just shows how much the UK public are ripped off by banks. I read the other day Mercyn King forced the Barclays Chief out because he was'nt going freely............... There will always be complaints about bank charges until the true cost of a service is reflected in the fee structure. Nothing in life comes for free, every action in a business has a cost. If the banks would stop cross-subsidies and make people pay for services received, the cost of going overdrawn for example would drop. Everyone likes the idea of "free banking" just as everyone thinks the customer is ripped off when going overdrawn. One is just the quid pro quo for the other. The fairest solution would be for everyone who uses the banking industry to pay for their accurately costed services, but then that would mean everyone complaining because the banks are charging THEM for daring to write out a cheque, or use the cash dispenser, or make a transaction, or whatever. With no free lunch on the table - people will just moan whatever the situation. What you're forgetting though, is that we are a captive audience. The vast majority of working people, and even those on benefits nowadays, have no choice but to use the banks. None of us can opt to have our wages paid in notes and coins each week, via a brown envelope, as I understand used to be the case many decades ago. We have to be paid via banks....... ,,,,,and newsflash, banks are not user friendly. Literally every single act they perpetrate, however they dress it up, is profit driven, wholly for their own convenience, and anything but for the well being of their customers. Moreover, as far no free lunch, yes, you're right. But the up front charges of banks are out of all proportion to the real cost. The stories about people going a few pence into the red for one day, and getting stung for a £35 fee, are real. They aren't Daily Mail hype, as I can duly testify. They continue to close branches considered to be non cost effective, despite the adverse effects incurred to customers in the towns concerned. Not everybody does their banking via the internet, and need the reassurance of face to face contact, especially elderly people. Again, this is 100% based on their own convenience. They couldn't give a toss about their customers. In some places they haven't even had the courtesy to leave a free ATM. You mentioned cheques, another old fashioned valuable facility they would like to abolish for their own convenience. Fortunately this is one area where they've found themselves squashed, and the cheque, used less, but still highly useful in certain situations, will remain beyond 2018. At least it might mean that fewer tradesmen get paid in cash and thereby avoid income tax, something that will no doubt please those politicians who now seem to be regularly offering up sanctimonious lectures about tax avoidance/evasion, whilst staying strangely silent about when the billions of bailout money will be repaid to the taxpayer (this year, next year, sometime never, probably. So I say, roll on the challenger banks. Maybe they will act with more customer care principles in mind.....well, we can always hope There is no reason to be in business other than for profit. Even the sole trader who makes £10K but only needs £9K to live on is making an un-necessary profit by this way of thinking. You either make a profit or ultimately you go under as a business. Nobody owes the business owner anything. What he or she makes is the result of their endeavours. The same goes for large multi-nationals who have to roll out brands on a large scale covering a wide geographical area to cover the cost of what is typically a very efficient, but capital intensive infrastructure. In the case of banks, the profits made on the turnover passing through the business is a very small percentage indeed. As for the customer, the option is always there to change accounts in order to take advantage of the numerous and regular sweeteners offered to attract customers by all banks. Nobody is compelled to stay with the same bank. Housewives have been shopping around for the cheapest deals on the high street since time began, there is nothing to stop bank customers doing the same. Car insurance, the same applies and most people don't think twice about changing that from year to year because we all know that renewal premiums are designed to tap the lazy wallet. As for separating out the retail and investment banks, I wholeheartedly agree. Retail banking should be about looking after someone's money responsibly with liabilities fully covered by assets, but that would still require a bank making profits. i.e. customers being charged for the services provided at a level sufficient to cover the staff and infrastructure costs together with day to day running costs plus a profit for the owners, which by definition needs to be sufficient to cover inflation plus profit after tax. Otherwise you are throwing money away and ultimately there is no need for anyone to provide a business facility at a loss. Although the banking crisis was the result of loans that went sour, some deals are profitable. If the bad loans are the exception to the rule, then that suggests that investment banking is subsidising retail banking as a matter of course, and in the case of low cost deals or freebies to attract new customers I think this is the case. Do away with the cheap offerings, cost everything properly and pass on those costs and we have a system that is transparent and fair. That could ultimately mean higher fees. If you want to live in a commune or return to a system of bartering where money is irrelevant, then that can work, but if you want a system where you can generate wealth to improve your personal situation, you need someone to look after the accumulated wealth and those trustees will require some recompense. If you don't want to pay them, do the hard work yourself. Banks should be allowed to fail just as with any other business with the losses bearing first on the shareholders and others afterwards. What I do not understand is the media fixation with people who are 'ruined' because they were stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket. There was a system in place to compensate depositors before the banking debacle which is now even more generous. If you have £100K, why put it in one place? If that system went down for a day and you needed to take out a tenner, you might as well not have the other £99990 either because you can't get your money irrespective of the amount. It doesn't take a great deal of planning to work out that risk is reduced by diversification, even if the returns are reduced. Savings of even hundreds of pounds should be spread about to eliminate risk. If the returns on deposits are too low, let the owner of those assets get off his/her backside and sweat them by using them usefully to provide the better return. A passive depositor gets the reduced returns because they are passive and have asked someone else to generate the return for them. If that is a bank, then those fees that everyone complains about are merely being recycled into interest bearing account returns, dividends etc.

Robbing bar stewards. The whole banking system needs better regulated, but just like goverment, they do as they please, rip off customers with a £35 bank charge for going a £1 overdrawn, charge £30 to make an EU bank transaction, its free in Germany. Just shows how much the UK public are ripped off by banks. I read the other day Mercyn King forced the Barclays Chief out because he was'nt going freely............... There will always be complaints about bank charges until the true cost of a service is reflected in the fee structure. Nothing in life comes for free, every action in a business has a cost. If the banks would stop cross-subsidies and make people pay for services received, the cost of going overdrawn for example would drop. Everyone likes the idea of "free banking" just as everyone thinks the customer is ripped off when going overdrawn. One is just the quid pro quo for the other. The fairest solution would be for everyone who uses the banking industry to pay for their accurately costed services, but then that would mean everyone complaining because the banks are charging THEM for daring to write out a cheque, or use the cash dispenser, or make a transaction, or whatever. With no free lunch on the table - people will just moan whatever the situation.

Without someone else seeing them, you should be tempted to treat the grades assigned a little circumspectly. Many people who collect casually do not appreciate what a coin looks like in a particular grade, especially those who tend to accumulate. To acquire high grade coins in bulk other than recent issues will invariably cost quite a bit of money (usually far more than most casual collectors are prepared to pay in total) and so the expenditure will go hand in hand with a need to ensure that what you have bought is what is claimed. A few pictures would help. I am always being offered collections for purchase graded Fine to EF with some uncirculated which in reality are Poor to Fair or Fine. The price of the latter depends on the spot metal price for the day i.e scrap. The bullion coins should be sold through a dealer rather than a scrap gold merchant. Even ebay with an opening price at full bullion value would give a better return than a scrap gold dealer.

It has done for many years. This was published in 1929 and Batty the century before.

Bramah p.125 refers here. Quote: 'Minor Varieties. As it is difficult to find a specimen perfectly lettered it will be inferred that minor varieties abound. On the obv. side double cutting is general, and certain imperfections persist: as that the G never has a complete serif and the O is very often broken at top and base. The rev. generally shows one or more flaws. The curious in this matter may refer to Batty for 142 different kinds of flaws in the year 1844 alone. Of course many of these are merely more pronounced developments of the same flaw.' The last sentence should provide food for thought for all those who persist in 'identifying' so many micro varieties which are unintentional on the part of the engraver or mint and merely a function of die use such as blocked letters and die breaks.

My wife's a lot cheaper to run than the coin collection.

It isn't protection that industry needs, rather people who are prepared to work for the long haul building and maintaining a business that produces things that other people want and are prepared to pay for. Family businesses who can pass on a thriving enterprise to the next generation and who aren't at the mercy of pension funds and the stock market in general. Sure you will have some business where there is nobody to inherit, but a succesful business is more likely to be adopted by the offspring than a ticking over one. The rewards are out there for anyone prepared to put in the time and effort and who is prepared to forego instant riches and gratification. Logically there should be no shortage of people looking to set up a business given the economic downturn, this being a very good time to carve out a viable business. An economic downturn may not give instant riches, but it does stand you in good stead for the future, requiring as it inevitably will the necessary tight financial control to build a profitable business. Most successful western based manufacturers thrive on the back of quality. The cheap end of the market is invariably supplied by businesses located where labour costs are least.

I've reached the conclusion that the economy is buggered. Today I needed some springs, which by the nature of the application can be as long, short, close coiled, loosely coiled, variably thick gauge wire and the material also required to suit. I had a choice. First option was to buy a spares kit from France which contained the requisite number of springs along with a lot of things I didn't need for in excess of £600, or secondly I could get 10 made in a local jobbing shop. Trying to find the latter was difficult, but eventually found one locally in Rochdale - cost of making them as a one off £30. Run by a couple of 60-somethings, with no apprentices and presumably a business that is going to fold on their retirements, I see a country that has almost lost it's ability to make and supply the basic building blocks used in every day things. Unless we can produce basic items, we cannot hope to manufacture equipment in competition with the rest of the world. Waving the flag, I think it is incumbent on everyone to buy UK made goods wherever possible even if it costs a few percentage points more than an import. By doing so it gives people gainful employment who would otherwise only be sat in front of the telly waiting for Chrismas to arrive, something which far too many people are doing. Since the turn of the millennium it has become increasingly difficult to source any simple engineered product, but without this resource you are left with the unpalatable option of buying a new import. The trade balance used to be an important statistic, sometimes a billion or two positive, sometime the same negative, but these days always negative and many billions so. Clearly every country cannot have a positive balance, but as long as imports and exports are close to parity, a bit either way is sustainable as long as the polarity switches regularly.

He forgot to mention it was the 3 lions to date! Someone must have had a word. No mention of any errors now.

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix. The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it). There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria. The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it) (PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd) Given that the obverse dot is common to all three questionables, but the reverse flaw only to two out of three, then there is a strong possibility that either the same forger used one original obverse and two original reverses to make a series of fakes, or that the reverse flaw somehow got into the process as part of the forging (a bit of gunk on the "die"). I'd tend to suggest the latter is more likely. On the assumption that both the PCGS and Palves' coins are copies, there must be at least two obverse dies in use. You would expect two reverses in this case. One obverse has a pointed top to the A whilst the other is slightly flat. The top serifs on the C are completely different thicknesses too. Good point, but how would you then explain the dot? The fact that it is in EXACTLY the same place is odd, if different dies are involved. Unless it's a deliberate mark placed by the Mint, in which case there will be genuine items out there with it. On the other hand, if it's a mark imparted as part of the casting process, it would tend to vary with each different casting. We're now looking at a situation where the dot may be a genuine artefact, and is present on at least one series of forgeries. Which also means that one or more of those 3 examples may be genuine. And which takes us back full circle to the weight issue as the best means of determining fakes. If the dots were on the matrix used for both original dies in 1849 and casts of both pieces happen to have had this feature, then slight differences in the obverses can be explained by wear/infilling/whatever on the original dies. The profile looks different on the two obverses as do the C and A, but if all features on the obverses are consistently present and matched by consistent reverse marks, then it most likely means that two separate copies have been made. Unfortunately, Hocking doesn't list anything useful in the RM museum.

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix. The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it). There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria. The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it) (PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd) Given that the obverse dot is common to all three questionables, but the reverse flaw only to two out of three, then there is a strong possibility that either the same forger used one original obverse and two original reverses to make a series of fakes, or that the reverse flaw somehow got into the process as part of the forging (a bit of gunk on the "die"). I'd tend to suggest the latter is more likely. On the assumption that both the PCGS and Palves' coins are copies, there must be at least two obverse dies in use. You would expect two reverses in this case. One obverse has a pointed top to the A whilst the other is slightly flat. The top serifs on the C are completely different thicknesses too.

Moving on from that, the people I won't give a discount to, are those who wander up to my stall, don't say a word and then spend the next 10 minutes fingerng through every coin I've got, put some of them back in the wrong place, keep genuine customers from my wares and without making eye contact pick up a £2 halfpenny and say 'how much is this?'. I'm afraid under those circumstances my response will be, 'the price is on the ticket'. Communication is everything in life. There is one dealer at the Midland who wouldn't give me discount on a £2 1/2d What a surprise. Another thing that p's me off is when you have items that really should be melted, but you offer them at melt anyway as a goodwill gesture, but people still want a discount on that and refuse to buy without it. Or the person who has a list of only half a dozen items, one of which you have in the right grade and price. He asks you to keep it back for him and then buggers off never to be seen again even when you know it is most unlikely there is a second example in the room. I stopped holding things back for strangers long ago.

Before they required packages over a certain value to go by courier the shipping price was $10-15, but $30 (£20) isn't that much to pay for piece of mind. I have no doubts that their policy changed after my lots went missing because I asked them bluntly if they could prove it had been shipped and the answer was no. To put something in the postal system that is only tracked when it reaches the destination country is crass. Say they ship my parcel with Manchester on the address label and it goes to Manchester, New Hampshire. It could never arrive in the destination country and presumably goes into a bag labelled 'do something with these' as there would be no requirement for tracking whilst still in the US. I'm actually glad that they have upped the price and the service offered, even if it does cost another 5% plus. As with everything else in life, you get what you pay for.

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix. The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it).

Then everybody will start playing safe and begin buying up all the old farthings and hammered! Prices will rocket but you won't be able to afford to buy any more! Ashmore is an example when hammered coins were reproduced on a massive scale.I have bought a couple.If you can buy original silver (which is plentiful if you run your detector over a few fields) a die can be reproduced and hey presto.A few Viking dies have been found. Learn boys learn. I don't mind contempory forgeries in fact I will buy them. There are a lot of hammered(and milled)gold coins out there. Man up as Mrs Peter says as she thrusts the broom in my hand.I give her a smile and a glass of white and everything is Honkeydory. You might need a mop and bucket rather than a broom - it's more practical.

Price them to the nearest pound. TBH, it doesn't really matter whether you paid 10p or £1 and when the time comes to sell, it won't matter either. A collection will contain some things that you overpaid for and others that were bought cheaply. The deviations from book prices will far outweigh any discrepancies arising from rounding error. And in time you probably won't give a damn.

I'd like to know why she has referred to William and not Willium III.

I think the key to identifying them will be in the legend. The letter quality of the 'Godless' is very good with angular sides to most characters. The 9 on the PCGS site example looks iffy as Stubby indicated. Knowing the weight and die axis look like being important too. If anyone has an example, it would be worth counting the milling too. That includes Palves' friend.

Doh. Really? Another one with the correct legend used in error. There's a real danger that soon, most legends will be correct.

They are ok and bidding seems to be all above board. As with other US auctions, they are a good place to buy rarities which haven't been given a big slab number because this determines the price most of the time. Any items won will be shipped to the UK by courier. It used to be that they used USPS with the nonsensical claim that the item was only tracked once it reached the UK. This I found out after the unique Freeman 689A and another pattern halfpenny (4 known) went missing in the post . As it happened, the two coins eventually made their way back to Heritage 7 months later and I received a phone call asking if I still wanted them. Since then, any item over $250(?) and shipped overseas has to go courier with the attendant customs fees and larger carriage bill (so add 5% plus $30 shipping to the total), but that is a small price to pay for not losing the irreplaceable. Credit where it is due.

This one is kosher if you can spot any detail differences. I don't have the weight of it though. Is it me, or does the gap between the number bases on yours look closer together? This would be logical if the Chinese dies were made from a cast.

It also depends on the price at which the dealer can buy, and in the climate of the past 2 or 3 years, anything at auction is going for more than you can sell on at. Bargains for the dealer are very thin on the ground, so don't get too hopeful.

With the exception of the idiots who list 1967 pennies or similar items at £1000 starting price on eBay, the more expensive items on ebay will often be known to dealers and collectors alike as an individual piece with some sort of provenance and hence an indicated value. It doesn't matter whether the sale was last week, last year or last century as long as you have a reference point relative to its peers. If you know the coin from seeing it in hand, so much the better. Anyone can spend as much as they like on ebay, including individual collectors if they are prepared to put their money where their collective mouths are. It isn't rocket science, just information gained from doing the spadework. If books or catalogues were bought or otherwise accumulated by individuals who then did the same research, they might like to spend a bit more too. As Peter keeps saying, know your subject.

The 1838 and 1848(?) are currency pieces. The 1838 is quite common and doesn't have the higher quality field associated with maundy money. The 1848 is not common. Hm, interesting, guess you learn something new every day! Thanks! Re-reading the reply I'd better add in case you get the wrong idea, that there are Maundy twopencess in the sets for 1838 and 1848 and not that they are replaced by currency pieces. It's just that currency pieces also exist.

The 1838 and 1848(?) are currency pieces. The 1838 is quite common and doesn't have the higher quality field associated with maundy money. The 1848 is not common.