Rob

It is straightforward. All you see is the outline with no internal detail, as the junction between field and design where the angle of incidence changes is responsible for the damage together with the field. The field, which is the higher feature on a die will therefore depress the metal on the softer die where there was physical contact, while not touching the die where the incuse design is. This results in a new raised (incuse on the damaged die) design feature equal to the parts of the impressing die's field. The damage will of course be effected on the softer of the two dies, which could be either one depending on the degree of hardening achieved for each die during manufacture. Dies produced under nominally the same conditions will still have subtle differences in their physical properties arising from localised inhomogeneity in the metal mix, temperature differences within the oven during hardening and by extension an effective difference in conditioning time at a specific temperature. One variation will be hardness.

I accept that recycling is good for the economy, but is it really sensible to recycle a nearly 300 year business idea. The South Sea Company fiasco whereby excess government debt was injected into a company that had trading rights but did not trade but merely had a share price that moved up and down with investor confidence at a time when much of Europe was equally suffering from investment bubbles with impractical or very dodgy schemes, or the company that invested in something so good and potentially valuable that they didn't want to divulge what it was. So Messr. Milliband and Balls, we know the name of the company directors, but what is your business plan? I think we should be told, but if it is too good to be true we shall take some good investment advice and accept that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Like sheep, investors piled into the 18th century schemes, and like the current situation got badly burnt when it all went t**s up. It doesn't matter whether you invest in an unviable private business or an unviable national economy, the monetary losses are in the same currency and potentially anything up to 100%. Vive la difference. Confidence is only going to be restored when we have clarity going forward which has a good chance of success. Leaving the EU to mismanage Europe isn't one of them, nor is a 600bn euro sticking plaster going to cover a 2 trillion euro hole. It has to have credibility to have any hope of achieving its goals and if mere words from politicians was enough the problem would have been solved before it began.

I suspect there is little or no embarrassment to hide at the north pole - not that I wish to find out.

No, nor me. If I ended up with a BU ghosty and and a BU without, of the same date, I'd probably create a new variety and keep both. Although it gets a footnote in Peck, the 1918KN bird's foot is only a dicky die, but it gets the same treatment in my collection. A slot for 1918KN, and a slot for 1918KN BF. I'd be happy with just a single KN if I could find one in the right grade.

Utter crap ~ you're talking about a country that not only started the worst war in history, but also suffered extreme hyperinflation back in 1923. I wouldn't have any confidence in them to run anything which was in any way related to our national interests. I suspect that the only interests they ultimately have, are their own. I agree that they were responsible for various acts for which the nation appears to be forever damned, but a fundamental right is that nobody should be held responsible for the actions of another. If you do something, then you should carry the can. If I do something, you should not be held responsible. To hold the current generation responsible for the actions of their ancestors is no better than any other totalitarian system. If you genuinely believe that innocent people should effectively do time for the wrongs of others, then I'll see you inside for our joint and severally responsible stretch for introducing the concentration camp during the Boer War, or the Amritsar massacre, or the Peterloo massacre or the various acts that would be considered atrocities today over past centuries in Ireland. No country with any lengthy period of self-determination can hold its hands up and say we never did anything wrong. It is the well documented events of the 1920s that ensured the memory of hyperinflation has not been lost, just as the large Jewish lobby ensures that our children continue to be taught about the holocaust. Apart from a few individuals in denial, nobody would argue that history is littered with wrongs, but somewhere along the line we all have to move on. My father spent the second half of WW2 building railways in Burma and hated the Japanese until the day he died. All the Japanese I have ever met in life, I have got on with very well. Am I wrong not to hate them? I don't think so. As for national interests, I would hope they would look after their own, just as I would hope our government would look after ours. You can not rely on anyone to look after you before themselves. That also goes to the core of the problems with the EU. 27 national governments that are inconveniently tied to each other as a result of the incessant interference by the other 26 in the form of diarrhoeic legislation which may or may not be appropriate for an individual state. You can not have a workable system that is neither one thing nor the other. You either have a single Eurpoean state, or individual states with their own laws to suit and loosely tied by trade agreement, or relaxed border controls which is essentially what we signed up to many years ago. We did not sign up to a system that interferes with or even denies our capacity to sort out our own mess if required.

I'm in a bit of an unusual position here. From my perspective the only good thing to come out of the EU was my wife, and that didn't need any approval from Brussels. As she is German and we share similar views, I can understand fully the need to operate a financially tight ship. Everything that costs money in life boils down to money in, money out. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. Don't throw good money after bad, and if you really want something, work harder. That mentality which is a national trait is why Germany should be dictating the terms of clearing up the present mess in the EU and why if they had run the show in the first place it wouldn't be where it is today. Cooperation is a good thing, but if you are paying for something, then you should be dictating the terms. On the point made by Accumulator, "the political ideology of a bunch of European ex-domestic politicians looking to extend their career and legacy, rather than for any pragmatic reason, the EC was morphing from a free trade zone into the United States of Europe." says it all. The well trodden path of being voted out of office in your own country only to be given a larger trough in which to feast has happened in virtually every country. Do they really add multiples of their considered value in their home countries? I think not.

Is it time to reiterate the phrase "Charity begins at home"? If you want to get something done you ask a busy man. Far too many people in this country are not busy. Rather than everyone moaning about others, perhaps it is time to paraphrase JFK with "not what can Britain do for me, but what can I do for Britain?" If you (general, not specific) actually believe in this country, do something about it. Large exporters are useful to the balance of payments, but also subject to impart large swings in performance when things go wrong. As Peter says, we should be buying British because every transaction that keeps money in the country is potentially recyclable in this country. That is how economies thrive, with positive export balances paying for the extras we all covet.

You do not need to be in the EU to trade with it. Trade takes place between two countries, one of whom has a product that can be sold in the other. As long as one has goods and the other money, everything is ok. The shit has hit the fan for the simple reason that countries are being perceived as not creditworthy having borrowed more than they can afford to pay back whilst at the same time being constrained by Eurozone rules in their abilities to adjust the economies in a manner that would allow them to trade their way out of the problem. It isn't in anyone's interest for any country to go tits up as even a small one doing so would have considerable repurcussions somewhere - remember that large volcano in the North Atlantic? The problem which still isn't being addressed is that all nations have overspent so that their citizens can have ever increasing living standards and benefits by inventing jobs that in the main are not wealth creating. Far better would be targeted industrial investment which would allow countries to set up assisted industries where required to replace imports at the expense of benefits. All nations have suffered as a result of EU dictat whereby they give state aid but only on the condition that you don't operate in a specific field. Rationising industries to the advantage of the "good" Europeans at the expense of ensuring there was no competition without significant hurdles helps the consumer not a jot. What Brussels seeks is a centrally controlled system with cosy relationships whereby competition is virtually eliminated. The UK has financial services, but little industry. Any large taxes imposed on the financial sector can not be to our benefit. Remove the UK's financial sector to Paris or Frankfurt and there will be no cake whatsoever, and the resulting windfall will tide the EU over until next month's crisis because they still refuse to recognise the structural flaws. The comment of everyone working to save the cancer at the expense of the patient is justified. I did'nt realise the UK had a finicial centre Rob judging by the state of their finances. I also don't know why everyone is slapping Germany right now, it's them that are bailing everyone out, and of course with any bailout there has to be conditions to safeguard their money, look at what the UK Government did with the banks, bailed them out and own a major stake, thus safeguarding their cash, yet when they ask the banks to help small businesses by giving them loans the banks refuse or give very little out to thise who require it.. Now as a major shareholder, should'nt the Government be slapping the banks with a major crackdown? Are they doing anything about it? Parliamnet wants to kick start the economy, yet will increase fuel duty or impose hidden taxes elswehere to get their cash. Road tax for example was for the upkeep of roads, i think i read somewhere recently that a very small percentage was actually used on the roads, where's the rest gone? National lottery tax, where's all that going? Overpaid fat MPs in London, their expenses, and of course their is Brussels, but theere are also MPs from the UK there who are also milking the large chocolate bowl. The UK as a whole is needing a major overhaul, unemployment (i'll give you an instance of how the Germans operate) In Germany if i was unemployed, i MUST apply for 8 jobs per month, i MUST keep everything i've applied for so that when i go to see them at the office i can prove i've been looking (and they will check) I MUST also every 3 months hand over my bank statements so they can check if i've had 1 euro more than the Government allowance of 75% of my last 3-5 years salaries, if i've had 1 euro more, they WILL deduct this EVERY month. Now tell me, as a junkie in the UK or an alchy or an Immigrant, you just happily go along to the dole office sign up for your beer token/daily methadone needle and walk away until next signing day, is this not flawed somehow? Yep. We are all singing the same tune, just in different languages. I have no complaints about Germany, in fact I would be extremely angry about the rest of Europe if I was German. Rhetorical question, but how would Europe play if Germany took its ball away?

I wish 86% of the EU Commission thought we should leave the EU, then something might get done, and it would make resolving the problems easier for all concerned. Just as current thinking is that the banks are too big because of their ability to derail whole economies when things go wrong, so it has to be recognised that the EU is too big, and when structurally unsound as it is today it threatens the existence or stability of more than just the EU. Don't forget that Germany is only acting in the way it is because it is still on a 60 year guilt trip. If it was a stand alone country, its currency would be rated higher leading to a lower trade surplus and other countries who have benefitted by holding on to its coat tails would not be so reliant on this proxy economy for their prosperity and creditworthiness. They would have to sink or swim based on acting alone for their own benefit which would be best achieved by a dose of introspection. As with all benefit recipients both individual and national, the appeal of taking your own steps to ensure you sort out your contribution to the overall problem isn't very attractive. The problem is still politicians who require ambiguity to fudge solutions because they dare not tell EU citizens they are living beyond their means. Concrete decisions that they can be held to account for are strictly taboo.

As far as the reverse is concerned, look at all the other bits such as the jewels on the crown, the lis, the lion's tail, the orb, his front paws. Look at this, the nose is incredibly flat, but there is minimal wear in reality with the relief on the tail almost intact and the paws barely worn. For weak strikes the detail will be weak overall. I had a halfcrowm a while back which had no better than VF detail, but struggled to find any wear. I can't find the picture at the moment but will post when I do.

The more I look at that 1/- the more I'm convinced its wrong. Has anyone dropped a note to the buyer (& seller)? I have a feeling this is all innocent.It would be interesting to trace the history of this coin. Interesting, the changed 5 example I posted earlier also came from Devon, though it was over 6 years ago.

You do not need to be in the EU to trade with it. Trade takes place between two countries, one of whom has a product that can be sold in the other. As long as one has goods and the other money, everything is ok. The shit has hit the fan for the simple reason that countries are being perceived as not creditworthy having borrowed more than they can afford to pay back whilst at the same time being constrained by Eurozone rules in their abilities to adjust the economies in a manner that would allow them to trade their way out of the problem. It isn't in anyone's interest for any country to go tits up as even a small one doing so would have considerable repurcussions somewhere - remember that large volcano in the North Atlantic? The problem which still isn't being addressed is that all nations have overspent so that their citizens can have ever increasing living standards and benefits by inventing jobs that in the main are not wealth creating. Far better would be targeted industrial investment which would allow countries to set up assisted industries where required to replace imports at the expense of benefits. All nations have suffered as a result of EU dictat whereby they give state aid but only on the condition that you don't operate in a specific field. Rationising industries to the advantage of the "good" Europeans at the expense of ensuring there was no competition without significant hurdles helps the consumer not a jot. What Brussels seeks is a centrally controlled system with cosy relationships whereby competition is virtually eliminated. The UK has financial services, but little industry. Any large taxes imposed on the financial sector can not be to our benefit. Remove the UK's financial sector to Paris or Frankfurt and there will be no cake whatsoever, and the resulting windfall will tide the EU over until next month's crisis because they still refuse to recognise the structural flaws. The comment of everyone working to save the cancer at the expense of the patient is justified.

All that has been achieved this week is yet another agreement that there is a problem and that something needs to be done about it. New treaty? With binding resolutions? With sanctions? Who is going to bind anyone in the cosy club that is Europe. They have had treaties coming out if their ears over the years, which, if the will was there, provided an ample framework for an orderly return to a relatively stable economy. Do you remember the one that went like this? No one shall run a budget deficit of more than 3% of GDP. Funnily enough, one year the French stuck two fingers up to this because it was inconvenient. Funnily enough, they did the same the following year, and the next. Why? Because there were clearly extenuating circumstances which meant the political cost of balancing budgets would have been too great. So if the punishment at the time was to tell the French minister "You're a naughty boy", presumably this will be elevated under the new treaty to "You're a very naughty boy". It's crap. France hasn't balanced its books for over three decades. For those that need reminding, it's called printing money you don't have in order to bolster the economy, or in new speak - Quantitative Easing. The fundamental problem of the eurozone and the rest of the western world is that we consume more than we produce and simply don't pay our way. The fundamental problem is debt of an unmanageable proportion and economies that are too uncompetitive to trade their way out of it. Southern European countries having to borrow at above inflation rates means that the time honoured tradition of allowing your debts to become worthless through inflation of a long period of time isn't going to work. The debts can only increase. Italy was borrowing today at 6.40% compared to just over 2 for Britain and Germany. I can't confirm if Wikipedia figures are accurate, but the quoted values for expenditure and revenues for the EU are approx. 50% and 44% respectively. On the assumption they are true, I suggest they have a problem. When the eurozone sets up its rescue fund, who is going to fill the coffers? Everybody is allegedly in too much debt. Under lax EU accounting controls, probably the Greeks using all the EU funds which have been wasted in the country and are now presumably secreted away in a bank vault because the accounts say they should be there. Year on year the accounts can't be signed off because the amounts spent and accounted for can't be audited satisfactorily. If you rock the boat and publicly raise the issue of fraud you are summarily dismissed. The whole thing is a (bad) joke and is now dangerously out of control held together only by a brown adhesive, the smell of which is quite distinctive. The Euro can not survive in its present form. We should be quite resolute in rejecting any taxes on financial transactions. The Europeans may not like it, but now it is our turn to say it isn't in our interest just as every other country has done when they feel so disposed. This country would pay a major share of the tax to plug the deficit gaps in Europe's coffers. That is not the way to enforce financial discipline because it equates to yet another free lunch for the spendthrift countries. It is popular because everyone likes to attack the greedy bankers, but the problems of the EU do not stem from banks lending sub-prime personal mortgages recklessly, rather they lent far greater sums of money to insolvent and therefore sub-prime countries without the means to trade their way out of indebtedness on the back of an implicit guarantee that the EU was indestructable with Germany's financial backing. The politicians want to tax the banks that lent money to the countries which those same politicians represent in order that they may continue their cosseted lifestyles at the expense of tax payers. I actually think that we would not be so badly off outside the EU. Nobody would be forced to declare war on any other country. Trade would still continue across the Channel just as it does with the rest of the world. The yearly net payments to Brussels could cease. We could set our laws to benefit our economy rather than have them set as part of the obigatory tit for tat arguments whereby European laws are mostly a collage of points, each negotiated by a member state in order that everyone can say they won. Overly complicated and every point guaranteed to p*** off at least one or two of the 27. Therein lies a fundamental weakness of Europe. Every country still fights for its own benefits. Nobody talks about communal benefits. For the EU to succeed it would require the abolition of individual countries, a proposition which no politician would be able to put to the electorate. Can anyone imagine a former Frenchman standing up and claiming that the citizens of the areas formerly known as the countries of Germany and the United Kingdom were being short changed to the benefit of the area formerly known as France - or vice versa. Or a similar situation involving Spaniards and the Portuguese. All of which assumes that politicians have voted to make themselves obsolete in the first place - fat chance.

That is open for debate Debbie Seconded I'll be a contrarian and say he's not that bad. He's pretty harmless. or should that be

An appropriate time to repeat that memorable newspaper headline "Fog In Channel, Europe Isolated". Which pretty much sums up the problem. European politicians are incapable of recognising that they are responsible for the mess and will blame anything or anyone but themselves. By extension, the solution is equally impossible for them to contemplate. Euro coins could become very rare indeed if they need to melt them all to provide the raw material for the replacement currencies.

No, they don't know everything and it's crazy to expect them to. That being said I know they do listen if you make contact with them and explain your reasoning and supply the documentation to them to support your arguments. I know of quite a few cases where they've changed their thinking about Australian coins based on local literature that has been sent over to them to read. Which again raises the question that if they will only do things based on literature which the person submitting the coin has to supply, why are they held in such high esteem and why do people feel the need to get their approval? Whilst we are all aware that many people are prone to overgrading their coins, a significant number are not. The same is true of establishing whether a coin has been altered from the original. The costs involved of getting someone like PCGS or NGC or anyone else for that matter to give it an "official" seal of approval is a clear case of money for old rope. Collectors need to up their act a bit, get a good glass on the coin and do the spadework themselves. There is sufficient evidence of mistakes made by the biggest TPGs both here and in the US to suggest that the model is a triumph of marketing over usefulness. When it comes to establishing authenticity, documentation of forgeries and copies is freely available both on the net and in physical form and so if someone wants to find out what is in the market they can do so with a modicum of research. The costs involved are a direct result of collectors' laziness. If it costs £20 or $20 to slab a coin and you have 500 coins in the collection, is it really worth spending 10K to establish that the coins are genuine whilst at the same time accepting that some will come back with the wrong attribution which in the case of many US collectors will determine what they will pay for the coin. This is very much a miltary mentality whereby if the Sgt. Major says today is Tuesday, then Tuesday it is. I'm afraid I despair over collectors unwillingness to use their eyes and make their own decisions.

There is a typical range of weights for the silver currency coins, so you would not be able to rely on weight for an id. My 1923 nickel shilling weighs 5.68g compared to a theoretical 5.65g for the silver currency piece. As the densities of nickel and silver aren't that different you wouldn't be able to tell them apart in the hand. The only visual difference is that nickel is duller than a mint state silver coin, but you would need a magnet to check. Don't get too excited as I forecast that you would never find one in your lifetime, I don't know anyone who has found one and the likelihood is minimal. I just mentioned it to make you aware of the unexpected and hence unchecked. If you ever wanted one, it's best that you buy one in a sale or off a list. A loupe, scales, books and more books are the most important things to get. A magnet isn't.

The immediate aftermath of the change in silver content throws up a few inconsistencies. Not only are the portraits different, but in 1923 & 1925 you find that the shillings often have quite strong reverses whereas the other years are a bit weaker. There was a lot of experimentation at the mint in the 1920s with a settling in period for the change in metal mix giving both naturally dull and bright finishes to a mint state coin depending on the scrap metal added to the silver. In 1923 & 1924 there was also a run of experimental strikings in nickel produced, presumably as an alternative to silver for general currency as our bullion was being used to pay off the war debts. This was not adopted and so you are highly unlikely to encounter one as only a few dozen were made, but it is worth checking these dates for magnetic properties in case somebody inadvertently disposed of one. Somebody has to win the lottery occasionally.

Yep. It can save you a minimum of tens of pounds, but sometimes hundreds or even thousands. That's another coin or two for the collection

It's available from today. Allegedly Well that's what the email circulated last Friday by Spink said.

Nothing wrong with that, in fact you should be giving yourself a pat on the back. Rejecting things is the hard part when you have a gap to fill and the longer time goes on, the greater the temptation. We are all prone to buying things out of frustration. The fact you are looking for the BM is also a good thing. If it is normally well struck on a coin, then the chances are the weakness in the BM wil be replicated elsewhere. Knowing where it is weak also helps though, and with some of the WW1 years, there are a considerable number of weaker strikes found. One plausible argument I have heard for this is that less force was used in striking in an effort to prolong the life of the dies. You can also get weak detail as a result of die fill, where bits of muck get trapped in recesses and take the edge off the sharp detail. Missing lions' faces on reverse shields is a common one for the higher denominations, though for shield or garter reverse shillings I would doubt there was ever much detail in the faces because even my proofs don't have very much. On these you should use the harp breast as an indicator for wear. The harp breast is conical and so not prone to die fill. The area of any flattening is therefore directly proprtional to the amount of wear.

Vive la difference. Anyone with experience knows that standards/grading aren't consistent between dealers. So for the TPGs as well. The problem is more of one whereby we need to engage novices to post, contribute to the discussions, learn from what is said and thereby expand their knowledge base just as Debbie has done with with her few threads. It hasn't gone un-noticed that she has asked sensible questions over and above what's this coin worth, which is what most want so that they can list a coin on ebay. Oh that others would do the same. We all had to start somewhere and hopefully have learned a lot over the years we have been collecting. It is better we all learn to compare chalk with cheese and recognise the differences. For what it's worth, leaving aside the toning on the 1918 shilling in the first post link, the lion detail actually looks above average for the year because it looks like a fullish nose.

It's available from today.

The link article is less than useless. It gives the equivalent of a US AU50 as a UK XF/UNC and a US MS60 as a UK UNC. I've never seen an MS60 that even approached unc, and as for AU50, well........ As far as the descriptions of the three slabbed coins I've bought from the US are concerned, including the 1888 above, the descriptions were spot on. It's a bit incongruous to try and compare it to our grading system, as you are in no way comparing like with like. I thought it was already commonly accepted that their grading was more generous than ours. Yes it is amongst those with experience, but the purpose of any info is expand the knowledge of the ignorant. By definition, they will not know that there are different standards. Mint state from two countries would mean the same thing to someone who is a novice and that is why we have to keep reiterating the point.

Which is what has been said all along. The value of a third party's opinion is worth the paper it's written on and nothing more. You always have to buy the coin and not the slab because you can have little faith in the label. The denomination might be correct, your and their grading might be the same, the variety if mentioned on the label might be correct. The word might crops up far too often for the slab to have any significant value added. It protects the coin and not much more - a feature that doesn't turn a 50p coin into a £20 one. In a nutshell, recognise an indifferent business idea for what it is. If people want to have their hand held and be given peace of mind, then let them. Do not expect all round acceptance though and certainly don't expect people who are quite capable of grading and identification to pay someone a significant sum for doing what they can already do themselves. It is aimed at the uninitiated and that is who it should remain with.