Rob

I read it but didn't reply to all the points raised because the answer consumes so much time and I also have to do real work sometimes. FYI, replying has taken well over an hour. I agree that if you join a club you have to abide by their rules. That is normal, but I don't think their objectives align with our own which is why many voted to leave. Their increasingly federalist stance with a stated aim of ever closer cooperation will have a tipping point whereby retaining semi-autonomous parliaments becomes pointless. I don't aspire to that, nor do I believe does the majority of this country. As for them setting the rules, I believe it would be better for us to be detached from the EU, but initially transfer the existing laws into those going forward and then cherry pick those we wish to adhere to based on our needs. There seems to be an automatic assumption that EU founded laws are socially good and anything we might propose as a replacement is inevitably going to be bad for people. Why would they necessarily have the moral high ground? I agree the rebate was negotiated through MT, but I was talking net contributions and on one occasion we actually received more in handouts than we put in. That was the point I was making. Everybody old enough remembers the 70s. Rampant inflation, oil prices shocks (twice), Vietnam, ongoing Middle Eastern violence, three day weeks, miners strikes, year on year industrial unrest, Ireland, Baader Meinhof or their Italian soulmates the Red Brigade killing Aldo Moro, Afghanistan (again), IRA violence, Iran, the Munich Olympics, having to wait a few months for the final episode of Fawlty Towers to be aired......................... We all know the list is endless. I don't agree that our economy is healthy. Of significant size - yes, but healthy? No. We have lost too much manufacturing capability to say the economy is healthy. Finance accounts for over 10% of the economy, and that is too much relative to the number of jobs created within the industry. The earnings base is too narrow and we have lost the ability to provide across the board facilities for the economy. That leaves us reliant on international suppliers or at least their political masters, at which point they have you by the short and curlies. The motor industry's reduction in investment is only partly due to Brexit. China has thrown a real spanner in the works simply due to the size of their economy and the number of potential consumers. Somewhere along the line the industry would need to contract and it just happens to be now. To rebuild lost capacity using taxpayers' money would fall foul of EU rules and would be challenged as unfair by incumbent businesses, so government has its hands tied to a large extent when it comes to supporting business. However, the deficit in traded goods is in my view the most serious weakness of our economy and needs to be tackled head on. We really do need to support what remains, whether it be personal or state expenditure. We have never been and never will be self-sufficient as you say, but we do at least need the capacity, from which there is a chance, to trade out of our current dilemma. The trade deficit might be small relative to GDP, but it is structurally permanent by now, having been consistently negative for over 20 years. In money terms it means a slow death by insolvency as the asset base of this country is systematically stripped bare to pay the nation's debts. There are insufficient earnings to afford the trappings of a western lifestyle that people now expect, so people draw down on savings, or take out a portion of their pension fund to buy the latest must have consumable item. That is the treadmill we need to get off, and as I said before, the status quo within the EU keeps us firmly on it. We have to be independent and outside the control of Brussels and its institutions. Negotiating any trade deal with the EU will involve each of the 27 countries and require their approval. However, the way that the Agreement is structured will ensure that the EU holds all the cards. They can effectively tell us what they are taking and rest assured that every single country will want something in their favour - that's their 'Brexit bonus'. They have no reason not to press this case, as we have already waved the white flag. From our perspective a deal might be nice, but not at any price. Signing up to a tailor-made straightjacket in a vain hope that we will allowed trips away from the loony bin is not very palatable. I really can't see May's agreement being beneficial in any way. We need to be either fully out, or fully in. Paying to not be in is just p'ing money down the pan and to agree on this route is verging on criminal.

If genuine, then it may well be the first piece of constructive tabloid reporting for years. I suspect it may fall on deaf ears though, as too many are heavily invested into modern tat.

I have already said as much a while ago in a reply to Stuart. Every graph of our contributions shows an initial downturn after joining to produce one year's net receipt of funds. After that we have always been net contributors. The contributions up to 10 years ago were on a gently rising line, with the smoothed data showing a net contribution of just under 5bn. Rather worryingly at this point, the net contributions reset at roughly double the previous level, which has been maintained ever since. I don't see this country's economy being so relatively well off or successful to warrant such an increase. There is a continual haemorrhage of productive jobs to eastern Europe and third world countries, on occasion funded by EU grants such as the transfer of Ford Transit production from Southampton to Turkey. Stunts like that don't help people see the EU as a partner working towards the common good. The country's trade imbalances are money leaving the country, little of which is likely to be reinvested here. Whilst employment numbers are buoyant, you cannot base the economy on fast food take-aways and the like. We consume just as any country has to, but ultimately need to make things we use and not just import them, but export too in order to fund the things that make us a 'civilised society'. To be reliant on others for things we consider basic is an abrogation of responsibility. You can't take much, if anything, from isolated numbers, but for the past two decades this country has run a permanent trade deficit whereas previously it was up a bit, down a bit, but broadly level. That says things aren't working. We have become too much of a dependent society at both a personal and national level, and a national change of mindset is required.

Yes, if you want. The info is in the public domain, so I don't have a problem. People can't be educated if info is kept closely guarded.

Yes. You can also add another reference to the list. H W Cholmley 234 (Sotheby 26th May 1902) was listed as a 1887 plain edge penny in the copper and bronze section, but whether bronzed or copper wasn't specified. As this was only a month or so before Murdoch's death, it doesn't eliminate the Murdoch coin being the same example, but does strongly imply that these were not made to order by Murdoch as has been suggested in the past.

https://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital BNJ/pdfs/2011_BNJ_81_7.pdf PM me with your address and you can have an offprint.

The Moore section is ok, but the Weyl bit needs revising. Use the 2011 BNJ article as a reference.

Great, a second one. That'll be twice the price then.

Birmingham had many businesses producing medals, buttons and tokens from the start of the industrial revolution, and the number of 18th counterfeit halfpennies indicates the skill set was there long before Boulton & Watt set up the Soho mint. Coins are simply an extension of this list because the manufacturing processes are pretty much the same for all. If you are in business, the opportunity to get a design accepted for a national coinage is something to be explored and exploited if possible. So, yes they were made with a view to putting them forward as a prospective currency design, but were not produced in complete isolation. In the case of Joseph Moore's work, the laureate bust punch (see below) was used on his 1860 patterns and also for colonial issues such as the Auckland Licensed Victuallers Association penny token from New Zealand of which 4 varieties are noted in Krause (ref. Tn6). The rust spots are as the die was found in 1886, prior to subsequent polishing down by Shorthouse for the restrikes and do not feature on any original Moore strikings. cf Peck p.483-490

London Coins and London Coin Company are unrelated. LCC and LMO are bedfellows in the overpriced stakes. Other rip offs are available, so not a cartel or monopoly..

From a trade perspective, hopefully they will keep the collection intact in a museum as it would overhang the market for years unless sold off cheaply. As a collector, there is a good supply of these already, which mostly satisfies the market, so for those who just want an example there is little to be gained from dispersal unless they are quick off the mark to acquire an example of a particular type and mint. Whereabouts was it found? Looking at the contents in the picture, it was assembled over quite a period of time.

EU law has taken precedence over UK law as required by membership, so anything at national level has to conform to the terms dictated by Brussels. European wide standards require EU standard laws. Not being tied to the EU would provide flexibility if desired, not to adhere to their instructions. A common position might be desirable, but so would the ability to respond to changing circumstances. The EU doesn't stray from its rules based operation, so even if we need to react to a situation we may well not be allowed to. Our hands are tied by a group who owe us nothing. The point is that over the past 40 years, this country has gone down the economic tubes somewhat. We are in an unhealthy position and the status quo isn't working for us, but that doesn't stop us having to pay year on year for the privilege. Only in 1974 have we been net beneficiaries of funds, and I remember the refund was flagged up at the time as being the exception. If we were net beneficiaries in bad times and funded others in good, then it would be easier to sell the concept of the EU to the man on the street - but we are only allowed to be net contributors. What would have happened over the past 40 years had we not been members is speculative and hypothetical and we could have been better or worse off - nobody knows. But it is apparent that this country is haemorrhaging money as it stands due to the highly negative trade balance, and resources are finite. We need to take positive steps to move closer to self-sufficiency where possible. Being bound by EU rules is never going to let us nurture or support home grown enterprises. I would prefer that we spent our money on developing our own facilities rather than on propping up another state that needs life support. No country can be entirely self-sufficient with the exception of possibly Russia , or the US if it became less consumption minded. Europe works very well for 5 of the 6 founding countries along with a few immediate neighbours, but southern Europe is a mess socially because of the commercial and financial flows back to the geographic and economic centre, i.e. Germany. Ultimately people need jobs, and that can only have any chance of happening with political union - which is only likely to happen in the short or medium term as the least bad option. The rules are simple and straightforward. Any access deals require us to take instructions from Europe, who won't be wanting to do us any favours. All I see going forward is that they 'negotiate' continued payments to prop up their spending habits in return for access, while we have no say. There will be 27 countries, all pressing for their Brexit bonus. If we are 10 billion worse off now, then one can assume they will want that deficit to enlarge, to show that we are worse off. It's pretty unedifying. There are many facets of an economy, but the best thing people could do is to put their money where their mouth is and conciously buy goods produced by people in this country. Supporting your own workforce is key to a healthy economy because it costs a lot to have people sat on their backsides doing nothing. Whilst we have a reasonable level of employment, we are effectively paying to provide for a lot of people in other countries. Whilst this might seem simplistic, we do need too start somewhere. Charity begins at home.

Sorry, meant Spelman. Got tied up in rant mode.

Perhaps we could get the EU to agree to no deal? That would satisfy the Cooper amendment and its supporters by leaving with a deal.

Cooper and Brady amendments passed. That's unhelpful. The pressure for taking no deal off the table emasculates our negotiating position by tying our hands behind our back. It's the one route we can take that would result in our getting something from the EU. Removing no deal means they could cherry pick access to all our markets whilst dictating how we have to behave, just to allow us some access to theirs theirs. WHEN WILL MPs HAVE SOME FAITH IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE TO THINK AND ACT INDEPENDENTLY? I want someone to stand up for this country, not pander to the unaccountable in Brussels who dictate yours and my lives. Why be part of something in which you have no say?

They are just another section of the rich panoply of numismatics and as such are eminently collectable. Collect too narrowly and you miss out on the eclectic and frequently interesting. Dies, trials, proofs, patterns, errors, off-metal strikes..........

Just looks like a die flaw which is a natural feature of wear and tear where a small piece of metal has flaked off the surface. You do get clashed dies with a mirror image of the other side, but this is too mucky/rough to see it should it be there and the flaw too prominent to be this.

I think the OP coin looks good too with no obvious porosity. The die combination is illustrated in Borden & Brown's article in the 1983 BNJ, p.128 - 23-O2, R2. The left hand flaw on the illustrated example is earlier, showing as 2 discrete lumps. There are 6 examples referenced in the article (3 in private hands) which formed part of the study, but it is very unlikely this list is exhaustive. Somewhere, someone has the original. I would suspect this is one of the large number of copies which surfaced soon after the turn of the millennium. If a copy, the weight and thickness will be the key. It is likely there is a join line from the two halves as made, but this might have been filed off.

Inverted die axis too on the 1933 - which helps.

Anything you pick up in a charity shop could be iffy. As long as they only cost a pound or two though, you can't go wrong, but any more and you are playing with fire if you don't know what you are doing, because the charity shop won't have a clue what they have. If you want a forgery/modern copy, you might as well use alibaba.

FWIW, 3 years on I'm still waiting for someone to provide an argument as to why we should vote to remain. Not why we shouldn't leave, but to actually state a positive reason for doing so.

I suspect the vendor may still not realise judging by the condition listed immediately below the title listing

The stylistic connection is obvious, but with different geographical locations for the various designs, that begs the question whether the stag or horse is a representation of the animal shown, or an allegorical portrayal of a deity. eg. The sun (or moon?) could be indicative of a heavenly design, such as the stag representing the pincers of the constellation Scorpio. I know very little about Viking legends, so what is the significance of the triquetra? Does it represent a comet? If a sun or moon applies, then a comet is unlikely to be far behind, and that just leaves the animal. Any gods known to be represented by a horse or stag? Just thinking out loud.

I don't think the question of those too young to vote at the time but are now, is not relevant. This has been and will always be the case, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I had to wait 41 years to vote on the membership issue, having been a few months too young to do so on the last occasion. I lived with it then and think those affected now should do the same. The proper time to have had this vote would have been prior to Maastrict or Lisbon, but the country wasn't consulted. Every successive EU treaty reduced the options available for those who are unhappy with EU membership, making the cost and difficulties of leaving increasingly onerous. I do believe this represents the last opportunity we will have to break free from the EU. There is little evidence of a significant swing in the opinions of voters on this subject. The polls all indicated that we would vote remain in 2016, so why should the figures be more indicative now of a small majority to reject Brexit than they were then. A second referendum could easily result in a similar outcome given the entrenched positions of many. If in the view of Remain the country voted 'the wrong way' in 2016, a 52:48 vote to remain in a second referendum would be no more conclusive this time round, though the argument would undoubtedly be put forward that the country has spoken and we must uphold the result. Vive la difference. The current impasse is simply the result of asking a group of non-believers to act on behalf of people who voted for an opposite view.

Correct