1949threepence

...and it would be considerable short term pain. Probably something like an immediate 15% hike in food prices, and the M20 turned into a lorry park. But if it avoids a Corbyn government, then so be it.

You're overlooking one very obvious point though. She doesn't consider the deal to be a bad one. Not perfect, for sure. But the best obtainable short of the WTO road.

What I'd love to know is what Corbyn would do any different if there were an election and he got into No 10. The problem would still be there, and as he himself has already acknowledged this afternoon, the deal on offer is non negotiable as far as the EU are concerned. The government might change, but Brexit would not have gone away. Quite frankly, I'd take the deal, and I also stand and applaud May for the resilient and determined manner she has stood up to the non stop brickbats from around her - both sides - which quite honestly very few of those who are chucking them would be able to take if it was them. She's shown exceptional character in my opinion. Most would have folded and resigned by now.

Might be something to do with the fact that they are net beneficiaries, rather than net contributors.

deleted

I'm not so sure about that. There are an awful lot of people who distrust/dislike Corbyn, among them traditional Labour voters. His loud mouthed supporters don't really help his cause as all they seem to do is shout infantile playground insults at people who disagree with Labour's policies. Not the way to win the hearts and minds of waverers. I think the next election, assuming it is held in the near future, will probably result in a hung parliament. It will then fall to the Lib Dems, the SNP and the DUP to decide which party to run with. I'm fairly certain the DUP will not side with Corbyn, a known IRA sympathiser. Lib Dems? - who knows. Probably Labour, as Vince Cable is no Nick Clegg. SNP probably Labour. I can see a lot of marginal seats currently held by the Conservatives, staying Conservative. The town that I now live in, for example, used to be solid Labour by a large majority up until 1983. Since then it has switched hands a couple of times. But the Conservative majority has increased slightly in recent elections, as the old working class mining communities die out, and are replaced by a wave of nouveau riche professionals, and upmarket new estates. In the local elections this year, a council which had previously been majority Labour for as long as anyone could remember, was suddenly tied, with the one Green member holding the casting vote. No less than nine wards which are in what I would still call working class districts, went blue. Big surprise - although I'd imagine a lot of this was migrated votes which had previously gone to ukip.

We've already voted to leave, so a second referendum should ask the electorate to choose one of two options, a) Accept Mrs May's deal, or b) Leave outright on WTO terms. Obviously it wouldn't be that wording, but net effect the same. Given that we don't have much time left to organise a referendum between now and 29th March, it might be advisable to seek a 6 month extension to article 50, in order to avoid short term difficulties which might later be reversed.

I'm fast running out of space for pennies in my current Nichols cabinet, and am thinking of, buying another cabinet, and splitting my collection into two. It's either that or buy a much larger cabinet to house my entire collection, and with space to expand in the future. Thus rendering my existing cabinet redundant. Two things I'd be grateful for observations on:- 1/ Next year I'm going to Madeira for two weeks and need to ensure my collection is secure, as, apart from a cat sitter for part of the day, the house will be unoccupied for that period. What steps do others take to safeguard their collections while they are away, eg: safes, bank vaults etc? 2/ Has anybody bought a Rob Davis cabinet? They look really good and seem marginally less expensive than the Nicholls ones. Here's an example of one:-

In our case we could have a second referendum - as long as it's not called a "people's vote", which, by definition, is precisely what a referendum is anyway. So why state the blindingly obvious by changing the correct word into something else? This modern day obsession for deliberately altering established and correct names/words/expressions, often to fit a dogma, or maybe to intentionally confuse others, is really beginning to irritate me.

Just wondering - I know all 1934 pennies were, but I'm a little uncertain about what ballpark percentage might have been so treated in 1935. At page 17 of Freeman's "The Bronze coinage of Great Britain", he states "The dark finish given to pennies from 1944-46 before issue, was achieved, in a similar way, by the use of hypo, as was that on pennies of 1934, and some of 1935. Whereas at page 75, point No 30, he states "All pennies of 1934 and most of 1935, were artificially toned. It's clear that my 1934 penny has been artificially toned, but I don't think this 1935 one has. Could I seek opinions? Thanks.

Yes, I did wonder that myself. But I'm trying to envisage the possible production scenarios. In the case of the 1932 mint toning, there is no plausible way this could have occurred without operator knowledge, as it requires separate intentional intervention. So how many and why no record? The only inadvertent way that the 1932 pennies might have been mint toned, is if some other coin blanks intended for different coinage had already been so treated, and for whatever reason found their way into the penny blanks. Although the one apparent discovery is exactly the same size as the standard penny. In the case of the non standard metal pennies, again it's difficult to envisage a situation in which an entire batch could be minted and distributed out for circulation, without somebody realising what had happened. Although if an incorrect sheet or sheets of metal were accidentally inserted into the process, between standard sheets, then I suppose it's possible they slipped under the radar - but it seems odd, to me anyway, that not one other specimen has been discovered. I probably shouldn't be so probing, but these type of questions fascinate me - especially on a dull, wet Wednesday afternoon in December.

I'm left completely stumped by Pete's 1932 mint toned, as there is no record of mint toning for that year. So why would they randomly pick one, and mint tone it? Not heard of any others - maybe someone else has. I'm also stumped by, although nonetheless very interested in, the unusual 1922 penny which sold at part 2 of the 2010 Workman sale. Described as shown below, it corresponds to a year in which other odd things happened, such as the 1927 reverse - although only the proof has the true 1927 reverse. BMC --. As F 192. Dies 3+B. As Gouby A. Appears to be struck in Iron or some other ferrous metal, attracted strongly with magnet. Good Fine, excessively rare, possibly unique.Number of BIDS: 26 SOLD FOR: £400 £50-55 Picture below. You just wonder how such a random event could have occurred. If there had been a number of such coins detected, it might be more understandable - due to, say, a sheet of incorrectly identified metal being inadvertently introduced into the blank cutting process. But just one on its own seems very odd. I'd be very interested to hear views on these two events, if anyone has any. Thanks.

A quarter of a penny - or a "fourthing". If memory serves that's the origin of its name.

Precisely.

A second hand Peck cost me £50 plus juice from DNW a couple of years back. The one Dave linked to is £40 - although it looks a quality production.

Have you tried the Mint themselves? (not that it would be any guarantee of a definitive yes or no these days, as organisations deal with the public in such a bizarre way)

Three taciturn guys in a pub somewhere in deepest rural England. All sitting there supping their pints. One of them says, "nice warm day today". Half an hour later another one says "well I thought it were a bit cool". Another half an hour passes, and the third fella gets up and says "Anyway, I'm going home, too much bloody arguing round here".

Certainly did, and thanks very much

Was intrigued by the Freeman 189 (3 + B) penny, which is noted by him as R19. Found this really interesting article positing various theories about it. So probably F20 - unique

Not ones that show up with any great regularity, no. Sounds a good book.

Nasty. She should have just found something to cover the flames with rather than rush it to the bathroom. Mind she's only a kid, and you don't always think straight in that sort of situation anyway.

At least the buyer hasn't lost any significant money.

This is the coin that @Paddy drew our attention to a week or two back. He was selling it on e bay, and I was the only bidder. Just received today. It may be a common date, but this is no common representation of it. UNC, a truly superb strike, great hair detail, totally flawless and with immaculate toning. I initially though that the obverse was EF, but in hand, I'm half inclined to think that what appears at first glance to be wear at the highest points is in fact residual lustre. But either way, it's still a truly outstanding specimen, and amazing value at only £19.95. Thanks Paddy from a very satisfied customer (apologies, again, I've got that colour variation)

Yes, I would agree Chris, with mine being similar to Ian's example. But I don't think there is any dispute about all 1934's actually being subject to the mint toning process. Just some coins reflect it more markedly than others.

...and here is a pic of a MT 1934 for comparison:-