1949threepence

I presume, still in the British Museum to this day.

Got an interesting one from June 1854 (exact date not known) referring to the Cuff coin auction of June 1854, and the sale on 26th June of one particular coin which fetched £260 hammer. Unsure which newspaper it's from - possibly The Times - but it makes for very good reading.

Indeed - I noticed your identical post on September 26th. I would though take this opportunity to add that Bletchley Park is well worth a visit if anybody has the time. Also, you get a year pass, so can revisit free of charge as many times as you want in the following 12 months. Hall Place is in Bexley, Kent and is also well worth a visit link

Well spotted, Jon.

Although isn't it the case, Ian, that the F10 has the I and/or T of BRITT slightly out of alignment?

Still not a bad price as quite a decent coin. Maybe bidders get carried away in their quest to win the item. Might have been offered for less as a buy it now, or, paradoxically, attracted no bids at all if the opening figure had been £250, say.

With all the furore surrounding Brett Kavanaugh, and other examples where "accusations" and "allegations" are made about an individual, often several decades after the alleged event, I'm wondering if the mere act of finger pointing is sufficient to ruin someone's life and reputation. As in Kavanaugh's case, which the FBI have now looked at, when examined in the cold light of day, it usually follows that there is either zero, or insufficient evidence to warrant either further investigation, or a charge. Our justice system relies on evidence in order to sustain credibility and to prevent a descent into utter chaos. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that anybody could accuse anybody else of literally anything. Indeed, the accused could counter accuse with some made up story that might sound equally (or not) plausible. Should there perhaps be a reasonable time bar imposed on taking any case involving lesser degrees of seriousness, where the accuser can provide no hard evidence to support their assertion? In Kavanaugh's case the alleged offence supposedly took place in 1982 - 36 years ago.

He probably is guilty, but my point is that I don't personally consider guesswork to be sufficient basis for taking someone's career off track.

It's incredibly biased, which is not surprising considering the author's political leanings. He looks for every opening possible to highlight Kavanaugh's potential guilt. Not necessarily saying that his ultimate conclusions aren't correct, as we still definitively don't know, but they are certainly not impartial, and for that reason, I can't find it convincing. If the article had been titled something like "Is Brett Kavanaugh guilty or innocent?", then proceeded to impartially examine both sides of the story and form a conclusion based on what was considered more probable than not after weighing up known facts (balance of probabilities), I'd have been far less sceptical.

Roll up, roll up. An opportunity too good to be missed for this beauty. GEF with lustre, I'm told...... Oh and here's another. Very nice detailed condition with lustre. Obviously a choice item that would grace any coin collector's cabinet..

It does that - and why are so many people deliberately mixing up the words "woman" and "women" these days?

I must admit, I love those old newspaper clippings. Pity they're not all dated, although the 1951 pennies at 7/6 each has the notation "Sunday Express 23/6/57" and oh yes....another one underneath for the bangle coins (manillas) "Sunday Express Oct 10, 1948". Plus February 1, 1817.

Kind of understandable if accused of something he's not done. We're all human. Maybe he meant then in a different way. Yes and no. I'm not sure that someone coming out of the woodwork at an opportune moment for the democrats, to sling out an accusation, should mean that all other factors relating to job qualification are put to one side. 36 years later and at a critical juncture in the career path of the accused? Tad convenient don't you think? There's only been one other actually appointed by Trump, and it would have looked too obvious if they'd tried to discredit all the potential nominees. So to bring this down to ordinary level and applying the same standards would mean that anybody's job chances could be ruined by an individual who didn't like them, and made up a story in the hope of discrediting them. *************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Sorry Peck, I'm playing devils advocate to a certain extent here. I do see both sides of the story, but whilst I think Kavanaugh should get nowhere near the post if he is guilty, such guilt is going to be impossible to nail down, especially given that Blasey-Ford is hopelessly vague when it comes to hard facts such as dates, times and locations. At least Kavanaugh has actually got diaries from the time. We all know that the mind plays tricks when it comes to long term memories, and that maybe the actual guilty party in a traumatic event, might be substituted by entirely the wrong person in recall. All of this makes it extremely unwise to automatically believe one party's account of events and subject the accused to trial by media, usually causing them great and prolonged stress and worry, as well as their reputation being permanently damaged. Incidentally, of course, it's not just Kavanaugh. There are other well known cases of false accusations - Cliff Richard and Bill Roache come immediately to mind. What makes those cases worse is that the accuser basks in anonymity, even after the accused has been found to have no case to answer.

Can't speak for 1980, but I'd imagine it was somewhat higher than 10 years later, when I'd say it was maybe something like 1 in 8 - ballpark estimate.

Very common. In fact it was getting a GEF with lustre 1951 two shilling piece in my change, which got me interested in coins in the first place. That was as late as August 1990, when I was 12 years of age. Obviously the post decimalisation continued circulation of shillings and florins had been going on since 1971. But certainly, as I remember, was never actually mentioned by anybody. It was just accepted that they were substitute 5p's and 10p's, without comment. One thing was noticeable, and that was the lack of pre 1947 shillings and florins in circulation. In fact I never saw one in the few years I had actual experience of these coins. They'd all long been taken out of circulation by those wanting to melt them down for their silver content.

Thanks Jerry.

Sorry to return to this topic, but at the risk of sounding thick, I'm not sure I entirely get the point of introducing what is in effect an imaginary bidder in some cases, while in others, in the absence of any bids, the lot is announced by the auctioneer as unsold. Probably something I'm overlooking, but not sure what.

Anything is possible. We simply have no real way of knowing for sure nearly 100 years later.

Thanks a lot, Bob - that's the guy, although I can't find the bit where he mentioned the shell castings.

There was another thread on this very topic - streaky 1920 and 1921 pennies, about 5 years ago - here's the link Maybe an issue related to post war metal shortages. I have read, for example, that the 50% non silver of shillings dated 1920, was composed of old shell castings. Hence their slightly more grey appearance compared to the rest. I'd link to it, bit for the life of me, I can't remember the name of the guy who posted the info. He was an American - Ambrit or Exbrit, something like that. Name won't come to me at all. I'll know it as soon as I see it.

I have a vague recollection of having heard it before at some point, but not sure when or where. It would indeed be interesting if an old news report could be located and linked to.

And he's normally such a pleasant and polite old gent. Always ready with a kindly, helpful remark. Ready to accommodate anyone.

I should also have added, there's a really good pinned thread in "Free for All", called "Photographing Coins" - link to it

Love that word "unterriblafying". Coins are an absolute sod to get a decent photograph of, and when I first joined this forum, I just couldn't get anything decent. Especially with regard to focus, close ups and getting the correct lighting. These days, I use my tablet, which has auto focus. I take the pics in slightly subdued artificial light, taking pains to avoid glare as far as is possible. That gives me quite a decent photo. Not professional, but sharp enough to be a good representation, show all but the most tiny details, and correctly reflect the colouring in most cases. It took me a long time to get it right. Lighting is definitely a trial and error process. I take all my photos in my spare bedroom, in which I still use old incandescent 100w light bulbs, and a dimmer switch. Sounds a bit Heath-Robinson, I know. But you have to poddle about, until you find the arrangement which gives you the best pics. I can't get on at all using natural light on either a cloudy or Sunny day. I've no doubt others will have far better ideas and more professional experience than me, but I hope the above ditty will help at least in some small way. Shows it can be done quite well, even without much expense or specialist equipment.

Definitely a seller to be avoided at all costs.