1949threepence

I think whatever you find enjoyable adds to your life - and I certainly do find numismatics a thoroughly enjoyable and fascinating hobby.

Hmmm......it's certainly a thought.

Even though I've already got a Peter Nichols Mascle cabinet from 2010, and a Rob Davis cabinet bought in 2019, I'm now in the position where I need another cabinet to house more coins as I'm running out of space in the last Rob Davis cabinet. So I'm going to buy another Rob Davis cabinet. I am extremely pleased with the one he built for me in 2019. The trays are an absolute perfect fit, whereas one or two of the Nichols trays are a tad stiff. Also he's way cheaper than Nichols, and the finished product is arguably superior. The one I'm going to buy is here. A four small trays dropdown. The mahogany version is £165. Whatever wood forms the cabinet casing, his trays are exclusively mahogany for coin protection. The one I bought in 2019 has a cherry casing. If I'd known in 2010 how much my collection would grow in 11 years, I'd have invested in one very large cabinet back then. Now I'll have three separate ones, each housing different parts of the collection.

What sort of grade was the F25, Richard?

Where 'ere ye be, let the wind run free.....

Was very pleased to see from the poll that most voters don't like slabbing.......

Interesting video. I don't wear gloves when handling coins, and I very much take on hoard the points made about dexterity and cotton fibres. As long as you hold the coin by its edge, you shouldn't really go too far wrong. Although with that said, it's easy to occasionally somehow mishandle the coin and for it to drop into the palm of your hand. Also, I only handle mine in a "protected" environment. So if I did drop one, it would only fall onto the sofa/carpet, and so not sustain an edge knock. I think it's also important to have sufficient room in the trays to be able to pick the coins out easily. Otherwise it might be an idea to use a pencil to ease them out to an angle where it's easier to get hold of them safely. Might be advisable with thinner coins anyway. The thick pre 1860 copper pennies are a doddle to pick up safely when there is sufficient room to do so. One thing I've noted with uncirculated coins is that it's easy to see which ones have just turned up somewhere and which ones have been in a collection. The edges of those that have been in a collection are invariably dark and have long since lost their lustre. For example my virtually BU 1902 LT penny has a dark lustreless edge. By contrast the 1897 high tide I bought at the beginning of this year, is also almost BU, and so it its edge. That indicates to me that it probably hasn't been in a collection, or at least not for long. With specific regard to microfibres, one thing I've noticed is the tiny bits of debris which can land on a coin's surface, and only show up under powerful magnification. They can easily be brushed away by wafting with a soft cloth.

That's a very fair question, and one which wasn't addressed by Gouby in his 1860 to 1869 book. I presume the numbered coins were at the very top of a visible batch (however they were stored/packed), as an indicative for inspection. Then a separate note was indeed made in a pocketbook by an Inspector. As to why they were kept, there is actually no definitive answer. Presumably as some form of quantity/weight marker. Though whether that was overall, or connected with certain dies, is a mystery.

I don't know much about French coinage. Were they demonetised in France at about the same time as the copper penny? Or do you mean they were circulating in the UK. Not quite with you.

I never once saw an EF or UNC 1970 50p in change for all the time up to their demonetisation.

The 1970 must be quite difficult to locate in top grade.

I think that has to be the case. I said earlier that an unrecorded but very small number of 1860 copper halfpennies and farthings were produced, but using an actual 1860 die. The natural assumption being that they really were produced as a genuine "last hurrah" for the coins. Maybe the same was intended for the pennies, but an urgent local demand intervened, and instead of making a new die for 1860, they hurriedly alter an almost clapped out 1859 die for a short run job. After that, the notion of producing a fresh 1860 die purely for the pennies, probably got kicked into the long grass as the momentum for the new coins took hold later in the year. Total speculation on my part, but it does fit what happened.

The thieves who buried the artefacts never reckoned on them being found by a detectorist. Nice story. Very good to hear that the original owner got them back.

Funnily enough, I received one yesterday. But it's inconsistent and patchy. Sometimes I get one. More often I don't.

Yes, I seem to recall that such a specimen was posted on here some time ago. In fact, it looked for all the world as though it had 30 years wear, rather than the maximum just less than 10.

Thanks. Yes, I think I'd have to 100% agree with your thoughts. A very small population was issued, perhaps in response to an immediate demand somewhere, and sent to a few banks, only for collectors at the time to remove a limited number from circulation early. Hence the mostly non BU, but predominantly still high grade specimens available. I speculated above that they were potentially minted in response to an immediate demand, but possibly that wasn't the real reason. Maybe there never any intention to produce 1860 copper pennies, but some blanks were leftover in early 1860 and it was decided - for posterity, a final curtain call - to mint them as 1860's, but obviously using an overdated 1859 die. With that said, it's highly improbable that the mint would allow for any sentiment in the way it was run. It's also interesting that an even smaller number of 1860 copper halfpennies and farthings were minted, but with an actual 1860 die. The mintage of both is unrecorded, so maybe they were proofs? Again, it is stated that they were not issued for circulation. So in conclusion, the 60/59 pennies had to have been issued for public circulation. To suggest they were not, would imply they were just kept in a vault and not released, which is clearly incorrect.

Crikey, I've never known it so quiet in here. You can almost see the tumbleweed drifting across the screen. So I'll take this opportunity to ask a question. I did ask it once before, but I don't think anybody noticed it. Both Peck & Bramah both say that the 1860 over 59 was "never issued for circulation". All 32,256 of them. I don't see how this assertion can possibly be factually correct. If they were never issued for circulation, how come a) they weren't melted down, and b) the public managed to get access to them? It just doesn't make sense - or is there something very obvious I'm missing? Meanwhile........

Meanwhile, this was posted on facebook. I think it's a Gouby Ad, possibly even wider?

A cannon ball - no, completely missed it. Wonder if someone contacted the seller privately to make an offer.

Thanks. Lot 2021, an 1858 large rose penny, is not a small date.

An enigmatic mystery......

Actually, that's the most plausible theory of all.

I know this topic has been discussed before, but I'm returning to it from a slightly different angle. Although this too has probably been examined at some point, as well. I'm referring to the 1897 dot penny O.NE. I've now got two, and the dots, whilst perfectly symmetrical in both cases, differ considerably in size. The larger one is typical of most that are seen. Whilst the smaller one is much less obvious. I really must get some photographic equipment which does close ups. But in the meantime, these two pics are reasonably adequate in showing what I mean. So the bottom line is whether the dot was an intentional mint mark, or was it in fact a die problem which grew?

I'm not very keen on Peter Mandelson, but he's manifestly a highly intelligent guy, and he summed things up well last night with lose, lose, lose, lose Blair, Blair, Blair, lose, lose, lose lose. Blair obviously made some bad mistakes and ultimately didn't endear himself in the public consciousness, but it's his kind of soft Labour, and group of competent ministers, which appeals to the public. Look at the shadow cabinet now. They don't exactly inspire confidence. Labour and Labour activists are mired in factional fighting, and sniping at the "Tory scum" - making up, as you have done, school playground names for the PM, that they've lost sight of what the electorate are seeking. Moreover, you've also fallen into the same trap of inferring that the public is stupid (your word "duped"). All Labour's (and the MSM's) efforts to smear the government with the low level stuff about Boris's flat etc, fell on deaf ears because the vast majority are just not interested. The criticism needs to be something which will resonate with the electorate. What Labour lack is a clear idea of a constructive way forward. Like some original ideas which capture the public imagination. Not to mention a charm offensive to net floating voters. At the moment they're just presenting an open goal to Boris Johnson. I hope the pendulum does swing back again, as we desperately need an effective opposition, and a credible alternative at the next election. It's just not healthy if the same lot keep being elected. By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by your second bullet point, as the vaccine rollout was a true example of a collaborative effort. Downplaying the government's role in that, is just factually inaccurate. Also, although they're catching up now, we left the EU far behind with that rollout as we were a lot quicker off the mark when it came to ordering it in the first place. Whatever your opinion, that is hard fact. Good job we had an escape clause from the EMA, or we'd have been in the same boat as them, given we were still in their sphere of influence up to 31.12.20.

They're just an extension of the same mindset. In numbers terms, the rest think very differently. Moreover, Scotland is a special case as the SNP prevails there. I would, however, take a special look at Wales where Labour have done well. You have to ask yourself why have they done so well there, when most of the rest of the country are fed up to the back teeth with their incessant carping, accusing and name calling. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact they've got an old school guy, Mark Drakeford, Welsh speaker, calmly gets on with the job, massively successful with the vaccine rollout (better than the rest of us), criticises where relevant and necessary and isn't obsessed with wokery. Surely you must accept that Labour have been annihilated in England, apart from the pockets you mention. That hasn't happened for no reason. Also, for the serving government to out perform the opposition so comprehensively, and win a by election from Labour, in a former Labour stronghold, 17 months into their tenure says a lot about that opposition.