1949threepence

Really not good. Live feed constantly being interrupted.

Hadn't noticed either, but now you mention it, two well's and one so

Never noticed the crack to the right of the date, Ian.

The potential die crack is just above the O of ONE. Die clash...? I prefer the smoking knee theory. Has more of a ring to it 🎶

Nae.....they're good, but not that good.

It's certainly a very nice coin, Ian. But now that you've posted such a good photo of it, I'm inclined to agree with Richard that it's a normal F73, as opposed to a specimen. There is a slight metal flaw and possibly evidence of a die crack on the reverse, as well as the fact that the H is a little lower down. Worth keeping as one's F73 specimen though.

Noticed a new book in Waterstones the other day - "Russian Rupture", by I. Kikabolokov.

Thought as much - thanks.

I've noticed over the last 4 or 5 years, that more and more people are prefacing replies to questions with the word "So", whereas traditionally, it's always been "Well". This was really brought home to me recently when we had a talk at work from someone, and in the Q & A afterwards she used "So" to preface every reply to a question - but conversely, when I listened to an online recording of a similar briefing from the same individual in 2013, she prefaced every reply with "well" or some other word. So it's clearly a deliberate change. Anybody got any theories as to where this has suddenly sprung up from, and why? Also, what do you use? I tend to use "well" as it's what I was brought up with. I do use "so", but as a starter to a topic, rather than a reply to a question, as in "So anyway, I did my shopping this morning, and then had a nice dinner". Maybe many haven't even noticed this, but as someone who is interested in the nuances of language, it's definitely caught my ear, since it started more widely in about 2015. I might start using "well so" as a reply to questions, as a sop to linguistic diversity - see if anybody comments on it !

As in, yes, to answer your question, I'm physically capable of passing the salt. If you actually want me to do so, you have to say the magic word.

Oooh get you

Looks genuine to me. Can't see anything about it which would arouse suspicion. The gunge on the obverse is typical of the sort of detritus you see on coins of that age.

Thing is though, Paddy, it's often very well educated people who are using the word in that way - Doctors, solicitors etc.

Couldn't you keep them and let interested parties order the oddments they wanted, @Paddy ? You might actually make more money that way. Just a thought.

Sounds as though you got lucky. Have you still got it?

The April edition does make mention of an interesting article about pennies, upcoming in the May edition.

Can't beat a bit of fresh mackerel.

Sub fine. Between fair and fine IMO.

100% agreed. Great book for beginners, intermediate and advanced. Always a useful reference.

The 45 degree angle of the 4 in the date looks a bit odd. Not in a straight line.

Now got them all with the solitary exception of May 1967.

Indeed so. Cole added a chart of "expected" and "actual" numbers of a brass threepence sample collected. Although I'm not sure any 1946 or 1949 should be expected as they weren't ever issued for circulation here in the UK. Expected 1 = Scotland Expected 2 = Midlands Expected 3 = Southern England It would appear from previous surveys taken into account by Cole, that there was far less evidence of hoarding in Scotland.

Possible, but unlikely.

The RM definition of "valuables" . As far as old rare coins going by next day tracked delivery are concerned, the emboldened bits cover it.

I'm very pleased to say I managed to get another F176 for a very reasonable price. This time a CGS slabbed one. Not previously unknown, it's No 9 on Richard's rarest pennies site. I don't actually need two, and my other one is slightly better than this, so I might well put it up for possible bids at the June LCA. Although if anybody on here does happen to want it (who hasn't already got one), they've got first refusal.