Peckris

You're quite observant, Peckris ... I am. And whenever I meet someone new over here, they always ask where I'm from (and often guess Ireland) ... when I say England, most ask if London. When I say Liverpool, they generally say - "Oh, the Beatles!!" I quite like having the different accent I know Liverpool quite well - which part are you from Andy? (Please don't say Penny Lane!!)

Agreed - they're nothing like Wonder if it's a lurker of this forum, and read this thread?

Completely irrelevant "Scouse Andy", but from your username you seem to be a refugee from a certain North England seaport?

Interesting - I have several CM's from the late 60s but don't recall seeing any such thing. They may be a little earlier than that? Certainly by that time it would have been known how rare the '34 Crown was.

Or, you could play my variant : "I have a Tyrannosaurus Rex - his favourite diet is spammers ROOOOAAAAARRRRRR"

Yep I agree 100% with that, but do remember I did not clean it as I mentioned in my first enquiry. Anyway an update on my piece after all this research, would you believe it I saw one today on Ebay in a VF condition with a good description and weight, all the same features as mine. Well that is that solved but have thoroughly enjoyed it, thanks to all who have replied to my request, now to start on my next piece. Cheers all It's even more fascinating than first appears. I've been trying to make sense of the reverse legend, left hand side. It seems to read "MAITT" which makes no sense at all, in English or Latin. But what if it is a conflation of MAGNA BRITTANNIA, or MAG. BRITT. = MAITT for short? I'm not sure when the name Great Britain was first used, but perhaps it was at the time of Union? Just a hunch. No it may look like MAITT, it actually has MAII.I which still has me baffled at the moment, maybe you can make sense of it now! Await your reply on this bit Could be a date? May 1st, for example? (Woot - thank you Google! It was indeed May Day in 1707, so that's it then, Latin for May 1st )

True enough! (you too :-) only it's Monday evening here - see, we can't even agree on our clocks )

Possibly true! If only our coins could talk I actually like the holed one, it's got character I have the same dichotomy between my two narrow date 1879s, one cleaned, one holed. Suppose in 50 yrs time whoever owns them; the cleaned ones will have retoned, but the others will be forever holy Now wouldn't that tell a tale Here's mine (for my 1,111th post!). It doesn't look much, but it's less blotchy than the scan shows. As for cost - I picked it out of a dealer's 50p tray (years ago) and was silly enough to let him know it was the H variety. He let me have it for 50p anyway!

Not sure why the 1988 £1 is rated so highly. Not a low mintage and plenty of them were knocking about at the time. Has it become a modern myth? The problem with the 1985 is, it's totally indistinguishable from the 50p in the sets. And as we all know, currency coins that only exist in sets don't have a great rarity value. Mainly because most of them were sold to collectors and never circulated. So the circulating 1985 50p is on a loser from the start. Except of course, for the kudos of finding one in your change, but that doesn't = provenance!

Useful link, that first one! Unfortunately the second one is only of interest to hammered enthusiasts. Although it says "hammered coins", it does in fact list most or all UK coin fairs. Take a look. You're right - how confusing! (Unfortunately the Phoenix Fairs aren't listed, which are the only fairs in this part of the country)

Hm. I've always understood that the grades are the same or equivalent up to Fine. Then the American VF is very slightly less than our VF, their EF is our GVF, their AUnc is our EF, and their lower grades of Unc (or MS) are our AUnc. Not a whole grade? But things may have changed.

Yep I agree 100% with that, but do remember I did not clean it as I mentioned in my first enquiry. Anyway an update on my piece after all this research, would you believe it I saw one today on Ebay in a VF condition with a good description and weight, all the same features as mine. Well that is that solved but have thoroughly enjoyed it, thanks to all who have replied to my request, now to start on my next piece. Cheers all It's even more fascinating than first appears. I've been trying to make sense of the reverse legend, left hand side. It seems to read "MAITT" which makes no sense at all, in English or Latin. But what if it is a conflation of MAGNA BRITTANNIA, or MAG. BRITT. = MAITT for short? I'm not sure when the name Great Britain was first used, but perhaps it was at the time of Union? Just a hunch.

Trident - what trident? Basically, there is no way to tell!

Useful link, that first one! Unfortunately the second one is only of interest to hammered enthusiasts.

In record collecting, their "VG" is the same as our "VF" which makes much more sense! They then go down to "Good" (= F), "Fair" (ditto), and "Poor". Then they go up to "Exc" (= Excellent or EF) and "M" (= Mint or Unc). More rational by half.

Thanks for your reply Peter, I don't think the obverse picture was that good so I have downloaded one more. This piece was stuck reverse up into a silver & wooden seal of some type, the person I bought it off had said, he had prised it out and cleaned it Still whatever it is I do like it so no bad news to me anyway, Thanks again Steve I think it's something to do with the Union Of England and Scotland - the date on the reverse is 1707 (date of Union), and the unicorn has a Union Flag on its shield, which would not have existed before that date. The obverse is much as a standard Anne coin obverse, except for the crown. As you say - it's a nice piece.

Interesting. Most forgeries are from the actual series issued, especially 1775 (the last date of issue). This falls between those dates and the period of token proliferation, so may have been an early attempt at a kind of token. And it may not be illiteracy - it may simply have been an optimistic attempt to stave off prosecution ("What me officer? Forger? No way! Look at the legend.") Don't forget there was a small change shortage, and people tried all kinds of ways to get around it.

He must have read your post Mark, he's added two sharp photos of this replica

Gold is gold, however it is dressed up Yes, but the crucial words are "take it"

The grade is barely Fair, but the legends are complete so that's in its favour. The value is dependent on the price of silver : that is 50% silver, so £1 may be slightly conservative? (What's the current buying price for pre-1947, guys?)

The dates thing enrages me. I really cannot see the logic of starting in the middle (month) then going to the smallest (days) then ending with the biggest (year). Totally and utterly illogical. I once heard an American claim "it's because we say 'May 12th". Come again? It's just as common to say "12th of May"!! I agree, but ever noticed that the dates on newspapers is always in that style: ie: July 23, 2010, as opposed to 23rd July 2010. I hadn't until you pointed it out!

The dates thing enrages me. I really cannot see the logic of starting in the middle (month) then going to the smallest (days) then ending with the biggest (year). Totally and utterly illogical. I once heard an American claim "it's because we say 'May 12th". Come again? It's just as common to say "12th of May"!!

Interesting theory, but how does that explain the 'Tower Mint go slow' by the employees enraged at the idea that Mestrelle's 'milling machine' would put them out of work? And the fact that Henry VIII personally debased the silver of the realm, not his moneyers?

Off topic, but I've always wanted to ask an American about this. It seems reasonably clear that someone has sat down and painstakingly de-Frenchified, if that's a word, the English language. The obvious one is the OU that you have identified, but then there's Centre/center, Defence/Defense etc, etc. I have always assumed that this was something to do with the Louisiana purchase, do you know ? It's a mixture of things. In some respects the Americans use the old forms of English and WE changed, not them. Other examples are where we modified a word for specific reasons : the original word was 'aluminum', then Brits added an 'i'. Finally there was an American attempt in the 19th Century to make spelling logical, and hence the 'u' was dropped from colour favour etc, and some other changes, but the whole exercise wasn't gone through which is why there are still anomalies. The book to read is Bill Bryson's 'Mother Tongue' - it's all in there.

"Look son, that's your pocket money - take it or leave it."