Accumulator

Interesting story. I've wondered whether my 1966 brass penny was produced in the same way, though security for anyone working at the mint would surely be extremely tight.

You HAVE to be kidding!! While I agree with the "privacy" thing, "opinion" is something that now runs wild and unfettered, thanks to the internet. God save us from all the trolls who are proliferating behind their computer monitors and broadband. There's far too much opinion out there now. IMO Not kidding at all. How can unfettered opinion be a bad thing? God save us from the day when we are not allowed to have our own opinions! Whilst I agree that the internet has provided a place where some pretty outrageous opinions can be voiced, one has to presume these opinions were held prior to the arrival of the web. Only the ability to communicate them has changed, though there seems to be a fairly concerted attempt to police this (witness jail terms handed out for twitter comments etc.). We need to be careful not to build a dystopian society where only opinions which align with prevailing political thought or policy are allowed. Fahrenheit 451 maybe.

Very soon, the concept of privacy, along with opinion, will be something relevant only to history lessons. Another brick, building a world in which we are told what to do and what to think. It's happening everywhere and it's very sad.

That is the one! Thanks pies I Think we can all enjoy this site. I have already gone through my old penny collection and found a couple of rare ones. Well done whoever you are. Can you express an opinion on this 1860 penny. Obverse is obv. 3 but reverse is, though similar, not D. The area by the ship has been re-tooled and the rim splits in two. The Reverse D has several wak areas and I was wondering if this might be an attempt to sharpen the rim. Thanks for the kind words guys! You're reverse D looks like a retouched die to me. Michael Gouby, in his book The British Bronze Penny' lists numerous examples for 1860 though not your own. The 1860 3 + D on my website is almost missing the part of the linear circle which has been repaired on your example. You could always contact Michael through his website at Michael Coins, though there must be countless examples extant. I don't personally collect to that level of detail (at least currently!)

That's outrageous! I didn't think to look at his other items. Funny how they're nearly all 'toned' in the same way. He's wrecking some lovely coins in my opinion.

Looks artificially induced, and awful. Like it might have been dropped in a can of paraffin. Lit parafin too!

Received the email today to say the catalogue is on line. A few interesting items. Is that your 1893/2 Rob?

Copper 1849 penny Bronze Pennies 1860 "mule": beaded border on one side, toothed on the other 1862 8 over 6 1863 with die No below date 1864 (plain or crosslet) in EF or above. Common in lower grades, exceedingly scarce in higher. 1865 5 over 3, again in EF or above. Not that scarce in lower to mid grade (fantastic example on this site) 1869 once again in EF or above. Although considered the "Holy Grail" of pennies, in truth it's not too scarce in lower grades. 1871 in high grade 1875H in high grade 1876H wide date in high grade 1877 narrow date 1879 narrow date 1881 (quite difficult to get in any grade, took me a long time) 1895 with trident 2mm from "P" of penny, in high grade 1918KN & 1919KN in high grade 1926 modfied effigy in mid to high grade. Incidentally, Tony Clayton's site may be a bit out of date for prices, but he has some fantastic coins pictured. See here Colin Cooke seems to have recently added a few nice pennies. Lots of money though!

I didn't attend this time or leave any proxy bids either. Saving for a couple of nice acquisitions in the coming week or so, hopefully.

You're rather jumping to conclusions with the "grandfather" reference Peter! Can't argue with the rest of your good advice though ???? Peck is it me or you being Whhooooosssshhhed? The grandfather collected the coins. The grandfather was from the original post in 2009... the recent poster only mentioned someone deceased, who may have been a grandfather of course.

It's really weird. Back in the 60s, and probably for a time after that, stamps put coins right in the shade as a minority hobby. Yet now it has reversed completely, and stamps are almost nowhere. Anyone got any idea why that happened ? I have no idea why but when I was a lad, probably around the same time as you, virtually every boy collected stamps to some extent but few collected coins. I still have my GB collection with the prize penny black and dozens of different plate numbers of penny red etc., but it's worth so little these days. Looking on eBay, you can't give first day covers away and stamps which I could only have dreamed of owning are way down in price, relative to 40 years ago.

All good advice. I would recommend Michael Freemans's book, "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain", which lists all except the most recently discovered rarities. Michael Gouby has also published an excellent book which takes the search to another level though this may be a step too far for you at this stage. Michael Gouby's website (MIchael Coins) lists many varieties alongside his coins for sale. For pennies only, my own collection is on line (see link below) and gives an indication of rarity alongside the photos though I haven't yet included any descriptions. I'm not a dealer and don't sell coins.

Another great post. I know nothing about Mark Duggan except what has been reported. That said, I don't walk the streets wondering if an armed response unit might swoop and take me out tomorrow. Perhaps Mr Duggan and I keep different company? Re-assesment of disability is a necessary process which should be designed to cause as little inconvenience as possible to the genuinely disabled. I believe it is necessary though, as is the regular testing of all benefits.

Oh that it was so simple. The current cutback on public spending is b****r all to do with the banks, but a rebalancing of the state's expenditure. When Brown was Chancellor, he presided over a state spending plan that raised 44% less in tax than he spent over a five year period. This he called prudence. Heaven knows what he would have done had he decided to be imprudent in his eyes, but I suggest the lights would already have gone out. Any Chancellor has to balance the books over the period of a parliament or at least have a plan to do so if the policies are to have any credibility. Failure to do so without a rigged voting system ensuring 5 more years in advance means the government of the day can spend as much as it likes giving lots of freebies to the voter without being held to account and having to rectify the s**t it leaves for the next election victor. Politicians being self-congratulatory animals only want public endorsement of their policies. Playing Father Christmas is the easiest way to win the appoval of Mr Average UK who is on the whole pretty thick when it comes to the wider picture. Rhetorical question, but why do people who are rational and live within their means as far as their own household is concerned suddenly throw financial common sense out of the window when it comes to public expenditure. The clarion calls of "Tax the rich" will always appeal to the have nots and many of those on the left, but sequesting the assets of those who on the whole are the main generators of business wealth is not the right way to go about it. Until the left learns to back business and the creation of private wealth generated through exporting this country's products to foreigners, this country is on a hiding to nothing. Yes, that means acknowledging that profit must not be a dirty word. There is no such thing as a free lunch and so if you want benefits for the citizens of this country, then come up with a sustainable plan for them whereby funding is supplied by taxing the profits of ongoing trade surplusses with A, B & C. If this country is in the s**t, then s**t we need to export until the level is low enough to keep our heads above water. The banks may have lent irresponsibly to developers and whatever, but the biggest problems are going to be sovereign loans. Countries borrow on many multiples of the loans even to large multi-nationals. The only problem is that politicians spend most of their time and government income bribing their electorates to ensure a further ride on the gravy train. This is typically presented as "investment", but is rarely is applied to projects involving private enterprises exporting goods to others, rather it is a way of ensuring that your mates are looked after at the expense of the taxpayer. You can build roads, railways, runways and other infrastructure projects all you like, but none of these will generate income from exports. We need to make the pots and pans that are currently imported. Replace imports with home produced goods. Export the same if you can. When governments are forced to take steps to balance the books they introduce unpopular plans by removing the free lunch, get voted out, and the whole unhappy cycle starts all over again. We've seen it year-in, year-out in Europe. Maximum deficit levels which are broken year after year on the grounds that this year, last year and every year for the forseeable future is/was/will be an exceptional year meaning the rules can be broken ad-infinitum. Until the west gets a real bloody nose to awaken it from the cozy existence it has embraced for the last 60 years, the penny won't drop. If people want social benefits, then set up an industrial and fiscal structure that will deliver year on year rather than introducing things by popular demand without giving due thought to funding. You cannot have a balanced economy based on spending money you neither have, nor are willing to generate. Unless Johnny Foreigner buys the goods and services of this country, people had better scale back their visions of the ongoing free lunch. The biggest danger in the current setup are the politicans who would rarely put country before party re-election - not the banks. Rant over. A great rant, Rob. I agree with you 100%. One of my abiding memories of Labour's last year in power was watching commercial television or listening to commercial radio and realising that more than 50% of all the adverts were placed by the government or its agencies. Everything from public information announcements, through lifestyle advice to how to claim yet another benefit. They couldn't spend other people's money fast enough.

It isn't a rare coin.Even near perfect I wouldn't want to pay much more than £15.The mintage was massive. It's hard to tell condition from the photo, but market value for a genuine UNC example is nearer £35-£45. I agree with others, the double-strike appearance doesn't add anything to the value or desirability.

Welcome! It sounds as though you may start with shillings or florins, but if you happen to collect pennies you may wish to look at my site (link below). I don't sell so you will have to go to Chris or the others for your coins.

the amount of these that turn up on ebay, there must be around 10,000 unknown examples?? ;) It sold for 590 quid Interesting fake. If you zoom your display, you can see that the second 3 is too close to the first, and has also got a slight clockwise tilt. But it's certainly not immediately obvious. £590! I still prefer mine Note from CCGB 2512 edition: "It was initially thought that only 7 or 8 1933 pennies were minted, but more were found and sold in the early 21st Century, so the current estimate is that around 795 were minted. Be aware that the position and quality of the final 3 is variable - this is normal for this strike. Don't spend more than €3,000,000,000 on a VF example." Erratum included in later copies of CCGB 2512: We apologise for an error in early editions of this 3D holographic guide. Following discovery of the 'Shanghai hoard' containing 788 pennies dated 1933, the valuation for a coin in VF condition should read "€3,000,000,000 or 15 Drachmas".

the amount of these that turn up on ebay, there must be around 10,000 unknown examples?? ;) It sold for 590 quid Interesting fake. If you zoom your display, you can see that the second 3 is too close to the first, and has also got a slight clockwise tilt. But it's certainly not immediately obvious. £590! I still prefer mine

You've been trawling 1911's for a Gouby X, haven't you?

On the contrary, religion is the barrier to discovery and explanation of our universe (the ludicrous creationism, for example), while atheism supports science (which explains Darwinian evolution). Philosophy is little more than pontification on the future of scientific discovery. Replace 'philosophers' with 'scientists' in your final sentence and we are both (Richard Dawkins too, I would suggest) in full agreement with one another. How, why, when, what?.... atheists and scientists will never stop asking these questions while religion, through restrictive doctrine, stultifies such thought.

I wouldn't say ridiculous. Atheism is simply the disbelief in any supernatural deity, whether God or fairy. It is the default state of reason in the absence of any better information (or, dare I suggest, proof). To my knowledge no such counter evidence exists. It's not a religion or a belief, any more than not collecting coins is a hobby. I have no problem with esoteric hypotheses and discussions of an entirely philosophical nature. This includes Pantheism, which does not accept the existence of a personal creator but throws the net so wide as to simply state that "God is everything and everything is God'. What I do have a major problem with, are the religious doctrines such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. which are prescriptive and specific in nature and believe in a personal God. 1. That's another atheist tactic, turning religion on its head and saying "You can't prove or disprove a negative" (actually, in mathematics, you can!). However, to declare oneself an atheist is to state a belief position, albeit the direct opposite to someone religious - they are both belief positions, as the central tenet is unprovable. The intellectually honest position would be to declare oneself an agnostic. However, that word too has been sullied by atheists who have come to the conclusion (at least in militant-atheist-America) that agnosticism is closer to "I believe" than "I don't believe". Which is scandalous as the word simply means "don't know". 2. You're talking about the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, home to nearly all the world's fundamentalists. Much of what you say about them is true, though not of the silent mystical branches of them which never make headlines and are far more tolerant to new discoveries and science. It would help if people pontificating about religion would make the distinction between West and East clear before they launch their missiles. We're doing a great job of ignoring the thread specifically created for this very discussion 1. I don't agree that I'm employing 'tactics', rather I'm simply supporting my reasoned position, which is one of non-belief in a personal god. It's not a negative that I, or to my knowledge any other atheist, feels the need to prove. Any more than they might set out to prove that fairies don't inhabit the bottom of their garden, ghosts their attic or that crop circles aren't created by aliens. On the point of atheism being a dishonest position to adopt, I will employ an admitted tactic: Virtually all fervent followers of a particular religion (be they Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus or whatever) are themselves ardent atheists in all but the belief in their chosen God. So Christians are atheists, with the exception of a belief in Yahweh, followers of Islam are atheists, except in their belief in Allah, and so the list goes on. Those, such as myself, that you might label true atheists differ only in that they believe in one less god than all the others. There's no other difference. We're not agnostics unless you want to describe all the believers as agnostics too? I'm sure that Muslims, for example, wouldn't be agnostic about Christianity. In fact their beliefs prohibit this. 2. No doubt there are followers of mystical branches of various religions whose beliefs are so vague that they could pass as agnostics, if not indeed atheists. I'm not referring to those. I'm talking about the vast bulk of religious followers across the globe who, I contend, are seriously wrong in their belief in a personal god. I have to say I'm enjoying this exchange and, above all, accept the right of individuals to belief whatever they like. Maybe the moon is made of cheese!

I have no problem with esoteric hypotheses and discussions of an entirely philosophical nature. This includes Pantheism, which does not accept the existence of a personal creator but throws the net so wide as to simply state that "God is everything and everything is God'. What I do have a major problem with, are the religious doctrines such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. which are prescriptive and specific in nature and believe in a personal God.

Religion is the cancer in society, continuing to foster warfare and a host of other ills under a feeble veneer of legitimacy. When will we all wake up to reality? Most of us have which is why we tend to be tolerant and indifferent to religion on the whole. The big problem with all religions is they will never acknowledge that another one has a good idea. Everything is black and white, for us or against us. It is the root cause of immigrant minorities failing to integrate and often the fundamental reason behind racial tension. Although not the full story, when a religion forbids you to inter-marry without the outsider adopting the other's religion, you have just ensured another generation of resentment by outsiders and another course of brickwork added to the wall. There are people who bridge the divide, but they tend to be in the minority and are frequently helped by a degree of affluence. Well, quite. Except for Quakers. Oh, and Buddhists. And Menonites, the Ba'hai, Sikhs, many branches of Hinduism, Taoism, Unitarians, Jains, Sufis, ... um, shall I go on? Ok, point taken. Inappropriate use of the word 'all'. But there are still more than enough of those that are inflexible to drown out the non-aggressive religions. Those religions are still the main reason for a failure to integrate into the general population. Don't mistake irritating loudness for numbers! I believe that the majority of religious believers are tolerant people quite prepared to listen to opposing views (which - as far as the existence or otherwise of God is concerned - are utterly unprovable). I'm firmly with Richard Dawkins. Theology is defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes and governance of God". It is about as justifiable in the context of learning as the study of leprechauns. Again, that's going from the sublime to the ridiculous, a common tactic among the more militant and dogmatic atheists (I'm not accusing you of being one of them!). "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio." The problem is that atheists reduce religion to its more laughably superstitious elements (ignoring - for example - the science of mind that Buddhists follow in their non-theistic way) and then debate on that level. Which is tantamount to shooting fish in a barrel and conveniently ignores the more inexplicable elements of this extraordinary universe we inhabit. There is room for philosophy and metaphysics, even if there isn't (or shouldn't be) for fundamentalism and the so-called paranormal. Don't equate genuine mystical experience with UFOs : they're chalk and cheese. I wouldn't say ridiculous. Atheism is simply the disbelief in any supernatural deity, whether God or fairy. It is the default state of reason in the absence of any better information (or, dare I suggest, proof). To my knowledge no such counter evidence exists. It's not a religion or a belief, any more than not collecting coins is a hobby.

I'm firmly with Richard Dawkins. Theology is defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes and governance of God". It is about as justifiable in the context of learning as the study of leprechauns.

Religion is the cancer in society, continuing to foster warfare and a host of other ills under a feeble veneer of legitimacy. When will we all wake up to reality?