Emperor Oli

Is that all you're getting? Don't you want other things except one coin?

Yes I'd put that at fair, maybe a good poor because of the edge knocks and bag marks. Why do you want to buy it if you know nothing about it?

It was Master JMD's "loss" wasn't it - or am I missing something here? Anyhoo ¡feliz cumpleaños!

Hiho chaps! I found out a few days ago that my application and interview were successful and I'm now a prefect at my school! I think we start in a few days, when we get our badges. The prefects also get tie which differ from the normal ones but unfortunately, the company which makes them has gone bankrupt! The school has had to reorder from another company to get them I also got nominated for the position of Head Boy and I should know about that in a few days although there is very stiff competition - I think it would be unlikely that I would get it. That's all i wanted to say, oh, and I shall only use my power for good (most of the time )

Stop it, this was meant to be nice news, stop turning it nasty.

I'd say that's single exergue. Surely double exergue is just that there is a double line separating the exergue instead of a single one like that.

Note: LUSTROUS is spelt L-U-S-T-R-O-U-S. NOT lusterous, NOT lustorious, LUSTROUS!

Yes, I knew you meant that. I have never seen one - it's a turnup for the books! Oh and the answer to your question is obvious; they used different dies for the obverses and reverses, some more than other. The more expensive coins would be the dies which were rarely used and conversly, the cheap ones would be the ones minted using the common dies. Don't have mitral valve failure!

To hell they are I've never seen a sealed copy in my life!

Why did you buy the book in the first place then?

I wish someone would make a .pdf copy of it to download because the sheer price of it prohibits most of the market from owning what has come to be known as the definitive copper book. In his stock list, Cooke says he has a copy going for about £110 I think but it's far too much to spend on a book!

Read that again, HPJ, he said they hadn't been used since the sixties, it doens't mean he went to school then

Well the forums have been akin to a morgue for the past couple of days so I thought I might as well give my views on Collectors Coins 2004 and ways it could be improved: 1) I've raised the issue with the cover previously - it is terribly dated and laid out in an atrocious fashion! For example, the "n" of Britain touches a coin whilst the "G" of Great is oceans away from it. Just a imple thing like tht reflects badly on the book as it makes it appear as an amateur publication. With just a little time spent on it, the book would look far better and would maybe boost the reader number. Oh, and I know this is nitpicking (one of my favourite pastimes ) but it says "183 years of non-gold coinage from 1820". I would prefer it to say "Over 180 years etc" but that's just me. 2) The list of reigns is wrong; Edward VII belonged to the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha but again this is nitpicking. 3) Pictures. Frankly terrible but Chris has explained that the technology used belongs with Noah's Ark. A thing which I have noticed is that there are little rings around the coins obviously so the typesetters etc know where to place them but I feel this makes the coin appear as though it has a thicker rim. These should be removed (by-the-by, what's going on with page 73?! Just lots of rings!). If the pictures could be Spinkl quality, that would be super. 4) Patterns and decimal. I would prefer this to go in an appendix as I suggested earlier as not many people have/will have them and so are irrelevant to most of us. If somebody does have them, they can always find the values in the appendix. Plus the Edward VIII retropatterns etc should be moved - it just clutters up and disjoints the whole catalogue. 5) Starting date. I feel this is perfectly fine, as it is the start of a new reign however from an aesthetical point, there was a major shift from the quality of coins produced pre-1816 and post-1816. This, in my opinion, would be the only reason to pull back the date. 6) Text. I personally abhor the font. Something sanserif (for all those who don't know, without the little pointless bits on the letters - look on Times New Roman for examples) like Arial I think would be preferable in my eyes. 7) Size. I think if Chris wants to attempt to shrink the number of pages down, the irrelevant information should be first to go. The things on Maundy money and the chemical makeup of the one pound coin is superfluous and should go really. That's all I have to say - now you've all got something to chew on!

Sorry, I thought you just wanted to do then as you said "leave them to me". I was gonna buy some more Farthings off Colin Cooke but got a tad carried away and the bill was £80 so I didn't proceed!

I think it would be unwise to leave such a complex and long date run to one person, and a recent collector too. Splitting it up would allow for more indepth and consciencious research. That's my opinion anyway, I could be wrong.

That's what I mean - if you look. Not many of us get these dealer lists through the post.

I think the current system is ok because there's not many sources other than Ebay and Colin Cooke and obviously this site so we couldn't really research much stuff.

I think Colin Cooke has got that base covered

Oh good God not this again. This is in league with those 2ps! Can anyone else think of an numismatical rumours? I can only think of that and this (or should that be this and that )

It's pronounced Vi-jint-ee methinks. And it is viginti tres! My above post says "Caecilius is sitting in the Forum with Metella" and "Much blood flowed" hehe

It isn't! If you have never learnt it you can't know its beauty - Caecilius ad foro cum Metella sedebat! Multus sanguis fluit!

Ici!

Yeah, Will, I used the Alt Gr button for it and Master jMD, it was pointless just to practically copy my post

I found that out yesterday actually, doh!

It's alright - that's what we're here for!