DaveG38

On another forum, the subject of understanding the facts of the in/out arguments is under discussion. Here's my cartwheel tuppence worth. There is a simple answer to the question about facts and it goes like this. Firstly, ignore all the financial stuff. The IMF, OECD, ONS etc all get things wrong and so their assessment about financial meltdown can be taken as nothing more than an educated guess. Even they do not suggest total collapse of the economy and a slump to abject poverty. The world and the UK will go on after an exit, and the impact in the longer term will be slight if even noticeable. And if we stay, the same is true. Whatever stupidity the EU and Eurozone imposes on us our world will still go on. In short forget facts about the money because there aren't any, and even if there were, circumstances would quickly alter over time to make them irelevant. Now take some of the other issues. For instance security or climate change. When you think about it both are sideshows, whether we are in the EU or not. The channel gives us a measure of security not enjoyed by the rest of Europe, and as for climate change it seems to me that since we account for about 2% of world emissions, whatever we do, inside or outside the EU, really won't make a blind bit of difference, so again ignore it. This is true also for many other 'minor' areas associated with our membership or otherwise, such as visa free travel, the ban on high energy vacuum cleaners or mobile phone roaming charges. My point here is again that facts don't really matter in the slightest in the grand scheme of things. They are trivia. Does anybody really think that giving people visa free travel arrangements is a good reason in itself for staying in? I could go on and on, but cutting to the chase the only issue you need to focus on is the central and critical one of who do you want to govern you. Whatever you think of the voting system in the UK or the government of the day, history shows that elections can bring change, and thus the people do have a measure of collective say over who governs them. Remain in the EU, and it is a 'fact' that much of the laws and regulations that cover daily life is not put in place by the UK government, but by the EU. Not all, and not in all areas of life e.g education isn't covered. A second 'fact' is that you and I and every other citizen of the EU has absolutely no say in appointing whoever brings about the legislation and the endless flow of regulations from Brussels. You can do nothing to stop it and nothing to sack them. Now this is where you have a choice. You can leave, and have a government that has control over all aspects of national life and which you can get rid if you wish, or you can stick with an unelected bunch of elites who do whatever they wish collectively regardless of the impact on EU citizens, over whom you have no say whatsoever. All the time the EU is doing things that benefit you, you might regard this as OK, but I'm guessing if you were a Greek you'd feel rather different. So this is your stark choice. Do you want us to be governed from within, or do you want to be governed by foreigners over whom you have absolutely no control? Notice that I have studiously avoided the 'I' word, but clearly on the basis of who governs us, control of immigration can only be taken if the country governs itself. Leave and our government decides what immigration is needed and acceptable. Stay and we have no control whatsoever. Choice is yours on 23 June, but the question is simply this 'Who should govern the UK?' For me, the answer is that I want us to govern ourselves. All the rest is just froth on top of the coffee.

The 2009 is there. It's the 2011 that's missing from the RM site.

You mean the 2011 version?

I've got one - a Cromwell shilling. Not a bad copy, but obviously not 'right' if you know what I mean.

A modern repro I'm afraid. The clue is in the curved indentation on the upper right quadrant of the reverse. Can't remember whose makers mark that is of the top of my head.

According to Spink 2016, the issue was 100,000 and the price is £3, which sounds about par for the course to me.

Caveat Emptor!!

So would I, but we're too small to do so, too incompetent, too dependent on Europe and the US to be able to think and act for ourselves. And if we were to vote to leave, the world will end, the heavens will fall, the EU will fall apart and Coronation Street and the Archers will finish. Life as we know it will be over. There won't even be any coins left to count let alone collect.

Its all down to those nasty European bureaucrats. They are showing us what will happen to us if we vote to leave the EU. Fire ands pestilence next, followed by plagues of locusts.

But still better than the average at the moment which is around £35-40.

Mine is just VF.

Nothing major, but lots of minor stuff. Dots on tridents and elsewhere, portcullis new pennies, the 1926 penny types, missing waves, 1903 open 3 minor types, now the 1918H penny etc. etc. Enough to justify a second edition in say a few years time. Plus I'd like to get some identifying photos of those varieties that I simply mention e.g. all the 1957 calm sea types, or the 1907 penny ones. Plenty to do, but I'm a bit too busy at the moment with other stuff.

No, I didn't spot that one. Another variety for the second edition - the list is getting quite long now.

That's because the Royal MInt started selling their products exclusively and because they have hiked the prices as well, so there's no easy way to get a bargain on the second hand market. I actually collect the proof sets as they are produced, but forgot the 2014 for some reason. Mistake, as ebay sellers know its difficult to find and have themselves hiked their prices. I managed one in an auction recently for a fair bit under the ebay price, but probably still more than the RM original price. If you really want one, you either need to keep an eye on auctions, or bite the bullet and pay over the odds on ebay.

You can buy two of them on the bay for £1.50, so I don't think £200 is likely to be paid by anybody.

The problem with the current arguments regarding 'in' or 'out' is that they are all very short term. Cameron says there will be 'shocks' and 'uncertainty' etc. and that's probably correct. But markets and economies soon shrug off these once things settle down, so I am discounting all the short term concerns that people are considering. For me it's more about the long term. Is the EU a long term growth prospect for UK goods and services? Simple answer, no. The EU is contracting with little sign it will recover in any term; short, medium or long. Why? Because the nature of the organisation is such that it is a huge self-serving bureacracy, incapable of reacting to situations or circumstances, and with little idea how to stimulate growth and encourage expansion in member states. It also encourages hand-outs to its poorer countries, which provides little incentive for them to improve. Meanwhile the larger states pick up the bill, including the UK. Hence, the prospect of reform in the EU is remote and the idea that the organisation will do trade deals with China, India, Brazil etc. is an impossible dream. It's taken 9 years to try to do so with Canada, so I'm not holding my breath for much progress in my lifetime with the rest of the world. In simple terms there is no incentive for the EU hierarchy to change the present situation, since that will involve the turkeys voting for Christmas, and they aren't going to do that and leave their travel perks, their cars, their big offices and budgets behind. At the same time, whatever the 'deal' with Cameron, they are still on track for their dream of a United States of Europe. That won't go away and we will never be able to stop it. As for returning powers to national governments, it simply won't happen. That's an anathema to the EU organisation, which will simply plough on regardless. The evidence for this is all around in the way it relentlessly pushes forward, no matter what. Finally, the EU is fundamentally undemocratic - I have no say in what it does. I can do nothing to help remove anybody I don't want. It's an unelected dictatorship which looks after itself and not it's citizens. It's accounts have not been properly signed off from it's audits for many years, suggesting endemic corruption. As far as I'm concerned, do away with it for the UK. The idea that we couldn't survive is simply nonsense. And the biggest reason is what the 'in' campaigners don't say. Leave aside project 'fear' and there's really nothing left that represents good reasons for remaining 'in.' I've listened to many of the arguments and it's always based on what will happen if we leave, not what will happen if we stay. For instance, if we stay what would the UK do about migration when Turkey gets membership? What threats and risks does that pose? What impact would that have on the UK culture, way of life etc. Cameron and co. can't say, or maybe won't say, but I'm under no illusions that the impact would be profound and not in a positive way. For all these reasons, I'm for 'OUT'. I have confidence that the UK would do very well outside the straightjacket of the EU.

The edge really isn't right for a proof for me.

Most probably it's simply down to the quantity of traffic somewhere on the routes between Oz and wherever the predecimal.com server(s) is. Although there are huge pipes to take the digital traffic they are finite and it only takes high demand on the internet routes say out of Australia for the net to slow down and the connections to be difficult to make. Or it may be pressure of demand on one or more of the routers on the network.

He deserves 49p for the effort involved in doing this much damage. That takes a bit of doing.

For me, the 'hairlines' on WC1 are present both in the field and on the truncation and suggest polishing. Not sure about the others though. At the end of the day, you have to be satisfied and if you are not, then send them back.

I've just received an email back from Peter and he has confirmed that the coin in the BSC book is NOT the one sold as Lot 1135 in LCA auction 124.

I do have occasional contact with him, so I'll pass on your question if you like.

I've combined my numismatic interests with bullion collecting, with the result that I have date runs of sovereigns and half sovereigns back to 1900 (London Mint only). For the most part those coins were bought for well under the present price, although a few were slightly more costly when the price was around £1000 per ounce. I see these as a hedge against financial troubles in the world and a useful bargaining tool should the worst ever happen.

This is a UK coin - so it's just rain coming down!!

Presumably he wants to upgrade to a high spec beamer with the money.