DaveG38

I belive the mintage was around 70,000, so not rare.

Well done that man - where did you cull that one up from?

For 1937 there are 10 (yes 10) obverse types: Obv 1 - Upright of ‘E‘ in Georgivs points to space, the upright of ‘I‘ in VI points to a space, the upright of ‘R‘ in BR: points to a space and the upright of ‘D‘ in F:D: points to a tooth. Obv 2 - Upright of ‘E‘ in Georgivs points to tooth, the upright of ‘I‘ in GEORGIVS points to a space, the upright of ‘R‘ in Rex points to a tooth, and the upright of ‘F‘ in F:D: points to a space. Obv 3 - Upright of ‘D‘ in D:G: points to a space, the right hand upright of ‘N‘ of Omn: points to a space, the right hand upright of ‘N‘ of IND points to a space and the upright of ‘P‘ of Imp points to a space. Obv 4 - Upright of ‘R‘ in Georgivs points to toothe, the upright of ‘D‘ of D:G: points to a space, the upright of ‘R‘ of BR points to a tooth and the upright of ‘E‘ of Rex points to a space. Obv 5 - Similar to obv 4 but having an enlarged portrait from 25.4 mm instead of 25.6 mm, producing an obv. with a distinctly thinner rim. The ‘H‘ in the designer‘s initials on this obv. have longer upper arms almost matching the lower ones, whilst on obv. 4 the upper arms are shorter. Obv 6 - The upright of ‘R‘ in Georgivs points to a space, the upright of ‘D‘ of F:D points to a tooth, the upright of ‘D‘ of IND: points to a tooth, and the upright of ‘I‘ of IMP. points to a tooth. Obv 7 - The upright of ‘R‘ in Georgivs points to space, the upright of ‘B‘ of BR points to a tooth, the right hand upright of the ‘N‘ of IND points to a space, and the upright o f the ‘P‘ of IMP points to a tooth. Obv 8 - The upright of ‘R‘ in Georgivs points to a tooth, the upright of the ‘D‘ of D:G points to a space, the upright of ‘E‘ of Rex points to a tooth, and the upright of ‘I‘ of IMP points to a space. Obv 9 - The upright of the ‘E‘ in Georgivs points to a space, the right hand upright of the ‘N‘ of OMN points to a space, the upright of the ‘R‘ of Rex points to a space, and the upright of ‘F‘ of F:D points to a tooth. Obv 10 - The upright of the ‘E‘ in Georgivs points to tooth, the upright of ‘I‘ of VI points to a tooth, the upright of ‘F‘ of F:D points to a space, and the upright of ‘D‘ of IND points to a space. There are 7 minor varieties for the 1937 Proof £2 coins. Additionally, obverses 3 and 4 come with and without detached upper dragon's paws. For 1902, there are examples with the initials DeS and the start of the legend double struck, whilst the matt proof £5 has two date spacings: 7mm or 7.5 mm wide.

For what it's worth, I did consider a book on 20thC gold varieties, but with a little research I realised that most of it, with a few exceptions, would revolve around the Commonwealth mint marks and those are already well documented. The exceptions include the 1994 and 1996, BOE and rugby gold £2 coins, the 1937 proof £5 coins and as I recall the 1902 proof £2. It appears that there are several varieties of the 1937 proof £5 coin, despite the low mintage of 5500 or so. Quite how this could occur, given the relative softness of gold and the low mintage is something I don't understand. It's hard to see how the punches could have worn out so quickly, as to need recutting, leading to not one but several varieties. Whatever the explanation of these things, I quickly realised that there are relatively few gold collectors, and even less gold variety collectors, and probably a miniscule number of 1937 gold proof £5 variety collectors (around the same number of thumbs on my feet), and so I didn't bother to continue to research this area of collecting.

An 1893 JH sixpence graded 'EF or better' sold at DNW on 18th September 2013 for £2,500. At the time it was outside my price range. Had it been this last sale I would have probably bought it. The last 1854 'EF" at DNW was September of 2009 when it sold for £1,900. I think that when these rarities come around you just have to go for it. Finances permitting of course. The operative phrase is 'Finances permitting of course.' And the problem is the sheer number of coins that would require this level of expenditure. That becomes prohibitive and so I have to decide where I'd prefer to spend. Would I like to upgrade my fine condition rare date sixpences, or do I buy a new coin altogether to fill a gap? With my most recent purchase, I'd rather have the 1703 plain halfcrown for £1850, than update a rare date, but ultimately relatively boring coin such as a Victorian sixpence.

It's all down to bubble gum for me. One of the makers (Wrigleys?) in the 1950s produced a series of paper inserts in their packs called 'Strange But True' in which they recounted odd events that had happened around the world. When you had all of these, you sent these thin sheets off and got back a properly printed flip book of the facts all nicely illustrated. From this you can see you had to be a completist in order to get the booklet at the end. One missing and it was no book!! So, I had to find the lot, which I did. Sadly, I can't find the booklet any more, but I'm sure this and the Brooke Bond experience are the reasons for my completism. Am I psychologically scarred? Can I sue for damages do you think? It might give me some cash for coins.

Looking at the one on AMR Coins, which is very nice and £5k, I'd say yours should hit around the £1.5 - £2k mark. The wear will hold it down compared to AMRs and the scratches will take a bit more off.

That's a bargain and a half Dave! Even 20 years ago, my UNC-and-very-nearly-BU 1954 and 1959 halfcrowns cost me £4 apiece. I agree with you about "not worth spending the money" on absolutely perfect specimens of them. My general approach has been to try and upgrade to GEF to UNC where I can, but without breaking the bank. As I work backwards, I'm often finding that I'm dropping to EF (and for the 1905 halfcrown I'll probably stick with my own fine specimen) and that's OK with me. The only exception I make is that within a date run, I like to ensure I have at least one coin which is in UNC condition. In that way, if I ever go to type collecting I will have a good basis to start from. I think that's a good point. There are several reasons why I switched to type collecting, one of the main ones being that once I had some high grade examples with eye appeal I completely lost interest in looking at (even owning) the lower grade coins, and there was no way I was ever going to afford a high grade example of every date. Much happier striving for 1 cracking example from each series Unfortunately, I'm a completist, at least as far as dates go. I think it goes back to when I was a child and I used to collect Brooke Bond Tea cards. The aim was always to get the set and stick them all in the album, and an album with one missing was a no-no for me. It's the same with coins. I need to complete the date runs, even if they aren't all in top condition. Some, of course almost never will be. For instance my 1854 sixpence is fine at best as is my 1893 Jub Head one. The likelihood of finding, let alone affording a EF one of either is quite low, and so I have to accept lower grades to fill that itchy gap. Of course, it does make for mixed grades in a series, but in some ways that can be instructive as it does show the effects of wear if I have pretty much all grades represented. The real problems come with the rarities. I don't yet have a 1841 halfcrown, and so I'm interested in the one mentioned on another thread on here. It will cost me though if I can secure it through an auction, but its the only way to fill that gap. I managed an 1839 halfcrown a while ago. It's absolutely horrible, but still cost a fair sum, but more importantly it filled one more gap. Similarly, I've just bought a 1703 plain halfcrown in around VF for £1850. Pricey enough for me, but it does finish my date run of Queen Anne halfcrowns. Completism can be a bit of an obsession!!!

That's a bargain and a half Dave! Even 20 years ago, my UNC-and-very-nearly-BU 1954 and 1959 halfcrowns cost me £4 apiece. I agree with you about "not worth spending the money" on absolutely perfect specimens of them. My general approach has been to try and upgrade to GEF to UNC where I can, but without breaking the bank. As I work backwards, I'm often finding that I'm dropping to EF (and for the 1905 halfcrown I'll probably stick with my own fine specimen) and that's OK with me. The only exception I make is that within a date run, I like to ensure I have at least one coin which is in UNC condition. In that way, if I ever go to type collecting I will have a good basis to start from.

Well, I've just received my 1961 florin from Mark and very nice it is too. I have had a bit of luck lately, when I managed to pick up 1959, 1958, 1957 and 1954 florins in damn near UNC for just £1 each. Certainly the 1958 and 1957 are UNC, whereas the other two are a touch under this - an extremely good extremely fine grade. They are certainly good enough for me and my 20thC upgrades. Not now worth spending considerable sums on trying to achieve perfect BU specimens for these dates.

Anybody got a 1961 florin in UNC for sale? I'm currently upgrading my 20thC coins and am finding it quite hard to get a 1961 florin, believe it or not. There are plenty of average circulated ones on ebay, but I have yet to find one on dealers websites. The 'posh' dealers don't tend to show Eliz II coins anyway and those dealers who do put up late predecimal don't seem to have a 1961. Similarly, it's not the sort of coin that appears in auctions unless it's with a job lot, which I really don't want. So anybody got one? If so please let me know price plus postage.

Thank you for this. I did check the CC website a few weeks back, and I guess this one has been added since. And Michael's Coins is one I have kind of lost track of lately, probably becuse of him closing his shop. In my mind I've discounted him as a dealer - I'll have to remember to think of him in the future, so thanks again for the reminder.

A gunshot from a grassy knoll, aliens landing at Roswell, astronauts faking moon landings, and the evil hand of George W Bush behind 9/11 You left out Cyril, the cosmic cephalopod, the creator of everything in the universe, who spends his time skimming the surface of Alpha Centauri, muttering in ancient languages and cursing in pidgin English..

Anybody seen the latest commercial offering from the Royal Mint? If not, you'll love this one. http://blog.royalmint.com/victoria-elizabeth-pennies/ Why anybody, even an amateur, would go for this is beyond me. Makes Coincraft look like good value!

I want to know why there isn't a Edward VIII penny in there - that would make it worthwhile. On a different, but allied subject, I'm constantly surprised that the Mint haven't cottoned on to the wealth of collectors out there and started to produce their own re-strikes of past coins. Think of the carnage that could bring, say if there were 'new' 1905 halfcrowns, or a few more 1954 pennies etc. Or is there something in statute that stops them doing this? Or maybe it's just that the punches no longer exist.

I think, if there were any genuine concerns about ballot rigging, that the SNP would have been keeping a very close eye on things on the night and the accusations of widespread rigging (because that it what is being alleged here) would have long surfaced by now in a big way. In short, the SNP would have been screaming from the rooftops, even demanding a criminal investigation. They are not, which to me says that there is nothing wrong with this result at all. I don't know what the writer of this piece saw or thought he saw, but he seems to have information from a wide range of places, so he clearly wasn't there to see things himself. Either that or he has combed through TV footage and has come to conclusions that may or may not be correct. If he genuinely believes that fraud has taken place, then he should raise it with the police and the returning officers to see what that brings. My guess would be nothing as there's nothing to find. Anybody who has taken the trouble to examine the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 will know that a whole lot of erroneous and downright malicious claims can be dredged up out of nothing, usually based on ignorance or the prejudices of those making the claims. I suspect that's what we are seeing here.

I didn't realise you were 90 something!!

I'd still like a 1816 three shillings to complete the set!! A few have gone through auctions in the last 10 years, though none of these appeared to be unc despite the catalogues saying they were. Any genuine unc is likely to be worth the money spent. NGC pop reports suggest they have slabbed 1 at 64 and 2 at 65, though what grade they are or whether still slabbed is anyone's guess. Hope springs eternal. I've seen one or two GVF or so ones, which would be acceptable, but the prices are still very high for what is as you say a thoroughly unattractive coin.

I'd still like a 1816 three shillings to complete the set!!

I love the 3d i think it was the first silver coin that I had in my early collecting days and it was 1917, it was probably fair, and even now nearly 40 yrs later the one i got now is probably Fine! but thats just the way it goes. The trouble with the threepence is the tedious designs it displays. Leave aside the brass ones for a moment and look at the silver and its fundamentally unchanged right back to 1689. Prior to that, you do get a Roman III in James II's reign and interlinked Cs, with Charles II, but apart from that it's all crowned '3's all the way. Not much real design innovation at all.

Not only that, but when I was a kid in the dying days of LSD (not THAT LSD), pretty much all halfpennies in change were George II and Elizabeth II. There were very few decent George V and practically no Edward VII or Victoria, when compared to say Pennies. Even now, decent quality halfpennies are not as common as other denominations, nor are they as collected. Not too long ago, I picked up a job lot of EF-UNC Edward VII halfpennies for £140 plus commission, and that included a GEF Low Tide variety. In one single purchase, I upgraded every one of my Edwards without much outlay. Why nobody else wanted to buy this lot in the auction, I've no idea, but similar lots of pennies were going well over the price I paid, so I guess unpopularity explains it.

I certainly collect halfpennies - I find them more interesting and varied than copper/bronze pennies, which after all only go back to 1797, whereas the humble halfpenny is good back to 1672. On top of that you've got the interest of the tin series, plus a whole range of errors or whatever in the William/George eras. Beats pennies any day for me.

I believe its slightly more complicated than that. At the moment RBS is a national UK bank regulated by the FSA, BOE etc. and all tax revenues (not much at present due to losses sustained over the past few years) are paid to HMRC. Come independence, the HQ moves to London, which means that the tax take for the UK and Scotland will then be proportional to the business in each country. Given 5 Million Scots and 55-60 million UK citizens,even though they don't all have RBS bank accounts, it is obvious that the majority of business will be in the UK and hence the tax take will be much greater than in Scotland. That's my understanding. However, there's a couple of much more significant points. Firstly, over time, senior managers will migrate to London, followed by lesser staff, until at some point the decision will be made to close the HQ in Scotland (not the branches though). It doesn't have to happen, but all my experience in business shows that this is the usual way that companies act. The second, more serious issue is the message that the re-location sends concerning confidence in Scotland. The action in itself is simply about the banks reassuring its customers that their money will be safe, with the BOE backing them, but of course the opposite view then gets taken that investment in Scottish banks could not be trusted, and that may be very damaging to business in general.

I think you'll find that London accounts for around 25% of the total UK tax take, so my bet is that they certainly will pay tax.

There is a plus side then. Depends on your point of view. As I understand it, when a company moves its HQ, it also moves the jurisdiction where it pays its taxes. At the moment it doesn't matter as the revenues go the treasury anyway, but post-independence the move of RBS, HBOS etc. may mean that the tax revenue will go to the UK exchequer not to the Scottish government. If too many financial institutions take this action, then Scotland will have to find ways of bridging the tax take gap. And when it comes to financial businesses, that's a huge tax take.