DaveG38

I don't see any way that those artifacts were contained in a tin laid in the ground. Even the tin itself looks in far too good a condition. Add to that that the coin looks remarkably like the repros being produced a few years ago, and I'd say that the seller (with his feedback of just 8) has gone to a little trouble to 'age' a repro and has thrown in some other materials for good measure to add to his story. What I can't understand is how 27 people could bid it up to £1500 or so, without asking some pretty obvious questions about it, or at the least carrying out a bit of basic research. One look at the rim tells you it's much thicker than the genuine article.

Nice background too for this fine polished piece of antique silver! Bit of a shame really, considering the auctions are raising money for charity. He's got an interesting range of items for sale. They seem to be either fossils/minerals, ancient roman objects, coins or mens leather play wear, for want of a better term.

I'm pretty sure it's Ethiopean - I sold this small silver version (apparently a rarer variety!) a few years ago.

The difficulty with any claim regarding this recipe is complicated by the fact that the first Indian restaurant to open in the UK was in 1812, believe it or not!! Although it didn't last long, it does show that Indian food has been around for a long time in the UK, so the originator of the Tikka Masala recipe may be lost in the mists of history - a bit like my memory.

No, I'm not raising the thorny old issue of rainbow toning and all that goes with it. I am interested in views on how best to artificially re-tone dipped silver coinage. I have got one or two nice GVF - EF George II shillings, which have been dipped at sometime in their lives and are now very clean and lifeless. I've had them for some years now but they show little signs of naturally re-toning and so I'm wondering if there is any simple way to re-tone them. In some ways I'm slightly surprised that they don't re-tone fairly quickly anyway. Right next to them, I have a small silver photo frame, which I clean with silver polish every now and then. This frame darkens quite quickly, certainly within a couple of years to a nice dark tone, yet the coins stay stubbornly bright. Any ideas, why this doesn't happen to the coins? As a chemist by education, I'm aware that the toning on silver is fundamentally Silver Sulphide, so that should mean that exposing the coins to Hydrogen Sulphide gas should accelerate the process, but again in my experience this doesn't seem to do the trick as it should. There are other means of trying to get a reaction from sulpher on the surface, such as simply soaking the coin in water to which flowers of sulphur have been added - only a tiny amount of sulphur dissolves, but it should be enough to give a slow surface reaction on the silver. Again, no joy. So, its contentious I know, but is there an acceptable way to do this?

Expectations were low this time around, so its good to see England living down to their reputation. Nothing like succeeding at failure. Can't see them getting ahead of Uruguay or Costa Rica. Best they can hope for would be a draw maybe against Uruguay if they are lucky.

No, I guess not right next to each other, but only a yard or so apart and the coins are in an album. Would that make that much difference? After all, the atmosphere and its impurities in which they both live is much the same.

Azda, Accepted, thank you, with no hard feelings. I don't think its a matter of taking the pound back. The currency of the UK is the pound and if Scotland leaves the UK it can continue to use the pound, as any country can, but what it loses is any control over that currency. That's a simple consequence of independence. There's nothing childish about the government's position on a formal currency union, since it would not be in the UK's interest to enter into one. Obvious really when you look at the state of the eurozone where the currency union has all but failed without political union. It will only work if the Eurozone countries enter into a closer political union, but this is the opposite direction from that being taken by Scotland. That means no currency union with Scotland. Only the bilndly prejudiced or politically dishonest claim otherwise. Doesn't piss me off in the slightest. I'm just surprised that you would post something that is so clearly prejudicial to the Scots, since the underlying view it gives is not a very flattering one. I don't particularly care, but I thought those Scots who like to be regarded as friendly, welcoming and inclusive might have taken exception to the caricature of them that it depicted, especially the underlying grain of truth it contains.

Interestingly, Freeman also identifies the 1912 penny as having specimens with a 'hollow neck,' although I don't think I've ever come across one, nor does it seem to be a recognised variety like the 1911. Whether this applies to both the 1912 and 1912H isn't clear.

Sorry, but your memory deceives you. I have never (anywhere) suggested that the rest of the UK should have any vote on Scottish independence. I made no claim about racism whatsoever. I did point out though that the reference you posted whilst superficially amusing carrried a rather nasty undertone, since it was clearly making the point that there are many mean spirited people in Scotland who take pleasure in seeing England defeated. That was the thrust of the article you posted and it was clearly your intention to air that view - I'm not sure why you want to publicise this negative view of the Scots as it does them no favours. By and large, I have to say that my own experience tends to support that 'joke' since I have rarely come across a Scot who actualy supports the England team in tournaments, yet I have regularly come across Englishmen who directly support Scotland. The contrast between the two has been very stark at times. It's up to you whether you wish to continue a debate, but I don't seee why somebody taking a different view from yours should somehow provide a justification for Scottish independence. Strikes me as the spolit child having a tantrum because he doesn't like what he's being told. Remarkably like Alex Salmond - you'll be using the 'B' word next.

Amusing maybe, but contains a very nasty message concerning the Scots views of the English.

Looks like my prediction is coming good - 1-0 at half time!! And Rooney missed a header from all of a yard out. Why we play this useless clown I have no idea. Oh well, the clown got a goal, but a fat lot of good that was. Listening to the comments afterwards, I was struck by how deluded most of the speakers are about England and their performance. They just don't seem to get it that England are a poor team, with few real skills and little idea how to play the game to win. The passing was slow and often inaccurate, the build up ponderous, penetration when near the Uruguay penalty area was almost non-existent, and when any kind of chance presented, the strikers failed comprehensively to strike. All the way through I could see exactly how this game was going to end. England were never going to win it and were obviously going to lose, and so they have - again, they haven't failed to disappoint. Even now the commentators are going on about how its still possible to qualify - what planet are they on? Do they seriously expect England to beat Costa Rica - oh please!! Its all over and everybody with any sense knows that.

Looks like my prediction is coming good - 1-0 at half time!! And Rooney missed a header from all of a yard out. Why we play this useless clown I have no idea.

I think there are too many delusions here, and on other sites, about England's capabilities. Looked at objectively, the England defence was relatively poor at times - Italy had several good opportunities and even struck the bar in the last few minutes with Joe Hart stationery, just watching. A score of 3:1 or 4:1 wouldn't have flattered them. Many people are also making much of England's attack, but the truth is that England rarely got anywhere near close enough to the goal to threaten to score (leaving aside the actual goal) and were reduced to long range shots, which were no problem for the Italian goalkeeper. That might have been OK, but they rarely got the shot on target - shots mostly missed by a mile or went over the bar. Gerrard is a master at kicking a free kick over the bar. Yes, Sterling and others were skillful, but they pretty much always ran into an Italian and lost the ball. Certainly, they never looked to seriously threaten the Italian defence, which dealt with them clinically and efficiently. Then there's Rooney, who, yes, made the goal scored, but apart from that was a waste of space and always has been in an England shirt. God knows why the managers always play him - I don't buy the argument that he can turn a game in an instant of genius. Maybe, but those flashes are so infrequent that waiting for one to occur and to do so at the right time is a pipedream. Better to put a genuine player on the pitch, who at least might actually try to score. In defence of this view of Rooney, I would just point to the corner that he managed to blast into the crowd. I've never seen a player ever manage that, even at schoolboy level. To do so in a world cup game was pathetic. By contrast England's defence was poor - Baines was having terrible trouble whenever Italy attacked down that side of the pitch. Then there's England's corner taking idiocy. Consistently, they aimed for the far post, usually over kicked the ball, but either way there was nobody there to pick up the ball. What's the point of aiming for a spot where there are no players? Seems ridiculous to me. So, looking at them, even with changes, I don't find much to suggest that they will fare any better against Uruguay next week. Suarez will no doubt play and that will create havoc for England's poor defence. England's attack will still falter as soon as they've got sight of goal, and Uruguay will be stung by the defeat to Costa Rica, so I don't believe they will play anywhere like they did in their first match. By contrast England are unable to improve and will be on their nerves, knowing that a lost match will be the end for them. I see a low scoring game, with England maybe getting a draw if they are lucky, but more likely going down 1-0. As for Costa Rica, if they play as they did the other day, then England will have no chance against them.

While we're on the subject of fakes, what do we think of this 1735 crown? Leaving aside the ugly stain, there's something about the surfaces of the kings bust that looks almost cast to me, although overall the coin looks reasonable. Edge inscription looks very uneven too. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/111379136480?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

Clearly, he's the model and he's showing off.

But then only for the Scots when they vote 'yes.'

No, I think you're absolutely right! (Sorry not to give you a good argument...) Having said that, most of the designs aren't attractive enough in anything much less than UNC. The halfcrowns, florins and sixpences especially look rather shabby as soon as they start to wear much, same with the obverses. Oh I agree that they go 'off' very quickly. That's why I'm happy to collect in EF and upwards, but I'm not too concerned to go for the nirvana of UNC. I'm primarily a collector and so value/investment is secondary but not completely ignored, and for this reason I can see that Liz II coins in particular are very unlikely to command investment prices in my lifetime, even in the top condition. Hence, I don't see paying top prices for a common and unremarkable coin, even if it is unusual for that date to be found in UNC.

Ok, now I'm going to commit heresy. As far as I am concerned, there are many coins, particularly of Elizabeth II where I really don't care that much whether the coin is UNC, UNC with some bag marks or just good EF. I know the conventional wisdom is that top grade is what should be collected, but frankly, the differences between the high grades are very small and it doesn't bother me that much if mine are not all UNC. On this basis, I'm not remotely interested in obtaining one in absolutely perfect condition. Life's too short and there are more interesting older coins to search for and collect. Right, that's lit the blue touchpaper, now to find my tin helmet.

Simon S, Apologies to you in advance, please don't take it personally, but you must be the first person I've ever come across since 1965 who likes the Churchill engraving!!

I once had a collector of modern proof and Royal Mint sets telling me that he expected to make a profit on his purchases and sell them at auction well above bullion / scrap value. Apart from the odd set in recent years, the vast majority i've seen are below their RRP. It's a bit - and i say a bit - like 50's and 60's diecasts. If you're lucky enough to have them in good boxed condition then you could sell them to collectors for a tidy sum but it's far too late in the game to be buying them now and expecting to make a retirement fund from them. Most of these recent oddities just leave me non-plussed. That thing about the £2 coin and the Queen's earrings...although one with the portrait on the date side recently made £25 on Ebay Absolutely spot on. And it's down to Spinks that these modern commems are listed with artificially high values; their catalogue never shows them at any less than issue price 'plus something for inflation'. Yet collectors and dealers who attend auctions know full well that you can (for example) pick proof sets up for half list price or even less. The so-called secondary market dictates the true value of these modern issues, and despite supposedly 'low issue numbers' in the case of piedforts and silver proofs, there are more than enough collectors to satisfy demand. The Royal Mint once tried to set up a 'Collectors Club' for their tat - I don't know if it's still in existence. Still, I suppose if even a small fraction of those got turned on to 'proper' coins, it perhaps wasn't a complete waste of time. It certainly existed up to about 2006, as my father-in-law was a member. However, he didn't buy the usual tat from the RM, but focussed on high value gold. In all, he bought around £10k worth and with gold prices going the way they have, even allowing for the more recent drop in price, the collection is still worth around £30k.

Thanks for that Scott.

That's interesting. Why the revaluation and when was it done?

What is it Scott?

The point I was trying to make is that the differences between the 6ds was attributed to the process of forming the die. This same process would have also been used on the 3d and all other coins for that matter. If when the die is being produced from the hub too little pressure is used the resulting coins from that die will tend to show thinner features with boarder fields just as described in the original post and Davies example of the 6d. Looking again at the two coins I used to start this thread, it does seem to me that pretty much the whole design is a little smaller than the other one. For instance the oak leaves are slightly shrunken. Presumably this would be in line with Davies' observation about the 6d and your comment about the 3d? If so then it's interesting that the 'hubbing error' if I can call it that, only shows for 1935 in the 6d, since there's a different reverse (Rev G) for 1936, whereas for the 3d, the second die used for the 1935 seems to have carried over to 1936. I'm guessing this is simply a reflection of the quantities struck. There were around 14 million 1935 6d struck followed by 24 million 1936, whereas for the 3d there were just 7 million 1935 followed by 3million or so 1936.