DaveG38

For the avoidance of doubt, as they say, my initial post concerned two clearly distinctive types of 1935 threepence, the existence of which are not mentioned by Davies. I subsequently queried whether a similar pair of varieties existed in the sixpence series. Gary is quite right that Davies mentions two types for 1935, although from Davies' description I'm not convinced that the characteristics for the new threepence types are the same as those shown by.the already known sixpence types. Hence my query. In principle, I can't see any reason why the sixpence would show similar varities to the threepence, since the design, though broadly similar in style, is actually different in content. But given the vagaries of the Royal Mint, who's to say that some elements of the threepence design weren't directly copied over into the sixpence.

Rob, Many thanks for the pics - I'll see if I can figure out what's what.

It would be good to establish exactly what types there are and which years they occur in, particularly where there are two (or more) types in any one year. And to do so for both sixpences and threepences. Pics would be good.

I thought I had answered that in the post above. I have had 2 large and 1 small all dated 1935. My original post referred to threepences, not sixpences, so which denomination were your 2 large and 1 small describing?

I've just had a check on my sixpences with the same basic design. The 1936 sixpence is definitely different from the 1934, so there was clearly a design change in this series. However, my 1935 is of the same design as the 1934, and as its the only one I have, I can't tell if there's any chance of a design changeover in 1935 or not. Anybody got a few to check and see?

These and many others are indeed the details that need answering. The problem is that neither side knows exactly what they will do once there's a 'yes' vote. The SNP will have you believe through their 'white paper' that Scotland will become the land of milk and honey and there won't be single downside to independence - believe that and you'll believe in the tooth fairy. In my view the biggest flaw in the SNP argument is that there are no downsides. Everybody knows there will be and the SNP would have had more credibility if they had acknowledged this. The trouble is that although certain positions can be made clear now, for instance the UK government's one on a currency union, most can't be determined until after the vote and policies become clear. And some of that clarity might come a long way down the line. I've no doubt that on day 1 of an independent state things will look the same as the day before, but then events and policies will start to kick in. For example, the SNP wants to encourage migrants to Scotland whilst the UK Government wants to curb immigration. Those are two diametrically opposed policies and I can't see how it would be possible for them to co-exist before border controls between England and Scotland came into force. Otherwise, you'd have the potential for immigration into the UK via the Scottish back door and there's no way that could be allowed to stand for very long. At the moment the two sides just ignore the obvious, by claiming nothing would change, yet it's obvious it would. Then there's the EU. I don't think anybody doubts that Scotland would not be technically an EU member state post independence, nor do I doubt that they would gain formal accession in due course. However, there's no clarity about what would happen in between, since technically Scots working in England wouldn't just be foreign workers, but they wouldn't even be migrant EU workers. Would they need passports, work permits etc. Would they be excluded from the UK labour market if their numbers exceeded UK government quotas for immigrants? Nobody can tell you the answers to these sorts of questions because they are hoping that the 'yes' vote will lose and if they win then the SNP will hope to fudge some kind of deal on the old-boys network to maintain things a much as they are now. The real issue is whether the UK government will play ball with this, or whether they will play hard ball with Scotland and drive some very tough decisions through. Where those decisions affect Scotland, but the Scots have no say, there's very little they can do about it. Somehow, I don't think we will stay nice ducky friends together for very long. Every time the UK government does something that doesn't suit Scotland Alex Salmond will be whingeing away over the border and that is bound to create a backlash from the UK.

Just to echo what the opening post says, but with a specific example. Ed Milliband gave his well-reported Thurrock speech yesterday and for once I actually sat and listened to it. Frankly I was appalled. To start with he was telling his audience that he was committed to listening to the voters and understanding their concerns and then later he confirmed that he had nothing to offer regarding the EU except that he wouldn't pull the UK out, and so far as immigration went, well it was all good for us and the best way to deal with it was to make the immigrants lives better, by enforcing the law on for example minimum wages. In other words, he's going to listen a lot, ignore it all and then plough along in his own way regardlerss of what anybody says to him on these two very hot topics.Worse still in my view, was that when you listened to all his waffle and stripped out the goo and dribble there wasn't really anything left. No policy changes, no concrete measure he would take. It was all just the usual platitudes with nothing of substance for the audience whatsoever. Compared to Nigle Farage we was clueless about how to engage the attention of the listeners.

I'm just about to start a major upgrade of the storage arrangements for my collection. Most of my coins are currently stored in simple plastic pages in albums and I've come to the point of wanting to improve the 'layout'. I've opted for Lighthouse flips to be housed in 2"x2" plastic sheets, and I wondered if anybody has any helpful suggestions about labelling the flips. I was considering denomination on top left, Monarch/date on top right, grade (my opinion) bottom left and Seaby/Freeman number bottom right and/or maybe specific variety. But I have seen flips with mintage figures, source, famous collection etc.so anybody got any recommendations. I guess I could also use the back as well if necessary.

I do actually use an Excel database for my collection, although its not as comprehensively detailed as I'd like - that's a different part of the re-organisation of the collection. However, as I'm a variety collector as well as a date collector, simply using a reference number wouldn't help as I'd be bound to find a variety that fitted between no35 and no36 penny, that would necessitate either a break in the number sequence, which would offend my need for order or would lead to the use of 35A, B etc, something again I'm not too keen on. Plus, when I can I quite like to show off my collection to friends and family and some information on the flips can be helpful for instance when any of the grandchildren come round and want to know what a particular coin is.

I don't recall any great hype about specific coins back then, although I was in my teens at the time. However, I was aware of the popular little book called 'Check Your Change' which was probably more popular then than coin magazines are now, and this, of course, pointed people towards what to look out for, including the H, KN pennies and the rarer dates. I suspect this publication had more to do with particular dates and denominations disappearing from circulation than anything in the press.

I think I can read that first word! Does it say spasebo? It does indeed and simply means 'thank you guys'- dredges up 'O' level Russian from 1966.

I've been shifting some of the dross recently, and I have been surprised at what people will buy. Not for much - usually £0.99 or £1.99 but it all mounts up to a nice little pool for buying something I really want.

How did you guess my strategy? Have you got a spycam in my house?

I was a disaster manager in a past life and risk assessment particularly of telecomms networks is part of my DNA. I'd be a bit doubtful about relying too heavily on any external sources, particularly web based ones for back up - there are just too many things that can and do go wrong. I'm a great believer in belt and braces plus a bit more, so I back up my database (Excel) onto my wife's PC, plus onto an separate external hard drive. And if the house burns down while I'm away and all three copies are detroyed, there's still the 2 gig memory stick in my pocket! Simples!!

I too collect pennies, along with all other denominations - a date run back to 1797, but few varieties.

Why not just do a system restore to the previous set point? That should put your PC (without affecting personal data) back as it was before this change.

Nor would it have a Nor would it have a couple of nasty digs just above the laurel leaf crown. Unless, of course they are digs in the plastic.

To be fair, the seller makes clear in the description that they are copies.

rumpUK - i.e. what's left after Scotland departs. That doesn't make any sense. The UK is England Scotland Wales and N Ireland. If Scotland leaves, then the UK is England Wales and N Ireland. There's no 'r' about it. Though it does make you think : would the Queen have any say about it? The road tax was originally designed to build/repair roads, but it's been many a long decade since that pretence was maintained. Road Tax, like National Insurance, is 'just another tax' used by the Government of the day for whatever it sees fit. As you rightly say, the roads in England are pretty awful with the possible exception of the motorways, constantly being patched up/relaid. rUk is simply a descriptor, or a convenience if you like, in debates to indicate that portion of the existing UK that would be left after Scotland's independence. It has no status as the official name of the country - that will, as you say, remain the UK.

rumpUK - i.e. what's left after Scotland departs. Don't you mean England, as Wales is a principality and NI is a province. So England is the only bit left with Country status. I agree that the structure of the four countries, provinces, principalities is complicated and I don't think it helps to get into the question of whether its the UK, Great Britain etc. At the end of the day, the internationally recognised 'country' at present is the UK (except when playing football) and if Scotland leaves it seems likely to me that this name will be collectively retained by England, Wales and NI as the title is internationally understood. Describing it as rUK simply underlines the diminished position following the withdrawal of Scotland from this framework.

rumpUK - i.e. what's left after Scotland departs.

For me the biggest problem that the independence debate is causing is to the potential relationships between the Scots and the English, regardless of the outcome of the vote. Alex Salmond would have everyone believe that it will all be very amicable and civilised and friendly, but I'm not so sure. Certainly, as soon as the UK government made the position plain about the currency the whole debate turned very acrimonious, even though the UK government's position and the reasons for it were perfectly logical and crystal clear. The SNP's idea that they could insist on a currency union and that everything will carry on much as before was always a ridiculous position, since divorce is rarely a nice happy experience. It seems to me that the SNP hasn't factored into their thinking the way in which Scotland would be regarded by rUK. AS seemed quite affronted by the idea that Scotland would be a foreign land, which goes to show the naive way in which the SNP think this whole process can be managed. Post-independence Scotland will be a foreign country and rUK will have no need to give any regard to it, so far as it's own policies go. Being larger, both economically and structurally, rUK can, if its politicians wish, introduce policies that run counter to the best interests of Scotland, and no amount of bleating by the SNP will have any impact on this. Then there's the issue of how companies and individuals regard the Scots in future. It seems to me that there will be a likely legacy of bitterness that may end up being detrimental to those Scots who live in England and it may well be that companies in future will take a different attitude to Scottish employees. For instance, if Scotland does go for independence and isn't granted immediate membership of the EU, as seems likely, what would be the position regarding Scots in employment in rUK? Some of the options here could become quite discriminatory as the rUK government decides how to deal with the presence of alien workers in the country, and maybe takes a very bitter view of Scotland in its political thinking. And that's all irrespective of the attitude to individual Scots in England from the English in general. However much the SNP may want to have a nice amicable arrangment it may find that attitudes harden on both sides of the border and that overall the situation becomes a far from satisfactory one. I personally think that things may never be quite the same again, at least not for a long time, regardless of the outcome of the vote. Even if the vote is 'no', it's rather like a marriage that survives an affair by one party - the attitude of the other is unlikely to be as it was before the affair, no matter how much one side forgives the other.

The last Scottish king of this name was Alexander III. He was the last king of the House of Dunkeld and reigned from 1249 to 1286, and was, surprise, surprise the son of Alexander II. So, Mr Salmond would become Alexander IV - sounds better than King Salmond I, with Queen Sturgeon alongside him.Not sure why you'd think a commoner would become a King Dave, i'm sure IF Scotland were to gain independence whoever was the Leader of said Independent country would certainly not become a King or Queen, perhaps president, but certainly not royalty.I don't think Salmond would - the comment simply follows from the spoof pound coin with Alex Salmond's head on it.

The last Scottish king of this name was Alexander III. He was the last king of the House of Dunkeld and reigned from 1249 to 1286, and was, surprise, surprise the son of Alexander II. So, Mr Salmond would become Alexander IV - sounds better than King Salmond I, with Queen Sturgeon alongside him.

Is that some sort of April fools of an April fools? No, I'm sure the Salmond would love to be seen as King Alexander IV!