DaveG38

It seems to me that Mr Barosso I assume the rational goes. The UK is part of the EU so if Scotland leaves the UK it is also leaving the EU. It would then be in the position of having to reapply and take its turn with any other East European countries in the queue. Re-entry could take years. So it will be a new Scottish passport and work visas for any scots wanting to live and work in England/Wales and NI. Of cause then the there's the whole immigration debate, we can't keep the Romanians out but we could the Scots. It seems to me to be a bit more interesting than that. As it currently stands, trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK is conducted across an open border. That would also, of course, be the case if Scotland were to be an EU member in its own right as an independent state. However, if Scotland votes to leave the UK, then as Mr Barosso says, and I see no reason not to believe him as he's the head of the Commission, that would leave the interesting situation where the border between Scotland and rUK would be an external border to the EU. If we then believe Mr Barosso when he says that Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU and this might take years and might not happen at all, what happens to the border in the meantime? For people desperate to get into the EU, as currently constituted, the Scotland/England border would be one of the most porous in the EU and would likely result in a new and different route for entry. In this situation, I can't see any alternative but for there to be border controls between the two countries. The SNP says it won't happen, but my analysis here suggests that there might not be any option for the rUK as it would become a frontier state of the EU. Of course, Scotland might patrol its borders in a very efficient way, but I'm guessing that the Scottish government will have other priorities and it might come down to England initiating border controls. Mr Barosso's statement also raises interesting questions about trade between Scotland as a non-EU state and rUK which would be an EU state. I don't know much about the treaties that guarantee free movement within the EU, but that free flow presumably does not apply across international borders from outside the EU. That would mean customs controls at the borders with Scotland. It might also affect not just the currency for import and export, but also the price of goods, depending on what the trade tariffs are for imports into the EU. In short, it may be cheaper for rUK companies to import from within the EU than it would be to continue to buy from Scotland. None of this, if it came about, would be good for Scotland.

Mr Barosso seems to have put his two-pennorth into the independence debate in his answers to Andrew Marr. The thing I find most compelling about what he said is that as he's a politician, he will have been very clear in advance on what he should say about the question of Scottish Independence and the EU. From my perspective, I'm sure he will have taken that guidance before coming to the UK, and I'm of the view that what he said is very much the official position of the EU. I very much doubt that he said what he said off the top of his head.

I've noticed this price frenzy, usually in local auctions, several times. For reasons I don't understand the buyers, including on-line seem to take leave of their senses. Remember that stack of 1000 or so Victorian 1886(?) farthings that went a while ago from a provincial auction room, for an astronomic sum (was it £50,000 or so) and would take decades to sell? There's no way those three crowns were worth the prices bid, especially after commisssion. As for the pennies etc. the prices were way beyond anything sensible (about £125-£150 each) - I'm guessing that bidding fever takes some people over. The only lot I was interested in was the part 1937 set, which went for pretty much its book price of £3600, or £4400 with commission etc. To add a half sovereign would be another £500-£600, taking it up to £5000+, which is pretty much the going rate, although prices don't seem to have taken account of the drop in the gold price. Having said this, I did recently pick up a 1734 halfcrown for sensible money in an auction and I got my 1934 crown for £1900 plus commission, which was an absolute bargain. I guess it pays to keep an eye on things and pounce when it's really worthwhile.

Dave,I agree that England doesn't want to Scotland to go, but I'm not at all sure that view is based on economics, more a genuine affection for Scotland. You say that you pay more taxes but that isn't accepted by the IFS which in 2012 concluded that Scotland receives about £200 more per head of population than the people in England do. To quote from their report, which I would trust far more than anything a politician says: 'Whilst uncertainty over how to allocate spending in some areas like defence might change the magnitude of the difference, it is not big enough to affect the broad conclusion that spending per head is substantially higher in Scotland.' If you then add in the SNPs uncosted social spending promises, plus the costs of achieving independence and I'm not convinced of the financial argument. I think you're listening to Tory Waffle Dave. Have a readhttp://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/breaking-news-9-3-is-a-smaller-number-than-9-9-indyref/ You may also try this for a read http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/new-report-scots-paying-more-tax-than-rest-of-uk.20777183 Not Tory waffle, nor SNP drivel either - just plain old factual stuff from the Institute of Fiscal Studies. I'll take their opinion over politicians any day.

Dave, I agree that England doesn't want to Scotland to go, but I'm not at all sure that view is based on economics, more a genuine affection for Scotland. You say that you pay more taxes but that isn't accepted by the IFS which in 2012 concluded that Scotland receives about £200 more per head of population than the people in England do. To quote from their report, which I would trust far more than anything a politician says: 'Whilst uncertainty over how to allocate spending in some areas like defence might change the magnitude of the difference, it is not big enough to affect the broad conclusion that spending per head is substantially higher in Scotland.' If you then add in the SNPs uncosted social spending promises, plus the costs of achieving independence and I'm not convinced of the financial argument.

As far as I am concerned, its a matter for the Scots, even though it has implications for the rest of us. Because of those implications, my view is that the Rump-UK government should play hardball with Scotland once independent. For instance I don't want the Bank of England to be the lender of last resort, nor do I want a currency union. As far as I am concerned Scotland can use the pound if it chooses, but the UK government should give it no say in fiscal/monetary policy. If the SNP reneges on its portion of the UK debt as a result then fiscal policy changes should take place in England to ensure that the UK is divested of liability for Scottish assets. For instance, the bank guarantee scheme and losses of RBS and HBOS should become Scotland's to manage not England's. Similarly if the Rump-UK taxpayer has to pay the enormous costs of relocation of the submarine fleet from Faslane, a cost forced upon us by Scotland, then any contracts for Scottish companies should be withdawn, presumably to Devonport or Portsmouth. In other words, if the Scots want independence that's fine, but we don't owe them anything either - we act in our own interests, and not theirs. And if that brings difficulties for Scotland well so be it. Divorce is very messy and leaves bitterness, something that those who support independence don't seem to factor into their considerations. For all I know there may well be a major backlash against the Scots from large portions of the public who don't take too kindly to being given the biggest 'two fingers' in history. That backlash may become worse if as I suspect the SNP use every negative issue arising in Scotland post-independence, as an excuse to blame the UK government for. The law of unintended consequences will likely come into play and it won't be pretty. The idea that we'll all be happily living in perfect harmony, with everything all fluffy and lovely and nice is in my view laughable.

Did anyone who attended get a look at the 1700 and 1734 crowns and/or the gold 1937 part proof set? If so, any advice?

One of my first coins was a 1866 Jersey 1/13 shilling. I got it in GVF condition out of change in 1966 when I worked the till at J Lyons and Co Ltd. It was absolutely black with little wear and I was fascinated to find this nice condition 100 year old coin in change. I've still got it, but I've never been tempted to collect the series.

No, "retoning" is the standard jargon. It is dealer-speak for "you can still see it was once cleaned so it hasn't retoned back completely yet, but is an ongoing process..". But then, I haven't seen the particular coin you're talking about. From the photos it certainly is obvious that it has been cleaned.

Mary had a little lamb She tied it to a pylon 10,000 volts shot up its a*^e And turned its wool to nylon.

Declan, Keep at it. You'll soon have a date run of sovereigns for your trouble. When I gave up, I bought tools for repairing my car. It's given me a first class tool kit and saved me a shed load of money on car maintenance and repair over the years, so a double bonus!

What's wrong with Excel? I've always found it very simple to use.

Interesting theory! Mind you, I was already interested and looking feverishly through bank bags in the late 60s when I discovered a GVF 1909 halfpenny, an ABU 1938 halfpenny, and an EF 1935 halfpenny. I have always wondered how they got into circulation. Although they are not common, its still possible to find early (1971) 1p and 2p pieces in change in EF-UNC condition. I found several when I was looking at the portcullis designs of the 1p coins last year. Those coins would now be 42 years old, so turn the clock back to 1967 say, and that means there's a good chance of finding a EF-UNC penny or halfpenny going back to 1925. OK, 1909 is pushing it, but I can see why some nice condition coins could have been found. That's easy to explain : millions of early decimals were set aside in speculation that as the first year(s) they would someday be worth a premium; over time, as that hope has died, people would naturally offload their useless coppers into circulation. Oh I'd agree about 1971 coins. They were the commonest of the older EF-UNC coins I found, but there were still quite a number of slightly later dates, including the early 1980s. I guess some might come from coin jars being emptied out, but I still found it not so unusual to find top condition coins in change back in the £sd era.

Seems to me that you vote UKIP if you want weirdos or nutjobs in power, with sincere apologies to any coinies on here who are members of UKIP.

Yes, my father-in-law, who isn't a coin collector bought a platinum entente cordiale coin for about £2500.back in 2004. He also bought a whole load of gold sets and sovereign sets over a 3 year period, all of which he very very generously donated to my collection. I still have them, albeit stored in the bank. As far as numbers go, all I can say is that mine is number 205, so they must have sold (or perhaps only struck) at least this many.

Interesting theory! Mind you, I was already interested and looking feverishly through bank bags in the late 60s when I discovered a GVF 1909 halfpenny, an ABU 1938 halfpenny, and an EF 1935 halfpenny. I have always wondered how they got into circulation. Although they are not common, its still possible to find early (1971) 1p and 2p pieces in change in EF-UNC condition. I found several when I was looking at the portcullis designs of the 1p coins last year. Those coins would now be 42 years old, so turn the clock back to 1967 say, and that means there's a good chance of finding a EF-UNC penny or halfpenny going back to 1925. OK, 1909 is pushing it, but I can see why some nice condition coins could have been found.

A friend of mine used to live downstairs from Ian Gillan's auntie. The said Gillan came down once to tell him to turn the music down... My only claim is that my wife used to teach the niece of the drummer with the Beach Boys.

The 'before and after' examples page on his website doesn't seem to be working at the moment, but from memory he did some remarkable work on coins that would be regarded as only good for the melting pot. Some of them were gouged, holed, solder damaged, water damaged etc. and they came out looking really good. I'd agree with Bob that you wouldn't want to let him work on a really top quality coin, but some of the ones he has restored look fabulous. I'm tempted to use him to repair a 1725 WCC shilling that I have in GVF condition, but which has a loop on the edge. I'm quite sure the milling would be perfect and the toning just right once it came back.

I don't mind referenda on any subject but I would like that everybody who intends to vote take an exam on the subject first just to make sure they know what they're talking about. Could be some surprises there...And whilst talking about unelected bodies, can I have a vote on who becomes our next head of state? You mean you aren't looking forward to seeing Charles III coinage? Oh, he won't be a Charles - they always change their name! (At least, George VI and Edward VII did, I'm not sure about George V - but who was? ). My bet is that Charlie-boy will be Fred the First, or possibly Camillum the First. Why not Wayne or Sean or Dean? That would do it for me.

I don't mind referenda on any subject but I would like that everybody who intends to vote take an exam on the subject first just to make sure they know what they're talking about. Could be some surprises there...And whilst talking about unelected bodies, can I have a vote on who becomes our next head of state? You mean you aren't looking forward to seeing Charles III coinage?

So mine, which is in around EF condition, but only shows a small bulge on the middle bar of the '3' plus metal at the bottom of the top curve was probably a late strike where wear was slowly degrading the details of the overdate?

This may be a silly question, but are we absolutely certain that these are actually the result of an overdate and not simply the result of slight die damage that the mint simply ran with for a while? Are there records from RM that document this particular re-cut?

Just a "This Album is Empty" dead link It wasn't yesterday.

Audit report I'm not sure what point this report is making. It's not, as I read it, concerned with the EU general budget, but is simply the 1.6 billion Euro budget of a number of EU agencies. That is just 1.2% of the total budget, which is a long way from the EU total budget, which includes at least £4billion contributed by the UK. For me the issue is what do we get for our £4 billion and why can't the EU apparently get its budget signed off. Why do we get no say in who the EU rulers are, nor what the Commission decides to impose on us? For me we've come a huge way from the original intention of the EU when it was literally a Common Market. Nowadays its heading inexorably towards becoming a superstate, and that isn't something I want to be part of, mainly because it's approach is wholly anti-competitive and that will ultimately make us unable to pay our way in the world. I want control of our own finances, laws etc. and I don't want that placed in the hands of people who will not be acting in our best interests but in their own, or at best the best interests of the rest of the members. I thank god we never joined the Euro and hopefully never will!

Basically, some sulpher compounds react with the surface on a copper or bronze coin to produce copper sulphide, which is black. In a thin enough layer, with the underlying copper showing through it will give a nice deep tone. My bet would be that those early copper coins that show a really black tone have had long term exposure to sulpher in the atmosphere, caused by burning coal in power stations etc.