Sword

Building a snowman has not been possible in my part of the country for almost a decade now The real test is if people still want to buy them in 5 or more years after issue. Time will tell.

Yes, 100% 5* is too obvious. It's more dangerous when an Ok product's rating has been improved from say 3.5 stars to 4.5 stars over a longer period of time.

Obviously, the modern images such as those from Disney are licensed. I am just not convinced that copying "an element" of a previous coin's design without permission is definitely "illegal" if the coin is old enough and there is no attempt to deceive. It's even more arguable when the image is very similar (or "inspired") and not absolutely identical to the real thing. There are so many unofficial reproduction coins / coin-like objects around (done by private companies rather than countries) that feature large elements of official previous designs. But I am sure someone on the forum would be able to give a definitive answer.

I don't think there is anything wrong with collectors buying, investing in and enjoying the Niue trade dollars. We buy most things on visual appeal and buy things we like. However, I do think it is wrong (or at least very bad taste) for countries wanting to make money by: 1) Copying or cloning other nations' designs 2) Making commemorative coins on events / ideas that have little or no relevance to them as they would appear very insincere for doing so. Niue Island is particularly bad in my view. They make coins almost exclusively for collectors (and use New Zealand coins in everyday transactions). They have made coins featuring Mickey Mouse, Snoppy, Pokemon, Bambi, Darth Vader etc. i.e. things that have no relevance to them. The Royal Mint has sank rather low in recent years with things like the Graffalo, but they at least have British connections. One might get some amusement from the Niue offerings: https://www.govmint.com/world-coins/other-world-coins/niue-coins E.g. These cheap attempts to make money is fine. But copying other nations' designs to make money is not. Cashing in on other nations' heritage, culture, tragic events is also poor. For example, many might argue that Niue Island making SEVEN different 2011 one dollar coins for Diana just solely greed. Back to the Niue trade dollars. Yes, the website does state they are "a lasting tribute to a currency born out of commerce and trade". Then it also go on to say that the " Collection consists of five new coin designs celebrating the infamous currency of the Orient". With Niue's track record, the real purpose is obvious.

I don't think it is particularly relevant which mint made these pieces. Niue is an independent country and has control over its own coinage (with the exception of the Queen's portrait). The East India Company Website does not mention the mint used and there is no Royal Mint Logo anywhere on the box. The other websites are also very quiet on this point. Does it say the the Royal Mint in the COA? I understand that the New Zealand Mint generally make coins for Niue Island.

Yes, things were very different in the reign of George III. UK even had the slave trade and countermarking coins was trivial in comparison. The world has hopefully moved on since.

Strictly, a restrike is a coin made from original dies at a later year. In this particular case, the word "restrike" has never been used on the coins' website (as far as I can see) and has only been used unofficially by private collectors on e.g. Youtube clips. Niue Island has nothing to do with the original trade dollars. Its designs for the "US" and "British" trade dollars are at least not identical to the real things and were "inspired" by the originals. But the Chinese dragon is just an exact clone of the original design as presumably because Imperial China is not around to complain. Collectors buying the coins of course don't have to care and they can be good investments if there is a strong market for them. Buy what one likes and why be troubled by other people's concerns. But it could be the Imperial German eagle, or the Russian double headed eagle being copied by some third country / territory next. I just think that it would be nice if there is greater respect for other nations' culture and heritage.

Just "China". And certainly not to the Niue Island.

I really like the look of the coin myself. But I just don't think it is morally right to pinch another nation's iconic design like that. Imagine some country suddenly using an exact copy of Una and the lion or worse still, our St George and dragon. That Chinese dragon really belongs to China!

I think that's what VickySilver is saying.

I don't think there is anything wrong for using external experts as consultants. If I remember correctly, the old cgs website claimed they have also used external experts on occasions to confirm authenticity to justify why there are no refunds in cases of forgery.

The Gold version is at least VAT free and the price (including p and p) is just about £72 or 7% over bullion. But the premium of the silver version is well over 100% and it's too much for a bullion product IMO.

They have just reused the 2015 one pound design to save a bit of effort. Personally, I just don't like this design as the bodies of the lion and unicorn have to be tiny to hide behind the shield.

Because it will never be worth more than bullion when you resell it ...

Most of his buyers are probably not aware of the 2019 reissue of Kew Garden 50p. To be fair to him, he has given the date as 2019 in the description (under item specifics). Not mentioning the date in the title or that this is a " 50 years of the 50p " reissue is not ultra scrupulous. Can't understand how he can claim 100% feedback on over 4000 transactions whe his feedback rating is only 37.

I wonder if a fingerprint is more of a case of (extreme) uneven toning rather than a surface mark. A BU silver coin with one fingerprint has reduced eye appeal. However, a silver coin picking up say 50 finger prints on both sides prior to being saved from circulation could develop into really nice toning after 50 years.

Interestingly, Westminster is offering a BU version in non official packaging for £6.98. Hence, the Royal Mint must be offering non-packaged coins to them and not to the public at a much lower price. https://www.westminstercollection.com/p-488K/2019-UK-Stephen-Hawking-CERTIFIED-BU-50p.aspx?sn=v

Stunning architecture in the City of Arts and Sciences in Valencia.

In real life, many of us don't like arguments and a discussion on Brexit with someone "on the dark other side" probably won't be more than an exchange of a few mild sentences. Then you would agree to disagree. Only with friends of the same side would you talk about it longer. Strangely, things are different on a forum. Can I suggest we move this tread to Members Only? Let's not put off new members.

That's of course just a trivial issue and can be hidden under some great red bus.

Mike, I should have worded my post differently. But by saying the it was an attempt by the "hard left" to paint all the Brexiteers... , the thought which came to mind was that not everyone in the "hard left" have been doing that. If I am a member of the hard left (which I assume include Corbyn and his pals), I would be offended to read that. (I myself am definitely not hard left!!). To be honest, I haven't noticed, which probably sounds a bit naive. I guess I just don't want to chat with people with such extreme views.

True democracy is when people are allowed to make informed choices. Imagine asking people to choose between a pile of sealed envelopes Politician A is holding and another pile of sealed envelopes Politician B is holding. ( OK, it was not exactly like that but there is some truth in this analogy). Are people not allowed to change their minds after a few of the envelopes have been opened? Is that undemocratic? Was it real democracy in the first place? Does the population today really prefer no deal Brexit or soft Brexit or Staying in? No one knows. Leave can mean different things to different people. Some voted for Brexit believing that they will get advantages of both worlds and believed we will be definitely better off. Might be enough of them have already changed their minds. A second referendum is not less undemocratic than the first as people are now better informed. The situation now is sufficiently different than the projections made in 2016.

I honestly thought I had done a debxite and can leave this tread in peace. But I have to say this. If you think Chris is somehow guilty of some generalisation and stereotyping, aren't you also a little guilty of the same by your post above? I was really annoyed when the first referendum was called. I knew almost straight away the issues were so numerous and so complicated and I wouldn't be able to make an informed decision. The arguments and informaion you get in the media for Leave (from Bojo and others) and Remain (Project Fear) were obviously biased in the extreme, very incomplete and of questionable reliability. But no one had the time to do years of research and even then that would not be enough. I voted Remain for a simple reason. Leave will give us a decade of pain as a certainty. Nobody knows if we would be better of in say 30 years time. So why take the big punishment without certain gain? Even if Leave can be theoretically better in the long run, will we have the right type of politicans to realise its potential? People like BoJo and the "back stabbing" Mr Gove? I think not. You can of course argue that I am a simpleton and the average person is capable of making a more informed choice. But I will say this: there are no true expert when it comes to Brexit. For example, how many MPs or cabinet ministers foresaw that the Irish boarder would be such a big headache? Brexit is something unprecedented and people will have to find things out as the negotiations progress. Then again, I think I am probably not a simpleton and have been very fortunate to have received a privileged education (on a full grant and hence at the expense of the state). Hence I think it was wrong to hold that referendum as so many were not able to make fully informed choices. Some voted with their hearts, some with their guts and some on misconceptions or bad propaganda. This long trainsition period is bringing out the worse in everyone. People become suspicious and distrustful of others (prehaps even their friends) for not sharing their views. The division in the country might not heal in this generation. I think Cameron called the referendum to unite the Conservatives but it has only ended up dividing the nation deeply. Now I will make my debxite or debate exit. (At least for as long as I can resist)