Sword

In the Brexit debate, I think it is inappropriate to talk about the views of the "left" or views of the "right". The fact is that the country was deeply split in the referendum and one can hardly say that Remain was the view of the "Left" or Leave was the view of the "Right". Just because the Cameron government campaigned for "Remain" did not make them a "Leftie" government for example. The pie chart showing the contribution of Income Tax and NICs to various areas should be familiar to every UK tax payers. We get the diagram every year on our Annual Tax Summaries. It comes from HM Revenue & Customs and is not "supplied by the left which is intended to mislead". It tells me that about 0.7% of the income tax and NIC I pay each year go towards the UK contribution to the EU budget. If you want actual figures, they are easily obtainable: In 2017 the UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £13.0 billion. The UK received £4.1 billion of public sector receipts from the EU, so the UK’s net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £8.9 billion. This is a large amount of money of course but Peckris was only suggesting that it is a small fraction of what we spend on other things. E.g. £264 billion on welfare in 2017. I already had my say about Brexit and so will be not be commenting further in this tread for a while.

I don't think she appreciates that your offer of £1 is literally a million times closer to the coin's true value than her asking price (of a million pounds).

This is currently being reported in BBC news: "Mr Tusk said Mr Cameron thought a referendum would not happen because of the coalition government with the Lib Dems. "[He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there's no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum," Mr Tusk said. "But then, surprisingly, he won and there was no coalition partner. So paradoxically David Cameron became the real victim of his own victory." Mr Tusk said he was "really amazed and even shocked" to learn from Mr Cameron that he decided to hold the referendum because of his own party." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46951942

He only offered £1 for the £1 coin and so not much risk there.

😀😀 But she wrote that "I AM OPEN TO OFFERS AS LONG AS IT WILL BUY MY HOUSE" ...

Has anyone seen this item she is offering? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ONE-OF-A-KIND-MAJOR-ROYAL-MINT-DIE-SHARD-STRIKE-ERROR-2017-12-SIDED-1-COIN/123577251129?hash=item1cc5c73539:g:kxAAAOSw11Bb3aql:rk:16:pf:0

No, a real sovereign would not have those initials. My opinion is that the initials could be "AG" (Ag) meaning it is silver. Alternatively, it could be the initials of the person who copied the design of a real sovereign for use in the "sovereign style" rings. If the ring is hallmarked gold, then the "coin" might have some gold content too.

Every four years, we have a general election. On each occasion, we are effectively asked if we are reasonably happy with the current government or do we think another party can do better. Each party tend to have one or two flagship policies which the public can evaluate. In 2016, we were given lots of reasons / opinions / speculations / trash / scaremongering for remaining and leaving but the issues surrounding Brexit are complex in the extreme. Frankly, even having a PhD in European Affairs coupled with years of research is not enough to enable someone to make an informed decision. Hence I think holding the 2016 referendum was a very flawed decision. Margaret Thatcher once quoted Clement Attlee that referendums are "a device of dictators and demagogues". As it is, there is probably no way out except holding a second referendum. And yes, I do see the extreme irony.

In my view, Cameron called the referendum mainly solely to unite his Conservative Party. The issue of EU has caused so much infighting for the Conservatives over the years which he wanted to end once and for all. He would never have called the referendum if he thought there is a significant chance of him losing. Then May actually thought she had what it takes to deliver a good Brexit. She didn't. But then again, I am not certain anyone does.

The government in 2016 overestimated its ability to negotiate Brexit.

I agree that a second referendum is not more legitimate the the first. But there is just no way out of the current mess. The MPs don't want May's deal and they don't want a no deal Brexit. They cannot unilaterally cancel Brexit. Hence asking the country again (and hoping for a different outcome) is the easy option out and unite the Parliament. Personally, I think it was a terrible idea even to have the first Brexit referendum. The vast majority of people (myself included) just couldn't get on top of the complex issues involved and no one could really foresee all the immense obstacles that would result from Brexit. For example, no one spoke about the backstop before the referendum but people only realised much later that it would be a great stumbling block. We had one piece of A4 paper from Remain and one from Leave through our letter boxes and some unconvincing speeches on TV. I for one couldn't make an informed decision from that material. I voted for Remain simply because I knew that the Brexit process would cause too much short and medium term pain and the benefits appear to be speculative. I didn't like the idea of taking a plunge into the unknown. Even if Brexit is a good idea in principle, I had serious doubts as to whether we have good and dedicated enough politicians to actually make it work. A second referendum is under normal circumstances an unacceptable option in the interest of democracy. But on this occasion, I think it is the least bad of the current options.

Not certain what May would say but if you ask Diane Abbott that question, her reply might be something like: "Ahh, about average?" "That wouldn't be AK47?" "Just let me tell you something else"

I just can't see how Parliament can get a majority view in anything except a second referendum. My prediction would be: 1) Endless debates 2) No consensus 3) Article 50 Delayed 4) Second Referendum 5) Remain wins this time 6) Decades of bitter arguments with Leave saying that they have been robbed. Frequent calls of a third referendum. 7) God help us!

Superb! Finger on date. Homer Simpson tried the same trick on a scratch and win ticket.

EF or near so would be my attempt.

In my view, "very high grade" simply imply that you need to grade the coin yourself. It is a very popular phrase because it means different things to different people and the seller cannot get into trouble for using it. For me, I might think that MS65 onward are very high grades for a Old Head florin. I haven't got an example yet but will only consider getting one that is UNC or very near UNC. Another might reasonably argue that the coin concerned, VF/GVF, is indeed a very high grade when compared to the large number of worn specimens around. I totally agree with Mike regarding the photos. Generally speaking, I think "very high grade" for Victorian coins usually mean it is less than EF.

I particularly like the clip of the Chinese burglars. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-46473801

Just out of interest, what are the PCGS grades?

Neil's forum name is NRP and he last logged in a fortnight ago. I think he still owns Colin Cooke. Colin Cooke's website has catalogues (with photos and realised prices) of the 10 "collections" they sold in the last few years. http://www.colincooke.com/collections/collections.html

Seriously though, Citizen makes eco drive watches which are powered by light. I changed the battery of my Rotary once at Timpsons at around £20 and they gave me a certificate so that all future battery changes will be done for free. (Obviously, it is not the place to go for expensive watches)

Ha, Ha! It's probably less accurate than the stories in the Daily Express. 😀 And £212.38 is a really expensive way of declaring insanity

I do like vintage watches. I was indeed tempted by this Longines Conquest Heritage. At the end, I decided that owning another nice watch is an extra bit of hassle I don't want. One need to get a watch winder to keep it running and it cost quite a bit to get it serviced every so many years. So I am sticking with one for now. The choice of a watch is of course a very personal thing and depends on what you want it to do. For me, I want it to tell the time and date, be water proof, looks good, have a decent movement, and not so obvious. I also prefer if the brand is not so well-known. Obviously, I am just being a bit old fashioned and many people nowadays like their watches to do a lot more and literally to double as a computer.

My current Ebel. I brought this classic wave slim version before they succumbed to fashion and started making oversized chunky watches. The bezel is gold and the waves of the bracelet are indented and so the gold plating does not wear.

I have been using lighthouse self adhesive 2x2s for a couple of years before moving to quadrums and never noticed any issues. I rather liked the way the coins were sealed in. Ian's question on how you store the coin trays is valid I think. There are different types of PVCs and the "unplastacized" ''safe vinyl''  - '28UN should be low risk enough if used with 2x2s. But I personally won't use any type of PVCs and would stick with mylar / PET. (You can now even get quadrums which prevent the coins inside from toning but they cost more than the standard ones.)