Martinminerva

So sorry again...

Thanks for your understanding, Mike. Indeed, I have seen many, many other heads ups over the years on here that no-one has ever been reprimanded for which is why I didn't give it a second thought. I believe @secret santa might have clearance to remove things? Many years ago he kindly changed my user name for me...

I am most terribly sorry! I did not know that convention. Unfortunately, it won't let me remove the post now. If any member has moderator status or authorisation, indeed please remove it. Mea culpa - and I won't ever do it again. 😩

I am pretty certain this really is one though: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1911-King-George-V-Bronze-Penny/193915563743?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160727114228%26meid%3D0b4ae74e5165491189eda494b13bd6f6%26pid%3D100290%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D193915563743%26itm%3D193915563743%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2060778&_trksid=p2060778.c100290.m3507 And in very nice condition too, though appears to have been rather badly cleaned? Others have spotted it I guess by the bids already in, and wouldn't be at all surprised to see it go well into three figures...

That is brilliant, Ian. Freeman to Libertus. Genius!

The best one of these cod-Latin things I know about is a graffito (oh, God, not another thread about singulars and plurals!) scratched into a park bench in Oxford : Ore stabit fortis arare placet ore stat which actually is sort of genuine translatable Latin, though it means nonsense, but the clue is it's on a park bench!

Sorry to to labour the point, but just like whoever wrote thedailyedge.ie article has made you think they know Latin when they don't !! I think I perhaps do, on the other hand.. 😉 If you couldn't have referenda, then you couldn't have agenda, for they are both plural gerundives of obligation! Yet we patently do have the second, albeit used as a singular mass noun usually, to pluralise again as agendas by convention and common usage. I agree the first is pretentious and picky and myself will and do happily say referendums, for as was said above, all language is fluid and evolves over time always to become simpler and more efficient, but, trust me, it could exist and would certainly be second declension. Sorry, I think a Cambridge Classics degree and 29 years teaching Latin trumps whoever wrote "daily edge.ie" !!😝😝😝

I was at Cambridge (Churchill College) between 1988 and 1992. The name doesn't ring any immediate bells, but I did know a John Cox who taught at The Leys School, Cambridge. But guess you don't mean him? Indeed, let's get those jussive subjunctives out ! Really sad joke for Latin anoraks there... Seriously, though, I must go and do some marking now, but have had lots of grammatical fun today with you all! There does seem to be a proliferation of Classically minded people in the numismatic world - I wonder why that should be? Bye!

As a gerundive, referendum means "that thing which must be referred..." like AGENDUM I was talking about above. So you can pluralise it to mean the things that must be taken to the people. That is the gerundive of obligation, as it's called. And oh yes it is second declension whether gerund or gerundive. The gerund has no nominative, accusative ends in -um, genitive in -i, and dative and ablative in -o, just like "servus" or whatever you learnt. The gerundive, as an adjective, behaves like bonus, bona, bonum, masc fem and neuter and so is both second and first declension depending on whether you're talking about the masculine and neuter (2nd), or feminine (1st). Here endeth the Latin lesson ! 😄😄

Sorry, I think a Cambridge Classics degree and 29 years teaching Latin trumps whoever wrote "daily edge.ie" !!😝😝😝

I beg to differ again - referendum is both a gerund (which indeed doesn't have a plural and a gerundive which does, and they absolutely are second declension. A gerund is a verbal noun and a gerundive is a verbal adjective and both nouns and adjectives belong to declensions in Latin, and I assure you they absolutely are 2nd dec !

For anyone who wants a bit more Latin, we could add some third declension neuters. So, OPUS as in magnum (2nd dec.) opus (3rd dec.) - or Baldrick's famously lovely "magnificent octopus", and very infrequently seen in the singular of course has the ultra common plural OPERA. Means "deeds, actions, works" etc. But then we've got the pluralising a plural issue again. Puccini wrote several operas ! So, by common usage I guess we have to accept both operas and agendas. DRAMA on the other hand is another Greek neuter plural, singular DRAMON, but of course we don't use that, and accept dramas as a plural. Isn't language great fun?! 😜

Sorry - pedantic Classics teacher talking here... ALL those Latin words cited above are second declension, neuter, singulars ending in - um, so their plurals correctly do end in -a. Referenda, data, fora et cetera (yes, that is as well!) are all correct as plurals, albeit a bit pretentious I guess... Less pretentious are media, plural of medium, stadia for more than one stadium. I'll also throw into the mix criterion which is a Greek second declension neuter and pluralises of course CRITERIA. But many in the media (!) think that is its singular! I was just remote teaching my year 9 Latin class today and was teaching them neuter plurals by referencing all these sorts of words that we have taken straight from Latin! Here's a puzzle for you all then: one AGENDUM (a neuter gerundive!) means "a thing that has to be done", thus the plural AGENDA for a list of things for a meeting. But what do you say about the last ten lists of things to do for the last ten meetings?! How can you pluralise a plural?!!🤓😋

It is the DIE, not the individual struck coins that are altered/repaired/corrected before more coins are struck from them! No-one could possibly go about changing each and every coin of the tens of thousands struck by each die! Besides, any alteration to a coin would be incuse, not in relief. But dies are mirror images of course so an incuse detail on a die becomes a relief detail on a struck coin. Just like potato prints or play dough prints when we were kids!

The other so called vip lots in this sale are: 229 - crown, which I am prepared to accept as a vip, lot 231 - halfcrown, really don't think so as I say above, and lot 236 - farthing, which I have my doubts about too.

I'm not convinced that this is a vip set - doesn't look good enough. I also think two other so called 1953 vip proofs in the same sale are not. One, a 1953 halfcrown, is the standard, common 2+A pairing; I though all the vip proofs of this denomination were the super-rare 1+A pair. The only one that looks genuinely vip is the slabbed crown. If you search the dnw auction catalogue for March 2021 for vip proof, these will come up, and see what other members think... Do you agree?

Non-penny expert jumping on bandwagon... Just seen this washer on eBay: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1860-Pattern-Penny-Freeman-8B-B-b-Extremely-Rare/224354401060?hash=item343c907b24:g:37QAAOSw29xgK9~l I think not. I bet he saw the selling price of "The masked pennyman's" two genuine examples and has thought kerching... 🙂

Thought he might be!! Is he Badger, Robin or maybe Grandfather Clock? 😎

Yes, Mike, totally see where you are coming from! Any other members have ideas and theories to add to Mike's selective removal idea and my pseudo-pattern conjecture? Also, I wonder if Freeman's rarity of R15 is accurate - seems rarer than that? Wonder if Richard has records of numbers known as part of his rare pennies website? Perhaps there should be a forum competition for who can post a picture of the WORST but still positively identifiable F.14 😋😋

Thanks, Terry and Mike, for your feedback and picture research. I'll keep my eyes peeled, and maybe one will turn up eventually! But it is odd that given the proliferation of lower grade examples of the general date, one never seems to see an F.14 in such a state. There are other diagnostics that should be identifiable such as the missing sail, the exergue on the left being horizontal and the letters of PENNY being a bit further in from the linear circle, but for a good many years now I have been looking and seen pretty much zero! Maybe they weren't intended to circulate, as a sort of pattern, and only a few were made and which largely never saw use?? Bit like the 1860 beaded border pattern obverse - although there are several lower grade examples of those that clearly have circulated - two on eBay at this very moment! Is "Rarepennyman" on eBay a forum member?

Even fair would do me! But, yes, think I have only ever seen one in Fine or thereabouts, but double figures at the top end of the grade spectrum. Anyone fancy speculating a reason why - or have I just been looking in the wrong places?! Anyone care to post a picture of their lower grade one?

Can someone post a picture of it, please? I fancy a laugh!

Absolutely agree! Very few narrow date 79s in truly high grade, and likewise for open 3 1863s. I'd go further and even add 1864... All over the place in lower grade, but how many unc with lustre? In the old Cope and Rayner English Milled Coins, they had rarity estimates for different grades; maybe that should be the case amongst us penny-ists? But then of course we're talking about whether rarity is total extant or just nice ones! And that's always likely to be a moot point. I just try to get the best I can at the time and slowly improve grade if and when the chance comes along.

Absolutely, Mike, in the case of my 4 plus 3. In fact, in lower grade they are easy to spot as the sea wears flatter and obviously crosses the linear circle. Also, the date spacing is intermediate between the narrow and wide date versions of the common, later reverses for 1875.

Agreed - especially in lower grade. I have 4 ranging from good fine down to fair. And I have sold 3 other worse ones on eBay over the years... But I do agree that they are rare in high grade. Maybe that's more realistic for the 25 ish number if you only count EF and above! Don't really think they merit a page, Richard, or else you'd be listing loads of other varieties like open 3 1863s, narrow date 1879s etc which I suspect are a similar number both in lower and then higher grade...