Geoff T

It was advertised as being published on 8 October. Mine is on order directly from Spink and it hasn't arrived yet. Advance publication dates are usually an excercise in wishful thinking anyway.G

It might help if you posted the original term in the language you're translating from so that we can bring our corporate linguistic skills to bear on this on. Geoff

I think that's entirely a matter for the collector. Some of them do look very attractive and some don't. Many of them are not so much reproductions as fantasy strikings which say "this is what a..... might have looked like." (How true that is is often a matter of opinion. Think of that nasty Maklouf Edward VIII stuff.) Any decent reproducer will make it clear that what they offer is a reproduction and that they have no intention of deceiving you into thinking you're getting the real thing. They can fill a gap - quite literally - in date runs where an original is too rare to come your way. Some people would rather have a repro 1933 penny etc. than nothing. Personally I'm not one of them, but as long as it's all above board I see no harm in it. It's when there is an intention to deceive that you're talking fakes and forgeries - although even these can acquire an interest in their own right with the passage of time. My 1945 threepennorth

I've got one of these. They're very handsome in their own right, but don't pay more than about £15 for it in cu-ni. G

Even if you accept that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to overthrow Saddam Hussein (and I don't), the problem facing the allied powers who are still there is "what the hell are we here for now?" Saddam has gone, but Dubya, Tony et al don't even have a shred of an exit strategy. What is needed is for a peaceful solution to the problem of eradicating a crazed dictator motivated by a warped sense of religious values who presides over a country with an appalling record on human rights and to return his land back to democracy. Then, once we've sorted out Dubya and the USA, we can perhaps turn our attetion elsewhere

The new Spink was published on 8 October. It also has mintage figures, but they're confined to an appendix, whereas "Collectors' coins" has them in the body of the text where they're more useful. Geoff

Reading through the text I've spotted some typos in the Introduction. Para. 2 Penultimate line - "nations favourite" should be "nation's favourite". Para3. First line - comma after "title" Last line - the word "time" is missing between "in" and "to" Par.4 Line 6 - redundant comma after "you"(or alternatively add one after "reader" In "The new layout" Para.2 Line 2 - "non proof" should be hyphenated I don't think Edward VIII fills a gap between monarchs! He was monarch from 20 Jan-10 Dec 1936. I know what you mean here but the wording is misleading. I'd leave out the whole clause and have something like "The guide also covers the extremely rare coins and patterns of Edward VIII." How to use this price guide Para 1. Line 2 - "like all" should be "as with all" (otherwise you're saying that gold coins are like all previous editions). Last line - "labeled" is the American spelling. British English uses a double "l". Ditto when the word reappears in the next but one section. Mintage figures Comma splice in penultimate line. "They are just there..." reads better as a separate sentence, or replace the comma with a semi-colon. P.4 - last para. "referred" not "refered" "existence" not "existance" Grading Fine - apostrophe missing in "monarch's head" Very Fine - do you mean "but which has seen" in l.1? Bullion value "Silver coloured" should be hyphenated. I hope this is useful - no doubt your proof-reader will spot these as well. Geoff

Typo

Chris is right about the dates. The low relief obverse of the Edward VII means that even these are often hard to find in a decent condition. I'd put this one at Fine. The reverse is better, although the letter I in "honi" has gone as usual with this reverse when its seen a lot of circulation. It's always a plus if the whole of the garter motto is visible. Personally I think the price is too high for a 1910; I've seen plenty as good as this for less. G

My twopennorth - No, I don't think what you've said is in anyway libellous, but I do think that wanton subjectivity is out of place in a reference work. It looks...well, unprofessional (and I speak as someone who does write professionally). Remember that reference works stay around for a long time, and subjectivity always comes back to haunt you. I agree with Mint Mark. By all means mention the problems caused by the proliferation of commemoratives and the implications that has for any compiler of a works such as CC, but do so at a distance. I also agree that the market value of mint sets is more important - and realistic - than the issue price. You can pick these things up for peanuts very easily (like I did yesterday ) G

William is down as returning to the Junior dept. of the college where I work this year and I shall probably see him when I'm next there on a Saturday, which is 9 October. I'll let you know if there's any earlier news of him. I'm sure he's OK. He's just started secondary school so homework is probably hitting him big style. Geoff

I'd agree with Chris, and I think £62 is way too high. I got an 1818, which is less common, in at least as good condition earlier this year and I only paid £50. Incidentally, although the half crown was reintroduced as part of the recoinage of 1816, all those with the date 1816 were actually issued in 1817. The two real 1817s (bull head and small head) are pretty common as well. Geoff

The £2 coin is alive and kicking! The ones you are thinking of are the ones which were issued largely as commemoratives on and off from 1986, often in proof sets only. The circulating bi-metallic £2 has been with us since 1998, although some are dated 1997. In the short time they've been around they've carried a number of one-off commemorative reverses. G

Does nobody ever read my signature? G.

The reason why Wales is not represented is that Wales is not a kingdom but a principality. The incorporation of Ireland into the UK in 1801 created the UK as it existed until the partition of the country in 1922, but Wales, although part of the UK, was never a kingdom in its own right and therefore is not represented in the royal arms. The dragon is a modern invention, like the Welsh flag. The horse disappeared after the separation of Hanover from the British throne in 1837. Thanks, Chris, for pointing out that the "lions" are really leopards. Many people make that mistake. Geoff

Actually the 1836 half crown is by far the commonest of the reign, although good specimens don't go for peanuts. One to watch for is the 1836/5, although even that's not that uncommon compared to some overdates. Of the standard circulating half crowns, the much rarer 1837 in good condition is worth seeking out. Geoff

Yes, I'm back from my mini-tour of Europe's non-smoking capitals This "I had an Edward VIII 3d" seems to be taking on the status of an urban myth. It is true that several of the earlier Metcalfe/Kitchener design were released to test their viability in slot machines, but stories about former ownership appear to be proliferating like relics of the True Cross in the Middle Ages. I was told one only a few months ago by a coin dealer at an antiques fair. In the late 60s he got his first job as an 18-year old in a bank where, because he was interested in coins, his main task was to sort through the day's takings for pre-1947 silver. He told me he was aware of the rare 3d and knew of someone who would give him £2,000 for one (which wur a lotta money in them days). Apparently he did find one and did a deal whereby he settled £1,700 and the buyer's unused sports car, and gave his boss £1,000. Well, si non e vero, e molto ben trovato, as the Italians say. Geoff

Coins bearing the date 1967 were struck through to 1969 and the 1970 proof set was struck a couple of years after 1970 There's a masochistic streak in me which quite likes getting mad at the atrocious grammar, evident howlers and OTT prices in the Phoenix - then I bin it.

I bought it direct from the dealer at York Coin Fair last month. I do occasionally use eBay but find I'm using it less and less because I want the chance to see what I'm buying first. Geoff

...and note that the swimmer is a Merseysider attached to a Stockport club

I recently paid £33 for an 1823 half crown, second reverse, in about as good a condition as the one illustrated (but without the scratch). I considered this a fair price.

Happy birthday! Born on Hiroshima Day! Geoff

Yes! William IV obverse and before that the George IV bare head mark a complete change of attitude in design. All those Stuart and Georgian laureate heads which make the kings look like Roman emperors may be incredibly detailed, but for all that I tend to see a cold Roman statue. With George IV bare head and even more William IV I see a real person - someone with character and personality. I don't think they've ever been bettered. Don't knock De Saulles' Edward VII though. In its own way it's just as much a model of elegant simplicity; it's just that it's such a shallow relief it's difficult to find anything in a condition which does it justice.

These have been and gone in earlier issues this year. These lists are one of the main reasons I buy it (from W.H. Smith) but I can't say I read it from cover to cover. There's a whole section on banknotes which just makes my eyes glaze over.

Nice, but not half as nice as the 1826 proof £5