Geoff T

Is that the one you showed me? Yes, that's right. It's now safely locked away at home again.

Assam or Darjeeling and the occasional Earl Grey. No sugar ever and no milk if it's my favourite single estate Earl Grey. Strong black coffee about once a day, no sugar and NEVER instant. Instant coffee is banned from my house.

Is that the Pistrucci one, and if so what metal is it? I'll have a think about my list. Several of them I know will be medals, the rest half crowns and a place for an EF+ 1874 sovereign (alas, not the shieldback).

No, it was 1971. They remained legal tender until the end of August that year as we had a changeover period after D-day on 15 February. You could still use old pennies as long as they were in multiples which added up to a decimal amount, like six for two and a half new pence.

We had prefects at grammar school of course, but I was far too rebellious to be chosen as one. The Head Boy was simply bigger than everyone else and the Head Girl was I suspect the only girl to be guaranteed morally whiter than white. (Yes, we went co-ed in my 5th form.)

Well, they have to be done! I've already pmed Chris and offered what help I can in halfcrowns, so double florins would seem a likely progression. And I am rather partial to them...all of them

Sylvester Clue - "perfecto" means finished, over, done (used here in an ablative absolute construction) and there isn't an Latin word for Inverness

PS - here's a well known (sacred?!) text (which I set in the style of Byrd and passed off as a 16th century motet to some poor music students). Virgines viginti quatuor descenderunt de Caledonia. Bello ergo perfecto, sic erunt nullae. Testes Patri et Filio. Amen

Latin, like most languages, is capable of being pronounced in a variety of ways depending on context. When I was at school I was taught that all Latin consonants are hard in classical Latin, which would give vi-ginti with G as in ginnel. In the middle ages, when Latin became principally an ecclesiastical language, it was subject to all sorts of variation depending on the country in which it was used and became somewhat debased and colloquialised, hence the term "vulgar Latin" which gives us "Vulgate" for the accepted Latin text of the Bible used in the middle ages. The Germanic countries tended to keep the hard consonants, and still do. Listen to a German choir sing a mass setting, for instance, and you can hear things like "agnus Dei" pronounced like "Agnes Dei" or "qui tollis" as "qvi tollis". Languages in the Romance tradition - e.g. the ones rooted in Latin like Italian and French - soften the consonants. It's the Italianate Latin which became widespread in the 19th century and tends to be used by English speakers and singers today - hence "ar-nyus Dei" or "qwi tollis". As for your quote from Elizabeth I (surely quoting a biblical source here), it's now thought that in 16th century England Latin was pronounced as it it were English, so that e.g. "Gloria in excelsis Deo" would sound more like "Gloria in eckselsis Dee-o" than the commonly heard "Gloria in ex-chelsis Dayo". So you see, how you pronounce "viginti" is an open question. It depends who, and where you are and the context in which you're pronouncing it. Hope this helps!

Trains are still going into St. Pancras, but into the new platforms. It's only the front part of the station that's inaccessible. King's Cross is still a mess though. You need search party to find the tube entrance.

This says DRACHMEE, so definitely Greek.

I've been comparing the picture with the real thing which I have in EF+ and I see no real reason to doubt its authenticity. You need to bear in mind that 1889 was the highest mintage of all the Victoria half crowns (4,811,954) and so it stands to reason that there are likely to be more of them around in high grades than with less common years. As for the reverse looking flat, this is a fairly low relief to begin with. There is a bit of wear on the lower part of the obverse on the Queen's garter sash, but Joseph Boehm's initials look pretty clear. If anything, it looks as if it might have been slightly polished at some stage. For a genuine 1889 half crown in EF the going rate is around £50.

But haven't you heard - nothing is the latest must-have accessory among the chattering classes. It's already proved a wow with thousands of Japanese schoolgirls

...although I have picked up that the Maklouf retropattern Edward VIII florin is something of a rarity, assuming you like that sort of thing. Apparently far fewer were struck than is generally reported, possibly less than 1,000. I still think they're hideous things which make him look like JFK.

His big thing is Edward VIII memorabilia, although I don't know if he as any genuine British coins. He certainly plugs the retropatterns.

They're all highly educated music librarians, so they wouldn't dream of murdering the language like that

I did know Richard was American, but it's not the Americanisation of the literature which bothers me. Literate Americans know what punctuation is for and don't go putting comma splices and greengrocers' apostrophes everywhere. If I were the editor those things would never get as far as the proof stage. The people who write for me get shot at dawn every day for week if they murder the language like that.

Dear me, an area reserved for select members to discuss Rotographic and we're off-topic already

I see no overdate either, and nor do I see any mention of one in standard reference books. As for the price, I'm convinced it's an unretracted typo and the seller actually meant to put £9.99 (and even that's pushing it for a coin in that condition).

I feel that, however many illustrations you go for in the end, it's important to caption them so that it's clear which captions relate to which pictures. At the moment there are instances of captions referring to illustrations over on another page, which is confusing, Similarly, the placing of the little snippets of information within boxes appears at the moment to be fairly arbitrary. It would make more sense to place the more general ones (like the two on p.4 of the 2004 edition) in a decent glossary, which is something the book currently lacks. I'm in favour of keeping the information on rare patterns and proofs, although maybe not necessarily in the manner they appear at the moment. It's useful to have this information in a convenient reference tool because it's not always readily available elsewhere in such a portable form. What I wouldn't miss if it were to be omitted is the stuff about Edward VIII retropatterns. I also think the layout by denomination rather than by reign as in Spink is something which must be retained. Incidentally, the book starts with 1820, not 1821.

1797 is the year the large "cartwheel" copper pennies and twopences were introduced, so it's regarded as a watershed in the history of the penny.

Dein Madchen (oder richtig Maedchen) - German diminutives are always neuter

I have to say I disagree with this sentiment fundamentally. As someone who has actually published and who is constantly involved in facilitating access to reference sources, I can't stress too highly the need to bear in mind the need to remain objective. In short, you have a duty to put your personal preferences and prejudices behind you and provide the information which people require. Decimal coins have been with us now for 36 years. They are part of our numismatic tradition and as such deserve a place in any reference work. I can accept that the collectable value of many of our decimal coins may be low, but so is that of any standard coin when its comparatively new and in circulation. Telling people that, no, their worn 1971 pennies aren't worth a fortune is just as important in a reference work as telling them that their BU 1905 half crown is. We also need a decimal section to give valuations for all those coins which don't normally circulate, such as proofs, or to point out any varieties. Finally, we have to bear in mind that any up to date reference work will eventually become a historical document and thereby take on a new role for the researchers of the future who will be keen to look at the pricing of coins from a retrospective point of view. I admire the enthusiam of the younger generation in the forum, but believe me, preparing anything for publication isn't something you can just rush into with your eyes shut. There are lots of issues which need to be addressed - remember the old adage about 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. (BTW - I do hope the title will gain its rightful apostrophe and become Collectors' Coins )

I don't know which is the worst thing about The Phoenix - the OTT prices, the fact that it's jam-packed with things like Samoan Princess Di memorial crowns or its complete disregard for the basics of English grammar and punctuation. I got the latest edition yesterday and it was in the bin before bedtime. (On balance, I think it's its illiterate English which really makes me weep).

Chris, you're absolutely right when you say the prices in CC need updating. Most of them are markedly too low, which means that CC isn't always as helpful as it should be if you take it along to a fair. It's also extremely frustrating that it starts with George IV, which means you miss the first four post-recoinage years. I'd be grateful for it to be backdated at least to 1816, even if that meant a small overlap with a separate George III volume. Another thing I find frustrating is that CC doesn't cover gold. Would you consider expanding it so that it did? I too don't want to cart around a very heavy Spink, most of which is irrelevant to my preferences anyway. Another point - I've freelanced as a professionally journalist (albeit in music) for nearly 25 years and I currently edit my own professional journal, so could I be of any use there?