Geoff T

Back in the 1960s, Harold Wilson (Labour Prime Minister 1964-1970 for you youngsters) refused to commit British troops to support what he saw was America's war in Vietnam. Alas that his latter-day successor can't learn the lessons of history. Good guys/bad guys culture appears to be ingrained in the American psyche. Whether the bad guys are indians, Japanese, commies, Al-Quaeda or aliens, the big screen Independence Day scenario is the same. Oh yes, and the Americans are always the good guys, even if it means adopting the attitude that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or if the same friend by default is an abuser of human rights on a grand scale. But Iraq isn't cowboys and indians, and George W. Bush certainly isn't John Wayne. And it's frightening that his propaganda machine has managed to convince huge numbers of people that there was a direct link between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.

What's interesting is whether, if he had reigned until his death in 1972, his niece who would have then succeeded him as the present queen would have chosen to face right on her coins (because he faced left), or would have faced left herself on the grounds that he ought to have faced right - which is what her father decided to do.

Madonna

He was seen to be a bit too pally with Hitler for a start. Those who knew him mentioned a certain lack of stability, even immaturity, and it was felt that he wasn't going to take the job seriously. Apparently as Prince of Wales he'd talked about opting out of the succession and after his accession he talked of "going Kinging" when he had to attend to matters of state. His father had despaired of him and was concerned that he had not settled down and married, and even expressed as wish that "David" as he was known to the family would have no children so that the succesion would pass to the Duke of York and his daughters -which is what happened. He was allegedly extremely fussy over the design of his coins, famously refusing to follow tradition and face to the right because he thought his left profile looked better. BTW - Monarchs are never HRH - they're HM. If she find out she might have you thrown in the Tower for lese majeste

The 1936 Maundy was distributed by Edward VIII but had the effigy of George V, as did all of our 1936 coins. The first Edward VIII Maundy would have been in 1937 - a fact always overlooked by producers of Edward VIII fantasy Maundy sets, which is what I think you're referring to here. Given that Maundy Thursday - the Thursday before Easter - falls in March or April, Maundy money is presumably struck the previous year in anticipation. They're always struck in silver, never gold. It's Maundy Thursday today, as it happens.

With hindsight it's pretty obvious that Baldwin's government were using the question of marrying Mrs. Simpson simply as an excuse when there were more serious reasons why they wanted him out of the way - but I don't think they were prepared to go as far as assassination!

Here's what the real thing looks like.

Chris is right. This is a modern retropattern by Golder - one of many he's produced. If there really were only 560 made, then it has some rarity value as a modern fantasy piece, but it's definitely not a pattern of 1936. It may have been based on a design approved for Canada in December 1936, as one of the last things Edward VIII did before his abdication was to approve the designs for new British coins, although coins for the dominions and colonies usually showed the King-Emperor crowned, not bare-headed. The standard work on Edward VIII coinage is Graham Dyer's The proposed coinage of King Edward VIII. The definitive obverse was by Humphrey Paget and there were a variety of proposed reverses by, inter alia, Kruger Gray, most of which were used with slight modification for George VI. Incidentally, the wren farthing reverse started out as a proposal for the Edward VIII silver threepence. Apparently the king wanted some more modern designs but in the end preferred the more traditional ones. Similarly, the Golden Hind on the later George VI/Elizabeth II halfpenny was designed as a a reverse for an Edward VIII half crown. BTW - person who wrote the description you quote is way off the mark if s/he thinks Edward VIII "died" in December 1936!

What's the connection between Haydn and Haggis? Mendelssohn perhaps, but we've already bypassed Scotland!

I recently got both the 1817 half crowns in EF for £88. See what I mean about bargains on eBay

Haydn

Edinburgh

I finally managed to get into wangled.com recently. They don't have a lot of coins as yet, but then it's early days. My experience of auction sites is that they have their good and bad points. I use them less these days, but still browse them because every so often a genuine bargain comes up.

Baba

This sounds like a medal. Wurzbach was a German medal collector who published a catalogue of his own collection in 1943, and this could be a medal struck in commemoration of him. The catalogue is W.R.v. Wurzbach-Tannenberg, Katalog meiner Samm[l]ung von Medaillen, Plaketten und Jetons. 2 Bande. Leipzig 1943, Nachdruck. (Catalogue of my collection of medals, medallions and tokens. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1943) The above reference is to a later reprint (Nachdruck). Hope this helps.

Christophe. That got you puzzled didn't it, but then how many French 'cellists do you know?

Last weekend I was passing a local jewellers and saw they had some loose sovereigns in the window. I went in and asked for a closer look and, to cut a long story short, walked out with a near UNC 1874 sovereign for only £70. Spink gives £225 for an UNC. I'd say it was my best buy to date, although I nearly didn't buy it (largely because I'd bought a 1908 Sydney Mint sovereign the weekend before). Addictive these coin thingies.

...although it goes without saying that a coin may never have seen real circulation because it was designed essentially as a commemorative - the George V wreath crowns for example - but any damage to it would compromise its claim to be UNC.

Actually, I wasn't setting out to provide answers, just to put across some points of view. I really don't have any definitive answers in this instance, but I hope that what I did say was of some use. However, I do think it's important to distinguish between fakes which are struck deliberately for collectors and current forgeries which are intended to enter circulation and be passed off as the real thing. The latter isn't just dishonest, it's criminal. (For publicity shots, see my agent.)

...and "is" has an "s" in it Master Oli. Pots, kettles...

Not with my no.2 crop they wouldn't!

The question of fakes came up in Coin News recently. There are some people - like Gary Phelps - who will make pseudo-copies of rare coins like the 1933 penny for those who want a complete run and couldn't possibly acquire the real thing. Such people make no bones about their products not intending to deceive. I would say that a fake is a such a coin, whereas one which was made with the intention of being passed off as the real thing is a forgery. Forgeries of coins currently in curculation are simply illegal. Look at all the forged £1s about at the moment. Forgeries which once came into that category but which are now part of history are, I think, interesting in their own right. I know that in the USA, as Chris says, coins like this, along with errors and brockages, are more sought after, but my theory is that this is probably compensation for not having the historical breadth of national coins to collect from. As for pricing I really don't know. Some acknowledged forgeries, such as spade guineas, do come up for sale from time to time, so it might be worth checking out what they fetch. I don't think we should write off forged coins entirely. They exemplify a practice which has been going on for centuries and as such form a sub-tradition within numismatic history.

So I'm not the oldest after all My golden jubilee isn't till next year

Actually their mothers were sisters, so that makes them blood first cousins. You're half right about the relationship by marriage though - Nicholas's wife was also George V's first cousin, so they were cousins by marriage as well. Blame Queen Victoria (and Christian IX of Denmark).

Bearing in mind the date, are you sure it wasn't someone trying to wind you up? Are we sure it's not you trying to wind us up?