watchesandwhisky

I do have a small amount of BTC and ETH at a ratio of 60% btc, 40% ETH, I have put it away in my long term hold no matter what savings as its not cost me anything. 👍 
Thanks Pete! I currently have 6 months emergency funds in my cash ISA, If i was to lose my job at the royal mail (not out of the realms of possibilities!) then I could survive for at least 5/6 months with all bills and mortgage covered along with food ect. 
Hargreaves lansdown is the site I use, Others may be cheaper but I like them - I do have a small SIPP with 500 quid in it, but I decided the Lifetime ISA is better for me on my wages, I get the same tax relief as a SIPP in it and can pay into it for another decade, I can only withdraw in 20 years at 60 but I can withdraw 100% lump tax free unlike a SIPP. I think If I max out the LISA one year the SIPP will be useful. Im thinking it might be nice to be able to reduce hours worked at 60 until pension age, or at least have some options.  The LISA has a max annual contributions of 4k, So Maybe I should max this out each month and any surplus goes on funds in the S&S ISA.
My LISA has these funds
Fidelity Index UK
Fidelity Index World
Legal & General International Index Trust 
My Isa currently only has 
Legal & General UK 100 Index Trust 
Legal & General International Index Trust
I tried dabbling in individual stocks some time ago and It is not for me, Now going for "time in the market" rather than "time the market" 
Maybe the time is now to move 100% to the S&S ISA and forget the cash one..
And buy the odd Sov😁

Brilliant!! not a fan of alt coins for a few reasons but a win is a win 😁 For me Bitcoin is a long term hold, not life changing if it fails somehow but potentially life changing if it continues to succeed. So many people speculating on alt coins but not for me.

I wish I did a few weeks back when it was $19k .
But put 9k on top of my 15% airdropped Flare ..
But wrapped it and to date currently worth 18k 

get some bitcoin even if its only a couple of grands worth

It is all about your attitude to risk.
When inflation is higher than the interest rates on cash savings you are steadily eroding the value of your savings.
In an ISA any growth is free of income tax but what use is that when your bucket has a hole in it and your money is dripping out ?
Provided you are investing surplus cash and have a reserve for emergencies then what I would do ( this is my personal viewpoint and not financial advice ) is to feed a stocks & shares ISA using an online platform like Hargreaves Lansdown. You can follow some of their suggested investment portfolios or just keep it simple and put your money into a tracker like the FTSE 100. Look at the charts over 5 and 10 years and don't get overly focussed on weekly or monthly charts as picking peaks and troughs doesn't work.
Secondly, assuming you are a tax payer, consider opening up a SIPP also with HL if you wish.
You will get tax relief on your investments so the amount invested increases by 20% or more and again you have full control over your selection of funds.
Choose in both cases well known funds and not individual shares unless you wish to try this - I don't recommend from past experience.
UK Equities or trackers with all dividends reinvested and funds that have valuations of over £1 billion are possibly your safest bet.

The nice thing about most funds is the buy and sell prices are the same so should you choose to switch funds you are not paying a percentage in fees each time.
Trading on-line with HL gives you real time prices and monitoring of your portfolio daily.
Switching and buying / selling funds or percentages of funds takes a couple of clicks and it's done.
 
 

Personally I prefer to put more in S&S and PMs than cash.  I just use cash interest as stop off points on the way to either but I do keep a float in the S&S ISA 

Four words... Capital Gains Tax Exempt.

If the royal Mint are selling pre graded 70s in the US then that just reinforces the reasons I stopped buying from them. 
No wonder QC is so bad, in many cases I'm sure they know they are sending out junk and just hope those buying wont notice, I mean any proof looks amazing compared to pocket change...(if that's still a thing these days!) The average buyer is probably like my parents, Have the funds to buy and think its a good idea but have no real idea on what quality standards should be nor the best eyesight..
The Royal Mint is not stupid and I refuse to believe such a company does not know exactly what kind of grades the coins they are sending out are, and whilst they are not going to give every coin the scrutiny a grading house would (or should..) I bet most people here who buy graded coins could make a pretty accurate judgement very quickly.
Its not as if they are going to be having unskilled agency workers doing QC, and the chances of getting a PF70 delivered from a ungraded purchase has to reduce if they are allocating them to the US.
For me buying coins IS about the thrill of the hunt, Finding a rare coin, finding a undervalued gem, a under graded piece ect..  Buying a guaranteed 70 would diminish that, but I get it - grading is a costly and time consuming process and since a 69 these days is seen as hardly worth being in a NGC/PCGS holder its a right gamble. 
From an investment point of view, how are the prices of 70 graded coins holding up in the cost of living crisis?? I know investment grade watches have cooled of somewhat but I must admit I am behind the times with coins right now.

If the royal Mint are selling pre graded 70s in the US then that just reinforces the reasons I stopped buying from them. 
No wonder QC is so bad, in many cases I'm sure they know they are sending out junk and just hope those buying wont notice, I mean any proof looks amazing compared to pocket change...(if that's still a thing these days!) The average buyer is probably like my parents, Have the funds to buy and think its a good idea but have no real idea on what quality standards should be nor the best eyesight..
The Royal Mint is not stupid and I refuse to believe such a company does not know exactly what kind of grades the coins they are sending out are, and whilst they are not going to give every coin the scrutiny a grading house would (or should..) I bet most people here who buy graded coins could make a pretty accurate judgement very quickly.
Its not as if they are going to be having unskilled agency workers doing QC, and the chances of getting a PF70 delivered from a ungraded purchase has to reduce if they are allocating them to the US.
For me buying coins IS about the thrill of the hunt, Finding a rare coin, finding a undervalued gem, a under graded piece ect..  Buying a guaranteed 70 would diminish that, but I get it - grading is a costly and time consuming process and since a 69 these days is seen as hardly worth being in a NGC/PCGS holder its a right gamble. 
From an investment point of view, how are the prices of 70 graded coins holding up in the cost of living crisis?? I know investment grade watches have cooled of somewhat but I must admit I am behind the times with coins right now.

If the royal Mint are selling pre graded 70s in the US then that just reinforces the reasons I stopped buying from them. 
No wonder QC is so bad, in many cases I'm sure they know they are sending out junk and just hope those buying wont notice, I mean any proof looks amazing compared to pocket change...(if that's still a thing these days!) The average buyer is probably like my parents, Have the funds to buy and think its a good idea but have no real idea on what quality standards should be nor the best eyesight..
The Royal Mint is not stupid and I refuse to believe such a company does not know exactly what kind of grades the coins they are sending out are, and whilst they are not going to give every coin the scrutiny a grading house would (or should..) I bet most people here who buy graded coins could make a pretty accurate judgement very quickly.
Its not as if they are going to be having unskilled agency workers doing QC, and the chances of getting a PF70 delivered from a ungraded purchase has to reduce if they are allocating them to the US.
For me buying coins IS about the thrill of the hunt, Finding a rare coin, finding a undervalued gem, a under graded piece ect..  Buying a guaranteed 70 would diminish that, but I get it - grading is a costly and time consuming process and since a 69 these days is seen as hardly worth being in a NGC/PCGS holder its a right gamble. 
From an investment point of view, how are the prices of 70 graded coins holding up in the cost of living crisis?? I know investment grade watches have cooled of somewhat but I must admit I am behind the times with coins right now.

If the royal Mint are selling pre graded 70s in the US then that just reinforces the reasons I stopped buying from them. 
No wonder QC is so bad, in many cases I'm sure they know they are sending out junk and just hope those buying wont notice, I mean any proof looks amazing compared to pocket change...(if that's still a thing these days!) The average buyer is probably like my parents, Have the funds to buy and think its a good idea but have no real idea on what quality standards should be nor the best eyesight..
The Royal Mint is not stupid and I refuse to believe such a company does not know exactly what kind of grades the coins they are sending out are, and whilst they are not going to give every coin the scrutiny a grading house would (or should..) I bet most people here who buy graded coins could make a pretty accurate judgement very quickly.
Its not as if they are going to be having unskilled agency workers doing QC, and the chances of getting a PF70 delivered from a ungraded purchase has to reduce if they are allocating them to the US.
For me buying coins IS about the thrill of the hunt, Finding a rare coin, finding a undervalued gem, a under graded piece ect..  Buying a guaranteed 70 would diminish that, but I get it - grading is a costly and time consuming process and since a 69 these days is seen as hardly worth being in a NGC/PCGS holder its a right gamble. 
From an investment point of view, how are the prices of 70 graded coins holding up in the cost of living crisis?? I know investment grade watches have cooled of somewhat but I must admit I am behind the times with coins right now.

Yesterday TSF hit 20,000 forum members. Thank you to all of the forum members and especially to the Premium Members whose membership greatly helps us to grow the forum further. An extra special thank you to all Platinum group Premium Members.
We have a busy year ahead with lots of planned promotions to grow the forum even further  

Sold*

Sold*

Sold*

Sold*

The BU matte finish Sovereigns started from 2018.
Prior to that, they had BU Sovereigns, but the difference wasn’t always clear or consistent.
For example, the 2017 BU was petty much like a Proof; and the RM even issued incorrect COAs, which led to NGC and PCGS incorrectly labeling some of the early submitted BUs as Proofs.
Prior to 2017, the BUs were issued typically as SotD Sovereigns, but you’d have to closely compare a BU with a Bullion to really see the difference - it wasn’t immediately obvious like the matte BUs from 2018 onwards.

Decided to sell this coin, price is firm I'm afraid no reductions will be considered. 
SD postage included.
 

Decided to sell this coin, price is firm I'm afraid no reductions will be considered. 
SD postage included.
 

Decided to sell this coin, price is firm I'm afraid no reductions will be considered. 
SD postage included.
 

Decided to sell this coin, price is firm I'm afraid no reductions will be considered. 
SD postage included.
 

In March 2023 there were 870 new trade topics in this month alone, listed in the United Kingdom (Ungraded) trade section of the forum.

 

Looking to up your photography game by moving from a mobile phone to a 'real' camera?  Or do you already have a camera, but need a macro lens to take close-up photographs of your coins?
Let’s explain what a macro lens is and what to look for when choosing one for coin photography.  I will go into a lot of detail, but I am assuming that if you are thinking of buying a macro lens for a camera, you are OK with that.
Out of scope: I am not going to cover the type of macro lens that you clip onto a mobile phone, although many of the principles are the same.  I am also not going to cover adapter lenses that you fit to the front of normal lenses to make them focus closer.
What is a macro lens?
A macro lens is designed to focus on things very close; much closer than normal lenses can.  Macro lenses have the same ‘magnification’ as normal lenses, e.g. a 100mm macro lens will be the same amount of ‘zoomed in’ as a 100mm non-macro lens.  The difference is that the macro lens will be able to focus on something about 20cm away, whereas the non-macro lens will need to be much further away, probably 1-2 metres minimum.
Things to look for
In decreasing order of importance, these are factors or specifications you should look for when choosing a macro lens.  The first ones are highly relevant to making a good macro lens, and some things that are less so.
Reproduction ratio
The most important statistic.  Most ‘proper’ macro lenses will allow you to get close enough to a subject that the image of that subject projected through the lens and onto the camera’s sensor is the same size as the subject.  This is called a reproduction ratio of 1:1.
For example, with a 1:1 lens a 22mm sovereign, at closest distance, will appear as 22mm on the sensor.  Since a full-frame camera sensor is just 24x36mm, that's a perfect fit and a big image when viewed on a monitor.
To make the image smaller, you just move away from the subject.  But you can’t make it bigger, because moving closer would move within the minimum distance the lens will focus.
With lenses that have a lower ratio, e.g. 1:2, it just means they can’t focus as close to the subject, making the resultant image smaller and the photography more cumbersome.  You definitely would not want to use a 150mm lens with a 1:3 ratio, as you would need to be over a metre away from the coin.  Some manufacturers still call these ‘macro lenses’ despite not reaching 1:1 ratio.
At the other end of the scale, there are specialist ‘super macro’ lenses that have a ratio of 2:1 or even higher.  They achieve this by allowing an even closer minimum distance.  These are probably not to be recommended to anyone other than professional photographers, as they come with their own set of limitations and peculiarities.
Considering that, to take a photo of a 1oz coin, you will already need to be further away than minimum distance for a 1:1 lens just to fit it on the sensor, going even higher is just unnecessary.
Sharpness
Obviously you want a lens that is sharp.  This is especially true for macro photography, where you are attempting to reproduce tiny details.  It is also especially true if your camera’s sensor has a lot of pixels, say more than about 10 million.
Sharpness is a factor of the design and build quality of the lens.  This is very much a “get what you pay for” factor.  There is information online where sharpness has been scientifically measured.  You can also read reviews that will tell you if a lens is sharp, and at what aperture it is sharpest.  Typically, the optimum aperture is around twice the widest aperture.
Focal length
As the lens gets longer, the minimum distance extends.  So a longer focal length does not lead to a large image - what you gain in ‘zoom’ you lose in distance.
The main consideration here is convenience.  If you have a longer macro lens, e.g. 150mm, your distance to the coin will need to be about 30cm or more.  That can start to get awkward if you want to photograph downwards onto a table or desk.
However, the focal length will probably not make a significant difference to the appearance of coin photographs.  Just the convenience of taking them.
Longer focal length macro lenses, >100mm, are useful for nature photography, where you don’t want to get too close to the subject because it might fly away (or attack you).  This is unlikely to be a concern with coins.
But you can go too short.  Macro lenses <60mm are light and cheaper, but you start to have other practical problems.  You need to be so close to the subject that you can block the light, and you may not be able to use axial lighting because there isn't room.
Personally, I think the sweet spot for coin photography would be 60-100mm.
If you are going to use the lens for something other than macro photography, then obviously the focal length may factor more  into your decision.  Shorter lenses will be better for street, architecture and landscapes.  Longer lenses for sport, wildlife and portrait.
If all other things are equal, typically the longer the lens, the more expensive it is.
Smallest aperture
Lenses often have an aperture that will go down to f/20 or f/24.  Macro lenses often will go to f/32 or more.  This increases the depth of field, keeping more things in focus.  The issue though is that when you go beyond about f/16, you will begin to get noticeable softening of the image because the laws of physics take over and diffraction happens.
Diaphragm
The element inside the lens that varies the aperture to let more or less light through, is called the diaphragm.  The number of leaves in the diaphragm can be relevant.  If the diaphragm has a large number of leaves or elements (say above 8), the hole it makes will be more circular.  This leads to smoother out-of-focus backgrounds (and foregrounds) called bokeh.  It’s a subjective thing that sometimes matters, but is largely irrelevant for coins.
Image stabilisation
A very useful feature in any lens, to reduce handheld blur.  But for a setup that will spend its life clamped down on a tripod, it is irrelevant.  Of course, if you might use your lens for other things, it could be very handy.
Auto-focus
An area where some of the biggest advances in both lenses and cameras have been made over the last decade or so, is in the speed and accuracy of auto-focus systems.
Fortunately for us, it doesn’t matter, because we will be manually focusing with macro photography, with the possible exception of an automatic focus-stacking process.  Either way, the speed and accuracy of auto-focus is irrelevant.  In fact some macro lenses are manual focus only, in order to reduce cost and give a very smooth feel to the focusing ring, for fine adjustments.
Consider that your depth of field is often less than 1mm.  That is not something a camera’s auto-focus system can reliably handle.
Widest aperture
The main factor that determines how much a lens costs, is its widest aperture.  People spend a lot of money getting very wide aperture lenses, with f/1.2 or greater.  Fortunately for us, this is almost completely irrelevant, since we will be taking macro photos with a fairly narrow aperture probably between f/8 and f/16.
Zoom (variable focal length)
Most lenses for general-purpose use are ‘zoom lenses’.  They allow you to zoom in and out of a subject.  A typical example would be a 24-70mm lens.  The ability to zoom is not useful for macro photography, since as discussed earlier, increasing the focal length simply increases the minimum distance, so the net effect would be the same.  It also adds cost to the lens and reduces the quality (e.g. sharpness).
A true macro lens will normally be a fixed focal length, or ‘prime’, lens.
How much to spend?
The lens is more important than the camera body.  <= Remember this!
This is something that people who are not familiar with interchangeable-lens cameras may not be used to.  Put it another way.  A camera body will last you somewhere between 3 and 10 years.  The more features and technology you want, and the more you use it, the shorter its lifespan.  A lens can easily last 20+ years, if you don’t abuse it.  Where do you think your money should go?
Personal experience:  I have owned and replaced 4 camera bodies in 18 years; that's pretty slow.  I am still using the first lens I ever bought, and have never replaced any.
Lenses are physical, mechanical things.  Their quality is determined by optics and the craftsmanship that went into them.  Sure, new features occasionally pop up, like image stabilisation and faster auto-focus.  But the basic operation of a lens hardly changes between generations.  That is definitely not true for camera bodies, which are basically akin to computers or mobile phones; electronics that constantly evolve.
First-party lenses will cost you a lot more.  For example, Canon lenses for Canon cameras.  Nikon lenses for Nikon cameras.  Third-party lenses, e.g. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina, are much better bang-for-the-buck, and are usually close to if not identical in quality.
Rule of thumb.  If you are starting out buying a camera and lens, consider the total price.  If you are just buying one lens, spend ⅓ to ½ of your budget on the lens.  If you are buying 2 lenses, then spend at least ½ of your budget on lenses.