TeaTime

Completed!  My collection of first and last year of each QE2 portrait.  It took quite a lot of hunting around, as many of them are proof-only years.
So that's:
1957 - 1968 1974 - 1984 1985 - 1997 1998 - 2015 2015 - 2022

BU is used to describe historic coins that have had no, or limited, circulation. Traditionally a coin was either a proof (made as purely a collector piece) or a circulating strike, there was no 'brilliant uncirculated' striking process. It is a fairly modern contrivance of the Royal Mint to designate three types of striking (a way for them to charge extra for a non-proof coin and a way to excuse their lack of quality control on 'bullion' strikes)
So advertising a coin as BU would be technically correct if it was a circulating (?) coin that was blemish free.....
It's all down to semantics - like everything else. A traditional coin dealer would have no qualms about describing a coin as BU. Another may expect something entirely different from the designation. 

Yes this is William Suckling Limited of Birmingham.
The year mark looks like a 1927 mark to me rather than 1902, which would fit with the maker.
1902

1927

Two Charles I (1625- 1649) coins.  Both with nice full flan. 
The first a lovely example, Scottish Silver Twelve Shillings. Third coinage (1637-42), type III Falconer's first issue, F above crown on reverse, 5.78g, (S.5560).
The second a nice York,  Provincial Civil War issue Shilling, (1643- 44). 5.93g; mm. Lion. Obv. Bust in scalloped lace collar; Rev. with crowned oval shield, ‘EBOR’ below.  S.2874, Brooker: 1094; North: 2319.



 

I thought this might be of interest to some of you.
Do you know who ‘old coppernose’ is?
I’ll give you a clue, he was the second Tudor monarch, he had six wives, a chronic jousting injury and by contemporary writings he also had a terrible temper.
I’m talking about Henry VIII of course. But why was he called ‘old coppernose’?
Well, towards the end of his reign (1544-1551) the country was in the financial terrible. It sounds familiar, I know. Henry VIII’s wars with Scotland and France had cost the King’s coffers a small fortune.
During what is known as The Great Debasement, gold coinage was reduced from 23ct to 20ct and silver coinage was reduced from 92.5% (Sterling) to a mere 25%.
So why was he known as old coppernose? Well the silver coinage was mostly copper by the end of his reign and as the coins were circulated the high points of the coins, naturally, the obverse and (his nose) wear first. Ultimately giving old Henry VIII a copper nose. It continued into the early reign of his son, Edward VI and it wasn’t until Elizabeth I that it was stopped and a privy mark added to earlier coins. It got so bad that traders in mainland Europe refused English coinage.
If any of you want to learn more, the programme Digging For Britain series 1 episode 6 towards the end tells the story better than I ever could.
 

Many sellers on this forum set a fair price after doing research and buyers will also have done their homework.
In this instance a buyer will pay the seller's price.
When a particular coin has become harder to find or the price makes it more difficult to sell, then there is no harm in trying to negotiate and depending on the seller perhaps needing to sell rather than just see what the market will bear, a deal can possibly be struck.
Where a seller's expectations are off-the-scale then a knowledgeable buyer will not even attempt to make an offer as perceived as pointless.
Trading gold for silver requires acceptance that the spot ratio is not a good one for swapping.
If a one ounce gold coin is worth £1,600 and it costs £32 to buy a decent one ounce silver coin then the ratio is 50 silver coins.
However based on spot, metal values, the ratio is 78 silver ounces for an ounce of gold.
The question is where in this big range could a deal be struck ?
 

It's literally coins sold in tubes (multiple coins per tube). I expect all of these went to the likes of Koin Club and Westminster, who sell the BU coins for less in their own packaging.

I think this qualifies. On first glance of the obverse, it is a raggedy, low grade standard George III halfpenny but on closer inspection of the reverse...you notice it becomes a pre-federal American halfpenny minted for the Virginia Colony. 😋
I will certainly aim to upgrade this in the future but being a Brit with an American father from Virginia, I was very eager to acquire one of these asap!

 

Some 50p’s from the post office…… all  graded EF 🤣

I sat out this release - the commemoratives have never really appealed to me, as I’ve almost always found them lacking in design elegance (imo).
I will go in for the definitive set later in the year - those coins are (to me) truly iconic as UK coinage and I would like to have them as the first of the KCIII coins in my collection.

It's probably an 'old man hobby' because only those with a bit of spare cash (and no worries about owning the latest iPhone etc) can afford it.
 

It's probably an 'old man hobby' because only those with a bit of spare cash (and no worries about owning the latest iPhone etc) can afford it.
 

It's probably an 'old man hobby' because only those with a bit of spare cash (and no worries about owning the latest iPhone etc) can afford it.
 

People need to place a value on things. Always have and always will. Stamps have no intrinsic value yet it didn't stop collectors from buying them (i am one of the old gits who still collects them).
The fact that something isn't in everyday use is largely irrelevant - what does make a difference is perceived rarity. One could make an argument that as coins become less used (and therefore less common) then the perception is that they are rarer so worth more. 
The reality is that the media largely leads the masses into believing what has value (a good example is the Kew Gardens themed 50p coins). There will always be the next big thing but throughout all the fads coins have maintained a solid collector base. There is something basic about hoarding that i can't see ever going away. At the moment hoarding is still generally considered to be collecting tangible, real assets rather than digital ones. This may change in the future but it will take generations to do so. If it ever happens - there is a reason everyone loves Scrooge McDuck.
No easy answers then - it's a combination of politics / hyperbole and the basic human desire to own something with perceived value. 
Who knows, maybe stamp collecting will once again become a fashionable hobby once no-one bothers using them... The current RM strikes may well prove a windfall for old gits like me

It's probably an 'old man hobby' because only those with a bit of spare cash (and no worries about owning the latest iPhone etc) can afford it.
 

Got this very cool ‘coin collector’ model for Christmas.

The first coins came into being almost 2,500 years ago, and a substantial part of our historical knowledge is based on coins, including those from coin hoards (evidence of early coin collecting / stacking).
Postage stamps only came into existence in 1840, and as far as I am aware, have never provided any sustantial contribution to our knowledge base.
True numismatists are primarily interested in coins for many diverse reasons, and investment is not one of the main reasons. 
I suspect the same is true of philatelists.
Those who primarily collect for investment value are missing out on much of the potential pleasure and enjoyment they could get from the knowledge they could acquire. As it happens, I believe that real numismatists often end up with better investments than those whose prime motivation was the investment potential, and who probably ended up learning little.
The most extreme examples of this are the "armchair collectors", who only or mainly buy from what I call "Coin Marketing Companies", who mainly but not exclusively sell new issues, at what most TSF members would consider to be rip-off prices. These people hardly ever learn much about coins, countries, history, geography, or anything. Eventually, some of them learn, too late, that they overpaid. Sometimes it is their beneficiaries who realise this. Neither of these outcomes is good for the long-term image of collecting.
I should add that similar applies to stamp "collecting".
It is very frustrating, as a dealer that, day after day, we get this type of "collection" offered to us, and often have to deal with the disappointment and fallout from it. 
One annoying question we often get asked is "Why is your offer so little compared with the original cost?". The response I always want to give is "Why did you or the buyer pay so much for it in the first place without learning anything about coins or the market?" 
Before 1970. most UK coin collectors formed collections of mainly UK or other coins which had originally been issued for circulation. Since then, the UK market has changed, and most "collectors" accumulate new issues, commemoratives, and other made-for-collectors material. Even when they do buy "real" coins, they often want them "graded" (slabbed) or accompanied by a Certificate of Authenticity.
In another 50 years, who knows?
😎

I think coin collecting has already gone the way of stamp collecting.
Too many damn commemoratives, it's been over diluted. It doesn't create the interest of new collectors it just overwhelms them, and the poor returns given by some of the tacky commemorative dross basically reaffirms that it's not worth investing in.
It also hacks off longer term collectors who were trying to complete a set of new material when the goal posts keep moving and that the 20 coin set you started out on had somehow morphed into a 126 coin run with more spin offs than anyone can keep track of (like Prime Ministers).
Just look at the state of play since the Queen's passing and the commemorative fatigue that has shown up on here - and many on here (not me) are some of the most committed and interested supporters of such material and even here the will to live was approaching a crisis point.
Same with US material - it started out with the State Quarters (pulled in a lot of new collectors) and then they went all in... on parks, monuments, presidents, first ladies and tons of other stuff. Many of which ended up with ever decreasing mintages as clearly people just weren't that bothered.
But then they do this with films as well... so many Marvel films, and where are we at with Rocky films now? 12?? 😁

LOL. I'm in the Old Git stamp collecting club as well. I just wish in my formative collecting years, someone would have steered me towards collecting coins with intrinsic value instead, but that's another story. 
 
What I have understood, from my stamp collecting, is that picking the very best quality of scarcer issues is the only way to have any chance of price appreciation over time. That's one way to look at it. The other, which I'm a sucker for, still, is admiring the innate beauty of design/colour/image on particular stamp issues. My favourites remain all those engraved Commonwealth definitive issues of GVI and QE2.  But as for keeping pace with inflation, .....forget it.

Unfortunately you have to go along to your local auction house on any given sale day! Usually boxes of someone’s stamp collection going very cheap. Be a very long time before coins end up the same way due to the vast majority having a precious metal content. 🤔

People need to place a value on things. Always have and always will. Stamps have no intrinsic value yet it didn't stop collectors from buying them (i am one of the old gits who still collects them).
The fact that something isn't in everyday use is largely irrelevant - what does make a difference is perceived rarity. One could make an argument that as coins become less used (and therefore less common) then the perception is that they are rarer so worth more. 
The reality is that the media largely leads the masses into believing what has value (a good example is the Kew Gardens themed 50p coins). There will always be the next big thing but throughout all the fads coins have maintained a solid collector base. There is something basic about hoarding that i can't see ever going away. At the moment hoarding is still generally considered to be collecting tangible, real assets rather than digital ones. This may change in the future but it will take generations to do so. If it ever happens - there is a reason everyone loves Scrooge McDuck.
No easy answers then - it's a combination of politics / hyperbole and the basic human desire to own something with perceived value. 
Who knows, maybe stamp collecting will once again become a fashionable hobby once no-one bothers using them... The current RM strikes may well prove a windfall for old gits like me

People need to place a value on things. Always have and always will. Stamps have no intrinsic value yet it didn't stop collectors from buying them (i am one of the old gits who still collects them).
The fact that something isn't in everyday use is largely irrelevant - what does make a difference is perceived rarity. One could make an argument that as coins become less used (and therefore less common) then the perception is that they are rarer so worth more. 
The reality is that the media largely leads the masses into believing what has value (a good example is the Kew Gardens themed 50p coins). There will always be the next big thing but throughout all the fads coins have maintained a solid collector base. There is something basic about hoarding that i can't see ever going away. At the moment hoarding is still generally considered to be collecting tangible, real assets rather than digital ones. This may change in the future but it will take generations to do so. If it ever happens - there is a reason everyone loves Scrooge McDuck.
No easy answers then - it's a combination of politics / hyperbole and the basic human desire to own something with perceived value. 
Who knows, maybe stamp collecting will once again become a fashionable hobby once no-one bothers using them... The current RM strikes may well prove a windfall for old gits like me

People need to place a value on things. Always have and always will. Stamps have no intrinsic value yet it didn't stop collectors from buying them (i am one of the old gits who still collects them).
The fact that something isn't in everyday use is largely irrelevant - what does make a difference is perceived rarity. One could make an argument that as coins become less used (and therefore less common) then the perception is that they are rarer so worth more. 
The reality is that the media largely leads the masses into believing what has value (a good example is the Kew Gardens themed 50p coins). There will always be the next big thing but throughout all the fads coins have maintained a solid collector base. There is something basic about hoarding that i can't see ever going away. At the moment hoarding is still generally considered to be collecting tangible, real assets rather than digital ones. This may change in the future but it will take generations to do so. If it ever happens - there is a reason everyone loves Scrooge McDuck.
No easy answers then - it's a combination of politics / hyperbole and the basic human desire to own something with perceived value. 
Who knows, maybe stamp collecting will once again become a fashionable hobby once no-one bothers using them... The current RM strikes may well prove a windfall for old gits like me

People need to place a value on things. Always have and always will. Stamps have no intrinsic value yet it didn't stop collectors from buying them (i am one of the old gits who still collects them).
The fact that something isn't in everyday use is largely irrelevant - what does make a difference is perceived rarity. One could make an argument that as coins become less used (and therefore less common) then the perception is that they are rarer so worth more. 
The reality is that the media largely leads the masses into believing what has value (a good example is the Kew Gardens themed 50p coins). There will always be the next big thing but throughout all the fads coins have maintained a solid collector base. There is something basic about hoarding that i can't see ever going away. At the moment hoarding is still generally considered to be collecting tangible, real assets rather than digital ones. This may change in the future but it will take generations to do so. If it ever happens - there is a reason everyone loves Scrooge McDuck.
No easy answers then - it's a combination of politics / hyperbole and the basic human desire to own something with perceived value. 
Who knows, maybe stamp collecting will once again become a fashionable hobby once no-one bothers using them... The current RM strikes may well prove a windfall for old gits like me

People need to place a value on things. Always have and always will. Stamps have no intrinsic value yet it didn't stop collectors from buying them (i am one of the old gits who still collects them).
The fact that something isn't in everyday use is largely irrelevant - what does make a difference is perceived rarity. One could make an argument that as coins become less used (and therefore less common) then the perception is that they are rarer so worth more. 
The reality is that the media largely leads the masses into believing what has value (a good example is the Kew Gardens themed 50p coins). There will always be the next big thing but throughout all the fads coins have maintained a solid collector base. There is something basic about hoarding that i can't see ever going away. At the moment hoarding is still generally considered to be collecting tangible, real assets rather than digital ones. This may change in the future but it will take generations to do so. If it ever happens - there is a reason everyone loves Scrooge McDuck.
No easy answers then - it's a combination of politics / hyperbole and the basic human desire to own something with perceived value. 
Who knows, maybe stamp collecting will once again become a fashionable hobby once no-one bothers using them... The current RM strikes may well prove a windfall for old gits like me