Roy

Interesting topic and sharing my views:)
I was born in a communist country and grew there as a kid until the Berlin Wall events happened. As you can imagine, totalitarian regimes have full control over the money supply and semi control over the money velocity (on what you spend on). Example: my father had to wait 5 years to buy a car, even that he had the money. The result is a rife black market which is very hard to be be controlled by the state. Example of barters I have seen: The car man will get you a car quicker if you help him refurbish his house.
Usually when the state introduces the CBDC or whatever controlled fiat, they will also introduce Universal income (the idea being that you will have free bread, vegetable, consumer goods) for your basic needs, but if you want luxuries you will need to earn those paying with a form of a credit score(like in China today)
That happened was also in the communist states in the past; to get a house you need to be a member of the communist party (otherwise you have to wait 20 years)
Owing PM was punishable, I remember we were were scared to talk about gold, since we might get into trouble   , but both silver and gold were much valued and accepted as barter  
Once CBDC and Universal income comes to the U.K. , all crypto will be decimated over night IMO. You will not be able to mine it anymore without authorities questioning you for the energy consumption or to exchange it (most exchanges will be shut). You might be able to spend it here and there, but majority of people who will barter something for you, will still prefer PM (no traceability of physical PM, nonperishable). Crypto could exist here and there but share of transactions will be much smaller in barter. 
As with any fiat, the CBDC will die eventually and then the cycle will start again with PM coming very much back into the states financial system
lets not forget also that both PM have also actual industrial usage…(even if you are living in a totalitarian state, the state will continue to use silver in electronics, dentistry, etc) 
hope that was useful 
 

In SEA, a lot of folk pay for things with phone 'load' (credit).
I.e. you add $10 top up to your phone account and you are able to send it, even fractionally, to others for payment of goods or services.

In SEA, a lot of folk pay for things with phone 'load' (credit).
I.e. you add $10 top up to your phone account and you are able to send it, even fractionally, to others for payment of goods or services.

Well it's already there, proven and established. I am not sure they can just switch it off. The problem is with centralised exchanges. They can stop that from being connected to cbdc but that's it. The one positive thing about crypto is it allows the world's unbanked to be banked, no need to have a passport and an address to get a wallet like you do to get a bank account and those in the third world have the opportunity to financially move forward. The problem with it in its current form is it's just a gloyfied gambling platform. 

I have mentioned previously that some of our bullion and numismatic coins come with free air miles. We have taken a big step recently to try and improve our "green" credentials", but...
I recently signed a 40 page legal document, received by e-mail attachment, which I read on screen, before replying by e-mail, and also printing out the last page, signing it, and returning it.
Today I was asked to print out the entire document, and post it.
I will refrain from naming the other party, but couldn't resist sharing my response:
Dear ***,
  We can arrange to do that.   There may be a slight delay while we get a few trees chopped down, pulped, turned into paper, then fed into our printer. It is 40 pages long.   We might also need to get a quote from a courier.   You could print out the first 39 pages at your end, and no one would even know the difference. the ***** **** might even get a "Green Award" for conservation.   You don't need it in duplicate or triplicate do you?   I am aware you are probably operating under a "Standard Operating Procedure", and most of this response is intended to be humorous, but there is a serious side to it. We frequently sign multi-page documents, some probably exceeding 40 pages. In many of these cases, we can sign electronically, and in worst case scenarios, we can just post back the relevant signature pages.   Is it worth you checking with (your) legal team whether any of the above suggestions are acceptable? This is not just for us, it's also for the planet.   I have copied a number of your colleagues in to this, and would have included your legal department, but I can't instantly find them in my "Contacts". Yours, etc...
 

@CANV

@CANV

Bitcoin was a gift from the government to the millennials.
Did you miss out?

@CANV

Thanks. 👍
I haven't had it in hand yet, weights and measures to follow, I only have an amateur photo to go on!
Photographing coins is difficult, I think, and takes a certain amount of skill and patience (as I suspect Doug most likely reminds Lawrence on a frequent basis!).
Now, to shake things up, and not to disregard your comment about the height of the crown Steve, what do you think of this?

The effigy sits much lower, and touches the outer rim at the bottom (or bust!).
Now, you may think I'm deliberately trying to confuse you because although the example is indeed an 1887 Jubilee, it's from a different mint.
But aren't they all supposed to be equal?
 

Inspired by the 1957 thread, I thought I'd put this coin up for appraisal/discussion
I haven't actually seen the coin or had it in hand, but I have these pics to look at 😄
I bought it a while ago.
 
m  

 
 

@CANV

Can I call you Tim?

Oh no, there are several varieties, as you will now realise.
The 1887 M with the second legend is the rarer one I think. I'm not sure about that J though, I certainly don't regard myself as in any way expert in Jub heads. I must have a look at that download linked above.🙂

Inspired by the 1957 thread, I thought I'd put this coin up for appraisal/discussion
I haven't actually seen the coin or had it in hand, but I have these pics to look at 😄
I bought it a while ago.
 
m  

 
 

I guess you're seeing the difference between first legend and second legend jubilee heads. There's a very good reference catalogue put together by sovereign rarities (David Iverson and Steve Hill) that lists the different jubilee head varieties attached.
The jubilee head Sovereigns are one of my favourites to collect and there plenty of different varieties like yours to be found.
 
The Jubilee Head Gold Sovereign 1887-1893 Iverson.pdf

This is the best thread I have ever read on the forum.  Thanks all who have contributed.  
 
Best
Dicker

We're lucky to have all this specialist equipment to help us determine whether a coin is fake or counterfeited. Sometimes, just a great photo is all you need!
Historically, however, just the eye and hand was all that was needed (and lots of experience of course!).
 

It appears to be a London Mint sovereign, although it does not look as yellow as I would expect, but this could be due to the lighting or photography.
I took a closer look at the mintmark area, and cannot be certain whether there is a rather mushy mintmark or not. In the latter case, it would be London Mint.

It looks to be the common London type with right angled J
The height of the crown is standard.
Nothing immediately jumps out except perhaps the rear of the helmet plume lacks definition and the dragon wing over the foot perhaps doesn't protrude as much as it should. Could be photography artefacts.
Probably one to look closely at and compare with an original, if the physical checks aroused suspicion.

I think a practical solution would be for SJA to offer to refund the buyer's premium. After all, they have not provided much of a service to the buyer. If anything, their responses to the buyer have been more surprising, and possibly revealing, than the original failure to identify and catalogue the coin correctly in the first place.
If I understand correctly, the buyer raised the doubt about the authenticity at least twice, I think citing my opinion and evidence on both occasions. While Sam may not have heard of my small provincial coin and bullion business, I am sure he could and should have taken the challenge about authenticity more seriously, and checked properly. I believe on the first occasion, he compared the disputed coin with another 1957 from the same auction, although I am unsure whether he physically re-examined the coins, or just the photos. I believe on the second occasion, he asked "two other people", who both agreed with the original calatogue description. We do not know who those other people were, or their numismatic experience and qualifications. We do not know whether Sam relayed my findings and doubts. I know Steve Fenton is a director of SJA. He is a very experienced numismatist. Asking Steve to examine the coin would have been a sensible course of action.
Anyone can make a mistake. I don't know the identity of the seller, but gather that he was a serious numismatist, and would have had knowledge and experience, judging by the rest of his collection. The SJA catalogue does not mention its previous provenance (who the seller bought it from).
I guess that the SJA cataloguer simply relied on the seller's description, without examining the coin, or perhaps with only a cursory examination. The estimate of £300 - £400 is an indicator that it was not considered to be of any great rarity or value, and it would not require the amount of time, attention, or expertise, which might be expected for a higher value piece, such as the 1957 "specimen" version. The original failure to detect this as a counterfeit may have simply been an unfortunate oversight, a simple mistake, but it probably was careless at least, and possibly negligent because the cataloguer surely owes some duty of care to the seller, buyer, and any potential bidders.
The failure to take the authenticity challenge seriously, however, is much more puzzling and worrying, as is the consensus opinion of all three SJA people involved. The whole matter raises considerable doubt over the professionalism of SJA, yet their feeble and self-assured responses do nothing to correct matters at an early stage, and surely poses a serious risk to the reputation of the company. Was this trio trying to protect the original cataloguer, whoever that was, by a cover-up, were they afraid to reveal the error to a director? We do not know the answers to these questions, but would certainly be interested in any answers and explanations.
Once the authenticity had been seriously questioned, then Sam, a manager, should surely have taken the challenge more seriously, and at least got an expert numismatic opinion, possibly from an SJA director, or possibly from an independent third party, such as another London dealer or auction house. This should be much easier in London than in the provinces.
Before I got to see the coin, I did not know whether I was about to see a very unusual and rare coin, more so because of the pimples indicating a rusty die than because of the off-centre striking. I was disappointed not to, but at the same time delighted that my original identification was indeed correct.
I am still unsure whether I would have preferred to be wrong or right. If wrong, I would have had the excuse that I was only working from a photo.
I often say that some fakes are so obvious that a blind person could detect them. While I often make this comment semi-humorously, in this case it is almost certainly true and accurate. Gently drawing a fingernail across the reverse, the raised pimples provide a solid physical barrier to the movement.
I told the seller we would not charge for the Niton test, or our appraisal, and this still stands. However, if St. James Auctions offer to reimburse us, then I would welcome their offer, even if I end up earning less than the legal minimum hourly wage rate. They will, or should have, benefitted from the educational aspect of our photographs, and my observations.
 

Inspired by the 1957 thread, I thought I'd put this coin up for appraisal/discussion
I haven't actually seen the coin or had it in hand, but I have these pics to look at 😄
I bought it a while ago.
 
m  

 
 

We're lucky to have all this specialist equipment to help us determine whether a coin is fake or counterfeited. Sometimes, just a great photo is all you need!
Historically, however, just the eye and hand was all that was needed (and lots of experience of course!).
 

1. 1st & 2nd place medals would swap
2. Any Silver Membership would now be elevated status compared to a Gold Membership
3. Your "golden years" would now be called your "silver years" (which makes more sense with the greying of one's hair)
4. The Golden Globes awards would be renamed to the Silver Stars awards (keeping with the concept of alliteration)
5. The "cash man" would stop bugging you to sell your gold for cash and would instead target your silver
6. Sayings like, "Handed life on a silver platter" or "Born with a silver spoon in your mouth" would still apply (no change)
7. Betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver now looks like a planned move by the aristocracy
8. The U.S. President, along with The Federal Reserve, will revise Executive Order 6102 to confiscate your silver
9. Bankers would push paper silver assets over the physical (no change)
10. Thousands of Silver Forum members would instantly get calls from that girl in high school who thought she was too good for you. But now that you're loaded, she thinks you're the most attractive thing since Sam Heughan. Then you break her heart by calling her a tramp and a gold digger silver digger and you place a restraining order on her because broke b**ches be crazy.
** A bit more thought had to go into #10 for the grand finale **