Maundy coinage?
Chris
Can someone please direct me to a good site which explains and
provides some indication of value for UK, Canadian and Venezuelan
coins from approx 1860 to the present?
Something for a newbie would be ideal For example, I'd like to look
up a particular George V threepence coin I have from 1911 and
determine its silver content, gauge quality and see if it's Maundy
money (and indeed what influence that might have on the coin's value.
Many thanks,
Chris
Mr. Jaggers
Here's the primo website for U.K. coins, courtesy of a gentleman who
occasionally posts here:
http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk/index.html
As for your threepence, the silver content is .925 for that year, and you
will not likely be able to tell the difference between ordinary and Maundy
strike unless you have a mint state example, as the designs were not
differentiated until sometime in the 1920s.
I don't have a site bookmarked for Canadian values, but Google it and you
may find one.
What Venezuelan coins do you need info on? They're generally not nearly as
complex as those from the other two countries.
James
Alan Marshall
appearance to the Maundy ones, with the only possible way to tell apart is
the quality of strike. (all british silver from 1660 to 1920 is .925 pure)
Tony Claytons page is a good start for basic information and some prices on
UK stuff
http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/
as for the rest, if you know what you have, goto ebay...
"Chris" <ch...@ebooster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:837af089-4d1b-43e6...@r27g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
oly
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed, in the year 1911 there is minimal difference between the
circulation strike and the Maundy strike - for the threepence. The
odds are against you; the threepee is only especially valuable as an
integral piece in the entire set of four Maundy coins.
oly
oly
Chris
wrote:
Hi James, Alan and Oly -
Thanks so much for your replies - very helpful indeed.
By way of follow up:
- Glad to hear about Tony Clayton's web site - I did find that through
Google, but it's helpful to have additional recommendations for it.
- I note your point about the difficulty to tell the difference for
Maudy Money. I've invested a grand total of £2 in a magnifying glass,
so I'll have a closer look. Alan, you mention the quality of the
strike - is there a good site where I can read up about quality and
how I can learn the differences?
- the comments about silver content are very helpful, thank you. Did
I read (elsewhere) correctly that between 1920 and 1947 the silver
content dropped to 50%?
- about the Venezuelan coins, I'm looking for a general starting point
to learn about why different designs may have come into being. I may
have a silver coin, but I can't differentiate it from others of a
similar design and year.
Thanks again,
Chris
-
Mr. Jaggers
British silver coins were in .925 fineness through 1919. The finess was
reduced to .500 starting in 1920, but the fineness of some of the
denominations wasn't reduced until mid-year, so there are coins with the
same date but dissimilar fineness. The last date for silver coins was 1946.
Starting in 1947 a copper-nickel alloy was used.
If you give the size of your Venezuelan coin and its date and other legends
on it, I or someone else here can certainly ID it for you.
I recommend that you get a copy of the Standard Catalog of World Coins, even
if it is an outdated edition, as it will amaze you with the amount of
information it contains.
James
note.boy
silver. Billy
"Chris" <ch...@ebooster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d5366d77-fa51-42e8...@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Jaggers
> Maundy coins were .500 silver from 1921 to 1946 all other dates are
> .925 silver. Billy
Gosh, you mean the ones 1947 and after are .925? I did not know that!
James the Newly-Informed
note.boy
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:h4ibj...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Yes they are, another Maundy Money fact, they are the only coins whose value
increased by 2.4 times upon decimalisation, a Maundy "old" penny becoming a
"new" decimal penny. Billy
Mr. Jaggers
To be honest, I posted that intending to be a smartass, but upon thinking
about your response, realized that I was exactly the opposite kind. What in
the world was I thinking?
James
oly
In 2002, there were two thousand and two Maundy sets struck in gold.
That's what I'd like to have, in addition to the 1951 set and two 1959
sets which I already own.
oly
som...@some.domain
news:fbfefc44-3174-4894...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 26, 3:41�pm, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>> note.boy wrote:
>> > "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>> >news:h4ibj...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> >> note.boy wrote:
>> >>> Maundy coins were .500 silver from 1921 to 1946 all other dates
>> >>> are .925 silver. �Billy
>>
>> >> Gosh, you mean the ones 1947 and after are .925? �I did not know
>> >> that! James the Newly-Informed
>>
>> > Yes they are, another Maundy Money fact, they are the only coins
>> > whose value increased by 2.4 times upon decimalisation, a Maundy
>> > "old" penny becoming a "new" decimal penny. �Billy
>>
>> To be honest, I posted that intending to be a smartass, but upon
>> thinking about your response, realized that I was exactly the
>> opposite kind. �Wh
> at in
>> the world was I thinking?
>>
>> James
>
> In 2002, there were two thousand and two Maundy sets struck in gold.
> That's what I'd like to have, in addition to the 1951 set and two 1959
> sets which I already own.
>
> oly
>
my paharmacist father left him a buttload of maundy sets and he let me see
them.
his go back a ways, 19th century, i believe? he has 30. plus various
singles in nice plastic shells.
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, you can obtain Maundy Sets back into the reign of Charles II
(1660-1685), but not from each and every year.
The trick on the early sets is that they are "put together" and the
eye and ability of the person who made up the set to "match" each of
the four pieces in terms of eye appeal and condition is what you will
really pay for.
Later Victoria and subsequent monarchs, it is more likely that the
four coins will have been maintained together since the date of
issue. Not always true, however.
Later in the reign of Victoria and part of the reign of Edward VII,
the Mint issued rather more coins than were needed for the actual
distribution at the Maundy Thursday ceremony. Late in his reign. King
Edward stopped this practice to ensure that the needy participants in
the ceremony got better prices for their gift coins.
Thirty nice Maundy sets would be very impressive.
I also have some odd fours, twos and ones of various rulers.
oly
som...@some.domain
news:783eeacd-214f-443e...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 26, 5:50锟絧m, "some...@some.domain" <some...@some.domain> wrote:
>> oly <oly2...@aol.com> wrote
>> innews:fbfefc44-3174-4894-b0e6-a7e09ec61c3a@a
> 26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 26, 3:41锟絧m, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com>
>> > wrote
>:
>> >> note.boy wrote:
>> >> > "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:h4ibj...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> >> >> note.boy wrote:
>> >> >>> Maundy coins were .500 silver from 1921 to 1946 all other
>> >> >>> dates are .925 silver. 锟紹illy
>>
>> >> >> Gosh, you mean the ones 1947 and after are .925? 锟絀 did not
>> >> >> know that! James the Newly-Informed
>>
>> >> > Yes they are, another Maundy Money fact, they are the only coins
>> >> > whose value increased by 2.4 times upon decimalisation, a Maundy
>> >> > "old" penny becoming a "new" decimal penny. 锟紹illy
>>
>> >> To be honest, I posted that intending to be a smartass, but upon
>> >> thinking about your response, realized that I was exactly the
>> >> opposite kind. 锟絎h
thank you oly, you are a fountain of facts. now that i remember, he has
some before vicky, so i suspect they are 18th. how many charles were
there?
jis father apparently bought them for very reasonable prices from an old
canadian dealer. starting in at least the 40's, maybe earlier. should i
ask? he's really a great guy and will list them if i ask. but he is
busy.
and i thought i was cool because i had a black shadow in high school!
$400 in 64. i also blew it up.
oly
> oly <oly2...@aol.com> wrote innews:783eeacd-214f-443e...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 5:50 pm, "some...@some.domain" <some...@some.domain> wrote:
> >> oly <oly2...@aol.com> wrote
> >> innews:fbfefc44-3174-4894-b0e6-a7e09ec61c3a@a
> > 26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > wrote
> >:
> >> >> note.boy wrote:
> >> >> > "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:h4ibj...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >> >> >> note.boy wrote:
> >> >> >>> Maundy coins were .500 silver from 1921 to 1946 all other
>
> >> >> >> Gosh, you mean the ones 1947 and after are .925? I did not
> >> >> >> know that! James the Newly-Informed
>
> >> >> > Yes they are, another Maundy Money fact, they are the only coins
> >> >> > whose value increased by 2.4 times upon decimalisation, a Maundy
>
> >> >> To be honest, I posted that intending to be a smartass, but upon
> >> >> thinking about your response, realized that I was exactly the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can of worms question & response: There have been only two Kings
named Charles thus far, father & son; they were both Kings of England
and Kings of Scotland at the same time - the political set-up from
1601-1688 was a "personal union" under one common sovereign. Then,
the political set-up from 1689-1707 is harder to describe in one or
two sentences. After 1707, you have a parliamentary union or a
politically "United Kingdom".
More can of worms response: Should we get a Charles III under
something like the present political set-up in the United Kingdom,
that King Charles could/ might technically be considered the first
"British" king to use that name.
However, the Stuarts (1601-1714) also "styled" themselves as Kings and
Queens of Great Britain, despite the fact that the "de jure" political
union did not take place until 1707.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For pre-Victorian coins, I believe that the William IV (1830-1837)
Maundy coins are not too difficult to find. They are typically well
struck and desireable.
Maundy coins of George IV (1821-1830) seem to me to be more difficult
to obtain than William IV. I have a long-ago story about two George
IV oddments that I just missed getting for next to nothing. Damn.
oly
som...@some.domain
news:454ea1dd-aab7-4daa...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 26, 7:56�pm, "some...@some.domain" <some...@some.domain> wrote:
>> oly <oly2...@aol.com> wrote
>> innews:783eeacd-214f-443e-a2ae-dcba2b81756f@n
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Can of worms question & response: There have been only two Kings
> named Charles thus far, father & son; they were both Kings of England
> and Kings of Scotland at the same time - the political set-up from
> 1601-1688 was a "personal union" under one common sovereign. Then,
> the political set-up from 1689-1707 is harder to describe in one or
> two sentences. After 1707, you have a parliamentary union or a
> politically "United Kingdom".
>
> More can of worms response: Should we get a Charles III under
> something like the present political set-up in the United Kingdom,
> that King Charles could/ might technically be considered the first
> "British" king to use that name.
>
> However, the Stuarts (1601-1714) also "styled" themselves as Kings and
> Queens of Great Britain, despite the fact that the "de jure" political
> union did not take place until 1707.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> For pre-Victorian coins, I believe that the William IV (1830-1837)
> Maundy coins are not too difficult to find. They are typically well
> struck and desireable.
>
> Maundy coins of George IV (1821-1830) seem to me to be more difficult
> to obtain than William IV. I have a long-ago story about two George
> IV oddments that I just missed getting for next to nothing. Damn.
>
> oly
>
thanks for the easy to understand response. i can tell you about 1905-
2009 but other than thinking victoria was fascinating and sad, and
wishing there was more about her the person than her the queen, i'm
pretty dumb.
was one of the charles the bonnie prince charlie or am i lost in another
part of the isles? snicker freely, i do, i know i'm ignorant. took me
years to know oliver's army was a play on cromwell's. ditto the eighth
route army was a real thing, not just a cool indie band. duh.
george the iv is unknown turf also. i know all the bad stuff about III,
but he had to have done good things. he was in power during the first
real world war, wasn't he, the 1756-1663?
since it's on topic, share the lost george iv coins if you feel like. is
next too nothing a couple of p's?
oly
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Bonnie Prince Charlie" was a grandson of King James II (ruled
1685-1688). So he lived well after the reigns of Charles I (ruled
1625-1649) and Charles II (effectively ruled from 1660 -1685).
Bonnie Prince Charlie (also known as Charles Eduoard Stuart) lived
1720-1788. He was also known as "The Young Pretender" (as in
Pretender to the throne).
He was raised in France, around the court at Versailles, as he also
had some French royal blood through his paternal great-grandmother
(Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I).
Bonnie Prince Charlie invaded Scotland with a French Army in 1745. As
the leading member of the Stuart family, he had considerable support
from the Scotish Highland clans. He was successful for several months
and raised much havoc in the north of England; but he was finally
defeated by an English Army by mid-1746.
Bonnie Prince Charlie personally got very lucky, eluded capture, and
made it back to France. Many of his captured supporters were
butchered by the English. Many years later he died in Rome, where his
younger brother was a Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
George III became King at the age of 20 in the year 1760. So yes, he
was in power when the "Seven Years War" and/or the "French and Indian
Wars" were being wrapped up.
George later went insane on several occasions (first in 1788, then
again about 1804, final permanent lapse into insanity about 1810, died
in 1820). Today it is strongly argued that he had a hereditary blood
disorder which clouded his mind.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
A Sad Story of the Two that "got away"....
About 1978 or 1979, a local U.S. coin dealer in Champaign, Illinois
showed me two odd Maundy pieces of George IV and two odd Maundy pieces
of William IIII. He was surprised when I said that I wanted all four,
and what was the price???
He sold me the two very nice pieces of William IV for something like
$20, but he had to sheepishly admit that he had already promised the
two coins of George IV to the "grand old man" who was the leader of
our local Coin Club. That price was also $20 for the pair; they were
absolutely gem coins, very well struck.
I didn't mind that the gentleman who led our club was the person who
got those coins, but damn, I've never forgotten them either.
That gentleman has been gone for many years now, and I never did know
how he disposed of his stuff (he was very active in the ANA as an
exhibit judge, so the disposal of his coins was probably well-arranged
for, at least).
oly
som...@some.domain
was it hemophilia? the ceaser family had it and some say that's why
caligula was so bad. he supposedly would curse during attacks and swear
at the blood of the juli or some such. edgar rice burroughs wrote a
great book about that, not history, of course. 1804 was a pretty
important year it would seem.
thanks for prince charly info, i think i want to read about it.more
reasons for the local library to do some work. they did get me 7 john
scali books, my current fave fiction guy. it really isn't easy being
green.
i relate quite well to your maundy story. i turned down an ef 1893s $1
for very short money because my grandfather had given me a better one.
as i said, duh. i have gotten some good deals over the years, so it sort
of unfairly evens out, like existence on this mortal coil. another great
band. anyone that can turn 16days/gathering dust into a haunting long
song and get modern english to help is godlike. and there's elisabeth
fraser's voice....ok, i've wondered too far off.
oly
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hemophilia is the disease where one's blood doesn't clot easily.
Queen Victoria was a carrier (but I believe it came through her German
mother's bloodline, not her British father's). From Victoria it went
into the British, Russian and Spanish royal families. That gene seems
to have been spent out with the passage of time, not a factor today.
George III may have had something that used to be called
"poryphoria". This seems to be a very loose term, medically. It was
the buildup of too much uremic materials in the blood, poisoning the
person with the condition.
George IV (eldest son of George III) liked to think he had a touch of
his father's disease whenever he wanted an excuse for staying in bed
and avoiding kingly duties and responsibilites.
oly
Jud
possibly Louis, in memory of his uncle, Louis Mountbatten
Mr. Jaggers
> IIRC, Prince Charles will NOT use the regnal name Charles, but
> possibly Louis, in memory of his uncle, Louis Mountbatten
I wonder if he'll use Louis or Ludovicus on his coins.
Jacobus III
som...@some.domain
@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
�A
i've heard of that in some history books. was that the hohenzollern's?
they were supposedly a bit too imbred and had all the pharonic illness.
supposedly the curved spine and pot belly were from anakhenaton's
family's inbreeding. and they thought him mad for being a monotheist.
georege v sounds like a slacker, not mad.
thanks.
som...@some.domain
658954...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> IIRC, Prince Charles will NOT use the regnal name Charles, but
> possibly Louis, in memory of his uncle, Louis Mountbatten
>
hat would be very good. lord moountbatten never forgave the japanese and i
respect that and him.
som...@some.domain
i bet in this age, louis. be more respectful.
-someonenicus exus gassus
mazorj
<som...@some.domain> wrote in message
news:Xns9C5556CAD2493s...@69.16.186.8...
Leaving aside the wisdom of holding such a grudge, that's ironic. It was
Japan that got the U.S. into WW2, directly in the Pacific and indirectly in
Europe when Hitler foolishly threw his Axis hat in the ring by declaring war
on the U.S. a few days after Pearl Harbor. In one military strike, Japan
presented England with the prize that had eluded it through years of clever
diplomatic and political maneuvering: American participation and all-out
support of England in the European theater against the Nazis.
Mountbatten certainly was well aware of the magnitude of this unintended
boon. So why the grudge against the Japanese? As I recall, he was
actively involved in the CBI theater against Japan; but did he hold an equal
grudge against the Germans for forcing England to make good on its defense
pact with Poland and then kicking their butts all the way back to Dunkirk?
Again, that's not a very enlightened post-war policy even if it is
understandable under the circumstances. It was that kind of thinking,
carried out on a much larger scale of retribution after WW1, that paved the
way to "WW1: The Sequel, Part 1," a.k.a. WW2.
mazorj
<som...@some.domain> wrote in message
news:Xns9C555FAA1B505s...@69.16.186.8...
Well, that's more respectful than my suggestion for this undistinguished
place holder in the royal line: Ludicrous the First
- mazorj the Disrespectful
oly
> IIRC, Prince Charles will NOT use the regnal name Charles, but
> possibly Louis, in memory of his uncle, Louis Mountbatten
I suspect that the names Charles and William (his son) were chosen
specifically because they had not been utlized as regnal names for
many many years. I'll bet that happy old prince Chuck goes with CRIII
and Wills as WRV. OTOH, there are NO King Louis in the English Royal
Line, none, zero.
It may be moot; the Queen (born 1926) has a good chance of living
another ten to fifteen years or more.
oly
som...@some.domain
news:iEkbm.1230$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
wow, so many misconceptions. we'll stick to a few facts here, with the
hope you do a little more research. especially about the japanese legacy
of ww2 and how they deal with. and how china, the korea's and about a
billion others feel about post-war sensitivity.
mountabtten's hatred for the japanes was predicated on his me being
worked to death, beaten to death, used as expirements for biological
warfare and starved to death. did i mention needless torture,
eviseration for fun and flaying alive?
his men loved him because they would be lined up all military and he'd
tell them bolloucks to that, gather around. he would talk to the like
human beings and remember them. they fucking adored him.
he was not grateful to the japanese for killing americans, it was not
gift and even churchill, desperate for our help eas deeply saddened.
and he was fighting for england's survival. as he said, the only thing
that really scared him was the battle of the atlantic.
sorry pal, but you are way ignorant of this. that means you lack
knowledge, not that you're stupid.
forget the revisionist bullshit, it's a lie.
the japanes were monsterous evil in ww2. and deny it all to this day.
want some really sick shit? read about the korean women forced into
comfort battilions two sisters were forced in and one went insane, 65
years later her sister still takes care of her and never got even a
we're sorry from the japanese.
young japanese are still lied to. they never surrendered in ww2, never
commite atrocitys and it was all anyone else's fault. but the young
aren't stupid and the internet helps.
go fucking enlighten the japenese government.
shesssh.
note.boy
"Jud" <numis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:43e6f6b6-d114-46d0...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> IIRC, Prince Charles will NOT use the regnal name Charles, but
> possibly Louis, in memory of his uncle, Louis Mountbatten
By the time he is King perhaps Methuselah would be more appropriate. Billy
note.boy
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iEkbm.1230$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Why did the USA only support England and not also Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland? Billy
Chris
Thanks James. Your offer of help is very much appreciated.
I was given a dozen Venezuelan coins, but 4 in particular were
highlighted as being silver. Any thoughts you might have would be
welcome.
3 have a diameter of approx 15mm with "Boliver Libertador" (and a
face, Simon Bolivar's I assume, facing left.) The other side reads 25
centimos, Republica de Venezuela, some other text I can't make out and
the crest of Venezuela in the middle.
The 4th coin is approx 24 mm in diameter with the same writing and
face as above. I can make out "Barre" under the head. On the reverse
it says "Un Bolivar, Republica de Venezuela, 1965 gr. 5 lei 835"
Both coins are considerably lighter than similar-sized ones that were
given to me.
Cheers,
Chris
Mr. Jaggers
The 25 centimos was made in .835 silver from 1901-1960, nickel off and on
from 1965 to 1987, nickel-clad steel thereafter. Values vary widely
depending on the date.
> The 4th coin is approx 24 mm in diameter with the same writing and
> face as above. I can make out "Barre" under the head. On the reverse
> it says "Un Bolivar, Republica de Venezuela, 1965 gr. 5 lei 835"
This one appears to be silver. The .835 indicates the fineness. $4 retail
if uncirculated, much less if not. Barre is the name of the designer.
James
mazorj
<som...@some.domain> wrote in message
news:Xns9C5572A9559EDs...@69.16.186.8...
Wow, so many misconceptions about what I said, what I know, and what
happened. Read on.
> mountabtten's hatred for the japanes was predicated on his me being
> worked to death, beaten to death, used as expirements for biological
> warfare and starved to death. did i mention needless torture,
> eviseration for fun and flaying alive?
Okay, that could explain his personal views. However, your sputtering
rant is garbled to the point where a fifth-grader could run rings
around you. What does "was predicated on his me being worked to
death..." mean? Mountbatten certainly never suffered personally from
Japanese mistreatment. Did you? That seems to be what you're saying
in your tortured grammar. If so, I sincerely offer my condolences.
Really. Because I knew a Bataan survivor who, 25 years later, still
suffered from his ordeal.
If that's not what you meant, you really need to bone up on basic
writing and reading skills, as well as your history, before you flaunt
your ignorance on the Internet. And perhaps try to sober up before
you hit the keyboard.
> his men loved him because they would be lined up all military and
> he'd
> tell them bolloucks to that, gather around. he would talk to the
> like
> human beings and remember them. they fucking adored him.
Okay. Ditto for Montgomery and Ike and many other effective military
leaders. So what?
> he was not grateful to the japanese for killing americans,
Okay. Duh.
> it was not gift
It most certainly was. Here I'm going to return your idiotic flaming
in kind because if you can make that moronic statement then in
addition to your ESL level of reading and writing skills, you don't
know squat about the history leading up to U.S. involvement in WW2.
England desperately needed America's contributions of food, fuel, and
armaments just to keep going after Dunkirk. Yes, the "Battle of the
Atlantic" was choking off shipping of all varieties from all sources;
but there was far more to it than that. Hitler was able to turn his
attention to Russia because his only viable opponent in the West was
imprisoned on its sceptered isle, his U-boats would keet them there,
and it lacked the manpower and armaments to take the war back to
France and on to Germany. (Even with full American involvement,
Churchill resisted the cross-channel invasion because he feared more
shedding of British blood. That's why he consistently lobbied for
penny-packet actions in the Mediterranean while the U.S. military were
eager to invade France.)
Left alone, Hitler would have remained a threat for the foreseeable
future. Britain needed America's armed forces and military production
if Hitler were to be thrown out of occupied Europe. Churchill knew
this and used every means available - from personally and shamelessly
buttering up Roosevelt, to planting agents in the U.S. to solicit
support for Britain from both the public and the military. Roosevelt
was entirely on Churchill's side but a powerful streak of American
isolationism made it politically impossible to provide anything other
than minimal support.
By opening up the floodgates of virtually every American's desire to
retaliate, Pearl Harbor made it possible for the U.S. to enter war
just 24 hours later as an ally of Britain against Japan. But there
was not yet any imperative or even a flimsy excuse to join the fight
against the Nazis. Many still felt that our battle was with Japan and
resources should not be diverted to Europe when we already had a war
on our hands in the Pacific. But with the stroke of a pen, Hitler's
foolish joining of Japan in a declaration of war against America
removed all obstacles to full American involvement in WW2, including
action against the Reich.
Get a clue before you start ranting about history that you obviously
do not know.
> and even churchill, desperate for our help eas deeply saddened.
> and he was fighting for england's survival. as he said, the only
> thing
> that really scared him was the battle of the atlantic.
See above. England's desperate position included, but was not limited
to its dwindling supplies and resources due to the U-boats.
> sorry pal, but you are way ignorant of this. that means you lack
> knowledge, not that you're stupid.
> forget the revisionist bullshit, it's a lie.
Sorry, jackass, but it is you who lack knowledge if you think that I'm
"revisionist" or lack knowledge about Japanese atrocities dating back
to China and on up to the bitter end. Perhaps you mistook my comments
about post-war attitudes for "being soft" on Japanese or German
atrocities. My point there was that when the war is over, it's over.
It was in our interests not to repeat the post-WW1 retributions, but
to rebuild our former enemies as proper and prospering democracies.
Even Mountbatten recognized that.
> the japanes were monsterous evil in ww2. and deny it all to this
> day.
Some are finally coming around to recognizing the evil of Japan's
actions, but you are right in that unlike post-war Germany, Japan has
mostly opposed admitting and accepting responsibility for its actions.
I'm guessing that this is rooted in their persistent sense of racial
superiority and in whatever it is that makes "saving face" so
important in their culture.
> want some really sick shit? read about the korean women forced into
> comfort battilions two sisters were forced in and one went insane,
> 65
> years later her sister still takes care of her and never got even a
> we're sorry from the japanese.
I read about that 20 years ago, dipshit. As well as the Rape of
Nanking, their secret experimental labs where, like the Nazis, they
performed unspeakable acts in the name of "research," the Bataan death
march, the Phillipines prisoner of war camps, and their horrific
treatment of native populations (generally far worse than their
treatment of captured Europeans) after their "Asian brothers" had been
promised "co-prosperity" once the colonial powers were vanquished. To
that you can add just about any other WW2-era crime against humanity
that you in your pitifully limited knowledge can cite.
> young japanese are still lied to. they never surrendered in ww2,
> never
> commite atrocitys and it was all anyone else's fault. but the young
> aren't stupid and the internet helps.
See above.
> go fucking enlighten the japenese government.
> shesssh.
Go read 200 fucking history books and study 30-40 film documentaries
on the WW2 era, after you've taken some courses on U.S. and world
history. That is, after you acquire enough skills to comprehend what
I write here based on my research of those times, as opposed to what
you are imagining I write and think.
BTW, regardless of what he really felt about the Japanese, after the
war "Mountbottom" armed tens of thousands of unrepatriated Japanese
troops to guard European colonial resources and people against
emerging nationalist violence in the Asian colonies. He even deployed
them in strategic attacks against nationalist forces.
And to think that I replied to you in the expectation that you could
contribute personal knowledge of some deeper details that I didn't
already know about Mountbatten and WW2. As if.
mazorj
"note.boy" <note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:pSobm.66681$875....@newsfe20.ams2...
My bad. With typical American inattention to the critical details of
foreign cultures, I occasionally lapse into a shorthand that conflates
"England" to mean Great Britain or the United Kingdom or the British
Isles or Britannia or whatever it is that y'all would like to be
called nowadays. Sometimes I do remember to make the distinction,
though.
Why do you spell U.S.A. as "USA"? ;-)
- mazorj the Boorish Erstwhile Colonial
"Scarcely overpaid, presumably not over-sexed, and definitely not over
there."
Bruce Remick
Don't tell me we're still supposed to include periods there. I haven't used
them since I escaped from high school back before fire was discovered.
Don't see their requirement much in everyday use anymore (e.g USA Today).
I, too, have occasional lapses in the casualg use of England, UK, Great
Britain, British Isles, etc., but I do try to be extra careful when
communicating with a member of that place there. I wouldn't expect them to
remember every one of our states and territories, anymore than I would most
US citizens to.
Peter
> <some...@some.domain> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9C5556CAD2493s...@69.16.186.8...
>
> > Jud <numismat...@aol.com> wrote in news:43e6f6b6-d114-46d0-b0e4-
> > 658954280...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
Consider:
http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/features/features_041002f.html
mazorj
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Btsbm.45758$3m2...@newsfe06.iad...
It was just some good-natured "yanking" (so to speak) of Billy's
chain. No biggie.
IMO the formally correct initialism (U.S.A. is not an acronym) ought
to include the periods. Informal use and some authorities may differ.
- mazorj (an acronym sans periods)
note.boy
Those parts of the UK that are not England get our knickers in a knot very
easily when England is used in a wrong context, it's done by the BBC very
often, it should be known as the EBC.
I omit the three ... to save bandwidth. :-) Billy
Mr. Jaggers
I know we had a discussion along these lines once before, but 1) I forget
the details and 2) I don't know if we got to all the details. So...
Please define British Isles, Britain, Great Britain, and United Kingdom once
again. Also, who, exactly can claim to be "British" and who cannot?
James, whose ancestor lived somewhere in that general area long ago
Chris
Hi James -
At the risk of ignoring the ongoing conversation about WWII history
and sticking to topic, thank you for looking this up for me. All very
interesting stuff and much appreciated.
Chris
Mr. Jaggers
No problem, ask any time. As for the OT conversations, get used to them. A
lot of us sit here just waiting for a coin topic to be joined, but often get
sidetracked into other issues. In the grand scheme of things, this is still
a pretty interesting place, even if it is populated mostly by madmen.
James the Mad, not James Madison
Peter Irwin
>
> the details and 2) I don't know if we got to all the details. So...
>
> Please define British Isles, Britain, Great Britain, and United Kingdom once
> again. Also, who, exactly can claim to be "British" and who cannot?
The British Isles are a geographical entity, not a political one, and
corresponds to what the Romans called the Britanniae: Albion, Ireland and
all the surrounding islands.
To slightly confuse matters, the British in the 19th and 20th centuries
used Britanniae as a political term for all of the countries in the
Empire - hence the use of "Britanniarum Regina" and "Brit Omn Regina"
on coins.
Britain is also a geographic entity and is essentially the same as
the island of Albion although it might include some offshore islands.
Scotland was part of Britain even when it had a different King.
Great Britain is a political entity and corresponds to the Kingdoms
of England and Scotland united under the man who was both James VI
of Scotland and James I of Great Britain, France and Ireland. The
Government of Scotland and England were separate (apart from the King)
until the Act of Union 1707 under Queen Anne. (There were of course
two Acts, one passed by each parliament.)
The United Kingdom is also a political entity. It was established
in 1801 as the union of Great Britain and Ireland. It is now the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The exact point
when that changed is a bit murky. The title was changed on 12 April 1927,
but George VI was still technically King of all of Ireland until
18 April 1949.
Who can claim to be "British" is an interesting question. I understand
that Britishness is inalienable, so I suspect you could if you really
wanted to.
> James, whose ancestor lived somewhere in that general area long ago
>
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Mr. Jaggers
Programs, programs, can't tell the players without a program.
Thanks, I wish it were all as clearcut as you have attempted to make it, but
common usage dictates otherwise.
Your statement that James I of England and James VI of Scotland were one and
the same person is correct, but then you imply that James I was already king
of something called Great Britain even before the Act of Union. Call me
dense, but I still don't get it. Any light you can shed on this will be
appreciated.
But before you respond further, let me see if I can explain it: England and
Scotland, individually sovereign, became de facto united in the person of a
man named James, who was first king of Scotland, but then also picked up the
throne of England due to hereditary issues, but retained their individual
names and sovereignties until 1707, when they officially combined into Great
Britain.
Great Britain and Ireland (the latter with diminished enthusiasm, one would
think) officially joined together in 1801 as an entity now calling itself
the United Kingdom of tada, tada, tada, the "tada" part having changed in
both name and political reality over a fairly long period of time.
Is that about it?
Also, "Albion" is not a name generally known to us American Colonists, and
in fact is often defined as the "Island of Great Britain" in reference
sources. The French name "Grande Bretagne" is used as such to refer to your
"Albion" to differentiate it from just ordinary "Bretagne", which refers to
the Armorican peninsula, better known as Brittany, an integral part of
France and a former French province.
Factor in Celtic ethnicity and history and all bets are off, I daresay.
The reason all this has meaning to me is that I try to keep my collection of
"British" coins under the proper headings, and I've come close to giving up.
Help!
James, but neither VI of Scotland nor I of England or whatever it was called
when he was king of it
Peter Irwin
>
> Programs, programs, can't tell the players without a program.
>
> Thanks, I wish it were all as clearcut as you have attempted to make it, but
> common usage dictates otherwise.
Common usage gives us absurdities of having highland regiments in what
is called the "English Army." I don't think there is a fully clear
definition of all of these things, but one can try to avoid the absurd
and the possibly offensive.
> Your statement that James I of England and James VI of Scotland were one and
> the same person is correct,
No, I did not call him James of England. He was James VI of Scotland,
Elizabeth had been queen of England, France and Ireland, but James VI
of Scotland became James of Great Britain, France and Ireland when
he inherited the throne of England. He remained James VI of Scotland.
> but then you imply that James I was already king
> of something called Great Britain even before the Act of Union.
Yes he was. The coins say "Iacobus M.B., Fra et Hib D.G. Rex." or
something to that effect. The "M.B." stands for "Magna Britannia"
which is Latin for "Great Britain."
> Call me
> dense, but I still don't get it. Any light you can shed on this will be
> appreciated.
"Magna Britannia" or "Great Britain" was the name that James VI & I
wanted for Scotland and England together. Since he was King of it,
he had the ability to make it stick. Although the countries remained
largely separate in other respects, the monarchy became attached to
the larger entity of "Great Britain." I believe that the Scottish coins
of the man sometimes called James VII of Scotland actually bear the
legend "Iacobus II Dei Gratia Mag Br Fra et Hib Rex."
>
> But before you respond further, let me see if I can explain it: England and
> Scotland, individually sovereign, became de facto united in the person of a
> man named James, who was first king of Scotland, but then also picked up the
> throne of England due to hereditary issues, but retained their individual
> names and sovereignties until 1707, when they officially combined into Great
> Britain.
The monarchy became attached to "Great Britain" in 1603. James VI seems
to have kept his number for use in Scotland, but James II of Great
Britain seems to have called himself by the same number everywhere.
> Great Britain and Ireland (the latter with diminished enthusiasm, one would
> think) officially joined together in 1801 as an entity now calling itself
> the United Kingdom of tada, tada, tada, the "tada" part having changed in
> both name and political reality over a fairly long period of time.
Two things happened in 1801. One was the removal of France from the
royal titles: this was thought to be increasingly odd at a time when
they were in fact fighting a war for the purpose of restoring someone
else to the French throne. The other was an attempt to solve the
"Irish Question" or "Irish Problem" by making Ireland a theoretically
equal part of a single Kingdom. It didn't work.
> Is that about it?
>
> Also, "Albion" is not a name generally known to us American Colonists, and
> in fact is often defined as the "Island of Great Britain" in reference
> sources.
It is the only word which unambiguously refers to the island containing
England, Wales and Scotland without naming a political entity. It is
archaic, but it lacks the ambiguity that any other name can have.
> The French name "Grande Bretagne" is used as such to refer to your
> "Albion" to differentiate it from just ordinary "Bretagne", which refers to
> the Armorican peninsula, better known as Brittany, an integral part of
> France and a former French province.
I would be surprised if the French used "Grande Bretagne" in that way
before 1603. It would be interesting to know what they called it before.
> The reason all this has meaning to me is that I try to keep my collection of
> "British" coins under the proper headings, and I've come close to giving up.
> Help!
What is the particular problem? Is it the E or E* mintmarked coins of
Anne from 1707-1709? Or is it imperial sovereigns from branch mints?
Or coins of Imperial type issued only for colonial use such as the
Britannia fourpence of 1888, or the third and quarter farthings?
Or perhaps the shilling varieties from George VI to Elizabeth II?
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Mr. Jaggers
[cut-to-the-chase clip effected here]
> What is the particular problem? Is it the E or E* mintmarked coins of
> Anne from 1707-1709? Or is it imperial sovereigns from branch mints?
> Or coins of Imperial type issued only for colonial use such as the
> Britannia fourpence of 1888, or the third and quarter farthings?
> Or perhaps the shilling varieties from George VI to Elizabeth II?
One of my coin collecting objectives has been to assemble date sets of
copper coins and type sets of silver coins from the reign of Charles II to
the present. It seems reasonable to attribute the ones with harps under the
rubric Ireland and the ones with thistles under Scotland. That seems to be
consistent with catalogs on both sides of the Atlantic. But the ones
featuring Britannia, to what entity should I attribute those? Our American
catalogs (Krause et al.) lump them all under Great Britain, with no mention
of the U.K., while Spink's catalog is titled Coins of England and the United
Kingdom, without mentioning anything called Great Britain anywhere at all.
Based on what you have presented, it seems logical to attribute them thus:
to 1707: England
1707-1800: Great Britain, even the E and E* pieces, inasmuch as they were
made after union
1801 to date: United Kingdom
What say you to this scheme (feel free to contradict this, I'm still
listening)?
James
note.boy
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:h4nd2...@enews5.newsguy.com...
If someone was to collect only BRITISH coins they should not have any coins
in their collection dated before 1707/08. Billy
Mr. Jaggers
Care to elaborate?
James
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Stuart Kings and Queens DID in practice "style" themselves as
Kings and Queens of Great Britain, even though it was a "de
facto" (existing by actual practice) union and not a strictly "de
jure" (legal) union until 1707. For one quick reference of this, I
would cite Page 33 of "Coin Yearbook 2009" by Token Publishing. I am
certain that other sources could be sucessfully found and cited.
I would suggest that the coins of the British Isles before 1707 be
segregated by collectors by those countries in which they were
intended by their creators to circulate.
But, practically, the coins of England were of "full" weight (when
they were not worn out by long-use) and not "token" and my gut is that
they should have been acceptable anywhere in the British Isles. I am
not so certain about Irish or Scotish coins or coins of the Channel
Islands or the Isle of Man being so interchangeable.
The phrase "perfidious Albion" seems to me to be generally recognized
as what the Froggies thought of the English through most of modern
European history. Maybe not so common to Americans, but hardly
unknown.
oly
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
More on "perfidious Albion". Apparently Dick Cheney knew how to use
the phrase MOL spontaneously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
oly
Peter Irwin
>
> One of my coin collecting objectives has been to assemble date sets of
> copper coins and type sets of silver coins from the reign of Charles II to
> the present. It seems reasonable to attribute the ones with harps under the
> rubric Ireland and the ones with thistles under Scotland. That seems to be
> consistent with catalogs on both sides of the Atlantic. But the ones
> featuring Britannia, to what entity should I attribute those?
I think pre-1707 they are English. From Anne to George III they are of
Great Britain. 1826 onwards are certainly UK or Imperial. The dividing
line is not simple. The Pound Irish wasn't abolished until 1826,
even though union was in 1801.The monetary system was in emergency mode
during the Napoleonic wars, so the unification of the monetary system
had to wait. I think that the Imperial silver coinage began to circulate
in Ireland as early as 1816, but I'm unsure about the copper. There was
an issue of Irish copper in 1822 and 1823.
> Our American
> catalogs (Krause et al.) lump them all under Great Britain, with no mention
> of the U.K., while Spink's catalog is titled Coins of England and the United
> Kingdom, without mentioning anything called Great Britain anywhere at all.
My most recent catalogue is a Seaby's 1994. The prices are long outdated,
but the general info still seems good. The book title is the same as
yours, but it certainly mentions Great Britain inside.
> Based on what you have presented, it seems logical to attribute them thus:
>
> to 1707: England
> 1707-1800: Great Britain, even the E and E* pieces, inasmuch as they were
> made after union
> 1801 to date: United Kingdom
But the monetary system was in emergency mode in 1801, so in fact what
you get in the early 19th century silver are bank tokens. Bank of England
tokens are not the same as Bank of Ireland tokens. I would take the
coinage of 1816 as the dividing line for silver. The 1816 coinage was
made with below face value silver content (66 shillings in a pound
troy instead of the 1601-1815 standard of 62 shillings in a pound troy)
and of only limited legal tender status. It had the major advantage
that it could be made at a small profit in any quantity wanted for
circulation. I would call the 1816 up to at least 1953 coins Imperial
rather than UK. There were many coins that fit in the series that
were not issued for the UK. Coins such as the 1942-1944 threepences
and the 1952 sixpence are not properly UK coins even though you might
think they were by their appearance, because they were not intended
to circulate in the UK.
> What say you to this scheme (feel free to contradict this, I'm still
> listening)?
>
I think 1707 is a good dividing line, 1801 not so good as far as
coinage is concerned.
I agree, it is tough to make some of these distinctions.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Mr. Jaggers
To date I have been using 1707 as the dividing line, but calling everything
U.K. after that (except Ireland), even though it's technically wrong - too
many labels to change without definitive limits.
Thanks for your efforts here, Peter. It's been most frustrating and
enlightening at the same time.
James
note.boy
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Scottish and English coinage were separate before those dates with one
English pound equal to 12 Scottish pounds and the denominations were
entirely different, some UK coin dealers will advertise "English" coins for
sale but offer coins dated after 1707/08, which is technically wrong. There
are no English coins after those dates. Billy
Some banknote sellers are no better as I once wrote for a list of BRITISH
banknotes for sale to receive a list only of Bank of England notes, no
Scottish or Northern Irish were listed.
A UK profession dealer should be aware of the difference but many either are
not or ignore the facts. Billy
Mr. Jaggers
Thanks, I knew there was a ratio there, but not what it was, exactly.
James
Mike Marotta
> >>>>> IIRC, Prince Charles will NOT use the regnal name Charles, but
> >>>>> possibly Louis, in memory of his uncle, Louis Mountbatten
> >> Northern Ireland? Billy
> easily when England is used in a wrong context, it's done by the BBC very
> often, it should be known as the EBC.
I heard that Charles will become King William V.
Any conflict between the UK and Germany is a donnybrook, by
definition.
People from 20 other nations object when we call ourselves "Americans"
as if they were not. "United Statians" is somewhat awkward and still
runs against the United States of Mexico, Brazil, etc.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"sui generis"
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:h4oee...@enews5.newsguy.com...
> Peter Irwin wrote:
...
>> I think 1707 is a good dividing line, 1801 not so good as far as
>> coinage is concerned.
>>
>> I agree, it is tough to make some of these distinctions.
>
> To date I have been using 1707 as the dividing line, but calling
> everything U.K. after that (except Ireland), even though it's
> technically wrong - too many labels to change without definitive
> limits.
>
> Thanks for your efforts here, Peter. It's been most frustrating and
> enlightening at the same time.
But James, you haven't yet touched on where to fit in the former
anti-aircraft platform off the Albion coast that issues its own
non-circulating specimens. ;-)
http://coins.about.com/od/worldcoins/a/sealand_coins.htm?nl=1
What happened to "Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the waves..."?
oly
My experience during one month traveling in Brazil back in 1994 was
that they consistently called us "Americans" and called themselves
"Brasileros". Never a single exception to that usage, none, zero,
nada. We specifically questioned them on this and they consistently
declined to be called "Americans".
oly
oly
See, you should have posted this Sealand item over under the "Is it a
Coin?" argument.
oly
Bruce Remick
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:305bd879-c54b-4061...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
___________
I found that some picky people in a couple Central American countries
considered it mildly insulting if I called myself an "Americano", claiming
in theory that I was implying that Central Americans aren't. Even though
the US is the only country in North, South, or Central America with
"America" as part of its name, I found it no big deal to refer to myself as
a "Norte Americano" (like they did) whenever I thought it would ease my life
there. Otherwise, like in your experience, I was simply an Americano in
most countries on these two continents.
mazorj
Doh! I missed that angle. But I did contribute another little
tongue-in-cheek bit on Chinese-certified "coins" in another thread.
Speaking of Sealand and tongue-in-cheekiness: I wonder what it would
take to take over an old oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico or near the
coast of Venezuela and declare oneself a sovereign entity? Between
skimming off the top as finance minister of your new banking haven,
and exploiting the rights of seigniorage for mediocre circulating and
non-circulating issues, you could stop worrying about your retirement
fund. Call it "Second-Banana Republic." Mimes, lousy coffee, and
lawyers (other than your hand-picked Attorney General) would be
outlawed. And the weather would be a lot warmer!
Tony Clayton
> On Jul 27, 9:27�am, Jud <numismat...@aol.com> wrote:
> > IIRC, Prince Charles will NOT use the regnal name Charles, but
> > possibly Louis, in memory of his uncle, Louis Mountbatten
>
> I suspect that the names Charles and William (his son) were chosen
> specifically because they had not been utlized as regnal names for
> many many years. I'll bet that happy old prince Chuck goes with CRIII
> and Wills as WRV. OTOH, there are NO King Louis in the English Royal
> Line, none, zero.
Louis is associated with French kings, and I suspect would be unpopular.
As to distinguishing the Maundy 1911 3d from the circulation issue,
there is no way to distinguish worn coins; if uncirculated then
a sharper edge seems to be the only significant difference.
I could not tell them apart - only someone who handles a great deal of
Maundy and ordinary 3d could possibly know.
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
... Behind every successful man is a woman with nothing to wear
Tony Clayton
I would dispute this. They were minted to satisfy a demand from
particular colonies, like the 1950 and 1951 pennies also, but
were perfectly legal tender back in the UK.
A number certainly made their way back (I found several 1952 sixpence in change
and also 1942, 43 and 44 silver threepence - the latter in bags of silver threepence
available at my local bank back in the late 1960's).
>
> > What say you to this scheme (feel free to contradict this, I'm still
> > listening)?
> >
> I think 1707 is a good dividing line, 1801 not so good as far as
> coinage is concerned.
>
> I agree, it is tough to make some of these distinctions.
>
> Peter.
Technically the UK is the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
... Make offer or buy all for $100.00 Shipping or COD not included.
Peter Irwin
> In a recent message Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net> wrote:
>
>> I would call the 1816 up to at least 1953 coins Imperial
>> rather than UK. There were many coins that fit in the series that
>> were not issued for the UK. Coins such as the 1942-1944 threepences
>> and the 1952 sixpence are not properly UK coins even though you might
>> think they were by their appearance, because they were not intended
>> to circulate in the UK.
>
> I would dispute this. They were minted to satisfy a demand from
> particular colonies, like the 1950 and 1951 pennies also, but
> were perfectly legal tender back in the UK.
They were certainly acceptable in circulation when they found
their way to the UK, but they were not issued for circulation
there.
The case of the 1888 Britannia Fourpence is interesting. In that
case, the Treasury was somewhat annoyed that some of the coins
found their way into circulation in the UK. The next issue in
1891 were then made for British Guiana only. From what I
gather, when the Britannia Fourpence was removed from circulation
in the late 1850s, the circulating stock was made available for
use in British Guiana where they were wanted. A small number
remained in circulation in the UK, and I expect that most people
attributed these to coins found in the backs of drawers and in
piggy banks. But when the new 1888 coins started appearing in
the UK, it became obvious that coins were finding their way
back from Guyana.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net