Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;chrisild, post: 1756279, member: 39&quot;]While I know that many collectors dislike the design (and it regularly comes up in &quot;Show your ugly pieces&quot; etc. topics <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> ), I do like it. The portrait is a pretty characteristic one - if there was no name, people would still say, yeah, that&#039;s Churchill.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What was a mistake, in my opinion, is the font used on that side. Nine big fat characters, totally different from the font used on the other side. Booh.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As for the alloy, it made sense to issue the Churchill Crown as a Cu-Ni piece. It was supposed to be a coin that everybody could have - and maybe even use in everyday life. The 1953 and 1960 Crowns (which did say &quot;5 shillings&quot;) were Cu-Ni only as well. It would have been neat to make the Churchill Crown in both copper-nickel and silver, yes. Well, that was not done until the mid-70s ...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>(Side note: Churchill will soon appear on the BoE £5 <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/PublishingImages/churchill.jpg" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/PublishingImages/churchill.jpg" rel="nofollow">banknote</a>. Maybe you&#039;ll like that one better?)</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Christian[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in