Talk:British two pence coin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

how much is the value of a 1985 two pence

2p -- Arwel 13:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tuppence

Do some people refer to this coin as a "tuppence"? I'm sure I've heard people do so, but I want to check with others about what they've heard. If they do, we should mention it. Marnanel 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added mention of this. Matt 17:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm 38 and have lived in the UK all my life, and I have never heard the modern decimal 2p referred to as a "tuppence". It's an archaic term associated with the pre-decimal 2 pence. JonRB (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Value of old 2p coins

I've heard, and this may be an urban myth, that the scrap value of the copper content of 2p coins minted before 1992 is actually worth more than 2p. If this is the case then it may be worth mentioning in the article. Barnjo (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format of infobox

I've never really understood how these "infoboxes" are supposed to work when there is more than one design in circulation. At the moment we have a bit of a muddle. Three different obverse designers are given, but only one image, and only one design date. On the other hand, only one reverse design is mentioned. To be consistent and correct we ought to mention both reverse designs, make clear which designs are depicted, and attribute a design date to each design. However, it seems that the template doesn't support this without pain, and it also means that the box becomes rather verbose in repeating just what the article says. Having considered the options I think that the best course is to depict and describe only the most recent designs in the infobox, with a note saying that the others are covered in the main text. So, that's what I've done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.130.168 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "design date" field is confusing. I assume that whoever made the obverse design date "1994" thought it ought to be the date that the designer actually crafted the design. I think this is confusing; I think it's natural to assume it's the date that the design first appeared on the coins, so I've changed it. If, in respect of either of these points, anyone has any better ideas about how this box is meant to work then please go ahead! 86.140.130.168 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)