Talk:British two pound 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.


Can anyone tell me how these coins are made? Chrisatlangley

Essentially, two pieces of metal (one ring, one centre) are placed in the press. As they are pressed flat, the ring alloy squishes in to fill the gap, and similarly the centre alloy squishes outwards. They lock in place under extremely high pressure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.162.127 (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at British_two_pound_coin without extra capitals? I thought we wrote everything in sentence case. 21:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)(Skittle)

We're workin on it. I'll make sure this one is on the list. Thnx. Joe I 21:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Middle of early ones

I remember when the coin first appeared, some people said that the middle of thiers could be pushed out quite easily, though the design has evidently been improved since then as i've never had one that comes apart. Anybody know if there's any truth in 'defective' early ones? (I'm gathering what the same people told me about the two seperate parts being legal tender of 75p each wasn't true!) 86.158.27.179 (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue, there is no way that the centre of the coin could be pushed put by human force alone. The early Canadian toonies ($2) would come apart if they where subject to excessively low temperatures, however the British two pound coin was never produced by the same methods 86.111.162.127 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images of the Coin

As I've said in the discussion on the one pound coin, the link to the Royal Mint at the bottom of the bage provides more clear images of the 1997- coins than the slightly worn looking coins currently there. Should we replace those with the Royal Mint pics, as the most recent ones appear to have been used anyway? Also, the 1997 coin needs to be added. -- JimmyK 22:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it would be breach of copyright to use those images, however, I am curious where the other very high quality images came from. And the lack of the 1997 coin is still apparant (see the Royal Mint site) -- JimmyK 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate-ness of edge inscriptions

Would it be appropriate to create a list of incscriptions around the edge of normal circulation coins? I have just found they have them, having looked at the edge of a coin, and found that the one I am using says "Standing on the soulders of giants". Lcarsdata (Talk) 21:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

All two pound coins since 1997 have the same inscription, unless it is an error coin or a commemorative issue. So there is no need to list them other than along side the commemoratives, which is already done. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2006-Two-Pound-Coin-Portrait.JPG

Image:2006-Two-Pound-Coin-Portrait.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2006-Two-Pound-Coin-Arches.JPG

Image:2006-Two-Pound-Coin-Arches.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Olympic coin

My understanding is that the 2008 "100th anniversary of the 1908 London Summer Olympics" coin is a limited edition not intended for general circulation (see e.g. http://24carat.co.uk/twopoundsindxframe.html). I therefore moved it to be with the other earlier non-circulating coins, but it was moved back to the "modern circulating coin" section because it's in the "new format". Fair enough, it probably doesn't belong with the older-format coins, but it's still not right. Should we create a new section for the "revived non-circulating coin" and put it there? Or leave it where it is, note that it's limited edition, and change the heading and some of the introductory wording in the "modern circulating coin" section, just to indicate that they're not all for everyday circulation as is currently implied? Of course, if I'm wrong and it is intended for general circulation then ignore all this. Matt 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

If you read through the link provided, you'll see that in addition to the special limited edition versions of the coin, it will also be produced in the normal "definitive" version - this mixture of types is normal for commemorative £2s. Therefore it is correct to position it with all the other designs produced since 1997. -- Arwel (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
On the same page you link to under the section "Different versions" it is stated that the coin is available as "Ordinary circulation version, which should be available from banks and post offices during the year" 86.111.162.127 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're quite right. Sorry, my mistake. Matt 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.100.160 (talk)

[edit] Layout

Does anyone else think that the 'The commemorative coin (1986–1996)' section should perhaps move to its own page and be accessible under 'Commemorative and Bullion' - or perhaps moved below the 'The modern circulating coin (1997–present)' section? It just seems odd to come to the page and have to scroll down to get to what is in essence the beginning of the article and to where most of the pertinent information regarding the current two pound coin is. Insekt x (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They should be kept on the same page, they are legal tender, however I would agree that the bi-metallics should be moved to the top 86.111.162.127 (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. I have swapped the order. 86.133.243.5 (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)