This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Well, to start, the Isle of Man is not part of the UK, but I have certainly seen Manx coins being used here in England.... Maybe a new article should be started for them? (Sadly, I recently spent one of these buying a sandwich in Oxford.) -- Kaihsu 16:09, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
And I have seen Gibraltarian ones used here as well. -- Kaihsu 19:26, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
Oh, certainly very rarely you'll find Manx, or Gibraltar, or Jersey, or Guernsey pounds in your change, but the reason they're rare is because they're not legal tender and someone's slipped them into circulation over here without the recipient noticing! Anyway, I haven't written anything about them 'cos I don't know enough details about them! :) -- Arwel20:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
As you no doubt know, legal tender means nothing in everyday transactions, as it refers to money that cannot be refused to pay off a pre-existing debt. Shopkeepers are free to refuse even legal tender if they want to, because you haven't got into debt with them. "I can't take that, it's not legal tender" is a phrase used by racist shopkeepers as a legal-sounding reason for why they want to discriminate against your money. Banks will happily accept (genuine) Manx pound coins and pay you £1 for them. In Scotland, we have our own banknotes, and face the same problem when we go "abroad" to England with our very real money! Scottish shops have no problem taking the not-legal-tender Scottish banknotes, why not English shops? 80.41.214.111 (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, genuine Northern Irish and Scottish banknotes are not legal tender all over the UK. But they are far from being "just colourful pieces of paper", since legally they have the same value as Bank of England notes. It is only the legal status of their use in different monetary transactions that varies. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
British coin One Pound strikes (no pun intended) me as a really awkward construction - certainly not something that anybody except possibly a numismatist is going to stumble across by accident. Wouldn't British One Pound coinorPound coin (United Kingdom) be better?
Surely "sterling" should be used instead of "British", even if the code is GBP.
The Royal Mint page (as linked to at the bottom) contains very clear images of all the coins, is it possible to use those ones instead of the worn-looking ones that are currently there? Especially given that the 2006 coin appears to have already been retrieved from there. JimmyK
Definitely not - see that "Crown Copyright 2006. Royal Mint." at the bottom of the Royal Mint page? Crown Copyright is definitely incompatible with the GFDL licence Wikipedia operates under. Images licenced under GFDL, however poor, are always to be preferred over copyrighted or so-called "fair use" images as a matter of Wikipedia policy. -- Arwel (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was wondering whether that would be an issue, however, if this is the case, from where was the image of the 2006 coin retrieved? -- JimmyK19:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "maggie" was ever really a genuine nickname for the coin - it was just a joke: "It is sometimes called a 'Maggie' because it's think and brassy and thinks it's a sovereign." I never heard this "nickname" used in any other context than this joke. TomH18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Maggie" name was circulating around the House of Commons. I was told it by a newly reelected Tory MP shortly after they were introduced. I heard the term used on TV and have heard/employed it in conversations with those who are old enough to remember Baroness Thatcher. (BTW, "thick (not think), brassy and pretending to be a sovereign") Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that for the years 2004-7 the obverse is given as "Obverse: Rank-Broadley head, inscription ELIZABETH II D G REG F D 2004, starting below, IRB directly under the bust. Encircled by dots." Is this needed? The obverse is already mentioned at the top of the article. Maybe this text should be removed. Alternatively, maybe obverse information should be included for all years.
There are quite alot of pound coins circulating in Northern Ireland that have had IRA stamped on them. Is this worthy of a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.108.37 (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated the "in circulation" quote based on Royal Mint numbers, and there they have separate values for "face value" and "number of pieces" that are different. Anyone know why the face value is higher than the number of coins? — PhilHibbs | talk14:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, the writing on the edge may be in the wrong font and look very poor (see image), and the coins often generally look much less sharp and defined, lacking intricate details."
The first coin design description mentions issue 2008 of the pound coin is an ornamental royal arms, where the 2008 image it is just normal coat of royal arms. Not sure which is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.89.243 (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
which is incorrect, as far as i can tell, according to the source cited by the article itself (#1).
it should be:
"1983, 1993, 1998 & 2003"
however when i edited it, the user Martinevans123 reverted it. So, i think im right, and i would like the article to reflect my correction. What should i do?
These (for 2015) are listed in the table, but the features (i.e. new portrait of the queen) aren't reflected in the text. Would someone like to do the honours?
There were two completely different reverse designs in 2015 - one featured the shield as has been used since 2008, and the other was a newly designed image of the whole coat of arms.
The designs are visible on the list provided by the Royal Mint [1]. However, the mintage figures do not include the latter of these designs[2].
According to the Change Checker blog[3], the figures given by the Royal Mint are most likely an error, as the shield with the 5th portrait was issued in sets only and so would not have such a high mintage.
Does anyone else have more information on this? The current table suggests that there was only one reverse design.
The lead contains two different dates on which the coin allegedly was introduced, 9 February and 21 April 1983. Only one can be right, or if they represent different things (such as the first coin being struck and the coins entering circulation), this should be clarified. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging that up. The Royal Mint state 21 April 1983 (and they should know!), so I have reworded the lead accordingly and added a reference. Cloudbound (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should we create a new article for the 12-sided coin once it enters circulation, or even split off the current round coins content into another, or just add to this article? I just think we could lose some of the details of the round pound, such as the composition in the infobox. Cloudbound (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why create a new article? The new coin is still a £1 coin so keep it here. After all the design has changed so much over the years that another change is just another line in the list. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd put it out there for discussion in advance. In terms of changes, it's a bit more of a change than just the reverse, but I agree with you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the obverse/reverse pictures of the 2016 12-sided coin match (16/5/2017), the respective pictures of the round coin don't. To me, it looks odd to depict the 2016 round coin (circulating or not) with a non-matching reverse. The source for the 2016 round obverse does contain a suitable 2016 round reverse, is this something I could attempt to substitute for the current version? It would make a world of difference. Mongoosander (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, we'll probably lose either the obverse or reverse image of the round pound once it leaves circulation, as both types are currently shown while they are available together. From October, we'll only really need one of the round pound images, similar to how we only show the reverse of the previous designs on the other coin articles. Then again, that's just my opinion. Feel free to give it a go though. Cloudbound (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on One pound (British coin). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Ebay and Etsy have auctions and sales where listers claim the edge inscription is an upside down and therefore an error and makes the coin rare. It would be a service to our readers to point out this is nonsense. Not sure if an encyclopedia needs that level of detail. Pretty sure most people would say not. 2600:1700:BB00:3220:497D:3A1B:69DA:5B41 (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC) JMz[reply]
When the coin was introduced, it was initially very unpopular (I dare day that's true of many currency innovations - decimalisation took decades to catch on, as did the 100 times move in the decimal point in France). I remember the Daily Mail running a front page story called "The Pound Britain Doesn't Want". Might be worth a mention if somebody can be bothered.Paulturtle (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support move as stated in nomination (discarding the redundant disambiguation). Oppose hyphenation per actual UK usage – try a google search with ""a one-pound coin" (or"a one pound coin", google ignores the hyphen for search purposes): I didn't go past the first page but there is not a hyphen in sight. Same result for ""a two-pound coin". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, feel free to say "don't take any three-dollar bills" but in the UK, the term is not hyphenated. Not quite WP:IAR but definitely a case for a local adjustment to site-wide policy. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In common usage, those diminishing number of people who still use cash say "one pound" or "quid". This feels like a move for the sake of it. Huw much disruption are you seeking to cause? doktorbwordsdeeds22:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
