Talk:Two pound coin

Numismatics: British currency High‑importance

	Numismatics portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British currency task force (assessed as Top-importance).

On 10 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Two pounds. The result of the discussion was Moved to Two pound coin.

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I also agree. I have swapped the order. 86.133.243.5 (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that some years on the order has reversed back to the uni-metallics at the top and combined into one table which therefore does not distinguish at all between the two types. I would suggest splitting the table into uni-metallic and bi-mettalic, with the bi-mettalics at the top as discussed above. Denplan (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The £2 coins issued between 1986 and 1996 were for general circulation purposes! I have several examples collected from my change!86.134.123.224 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we put this to rest once and for all (see also post below) - The uni-metallic £2 coins 1986-1996 were NOT minted or issued for circulation. They were issued as collectors pieces only in the same way as modern five pound coins. Once the circulating bi-metallic two pound coins were introduced in 1997 and such a value of coin became familiar, some of the older uni-metallic coins have also found their way into circulation from collections (as they are still legal tender) but this was never the purpose of these coins and they should not be considered in the same way as the commemorative bi-metallic coins that have been minted in higher quantities and issued specifically for circulation. Denplan (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were originally meant for collections. But the Euro 96 one in particular did seem to enter general circulation for a while in the late 1990s and early 2000s, possibly because it was the last uni-metallic one and the first bi-metallic ones seemed to follow on from it; it was seen as a "1996 £2 coin". I haven't seen one for about 5 or 6 years though, they may be going back into collections. The article includes as "commemorative" several issues commonly seen in circulation, such as the rugby ball, steam engine, DNA and evolution ones. These should be listed separately from the old uni-metallic ones as they are used as ordinary £2 coins. Walshie79 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The First £2 Coin

Great Britain's first £2 Coin was circulated in 1986. There were two versions issued in 1989, one in 1994, two varieties in 1995 and one in 1996 - all prior to the issue of the bi-metallic coins in 1997!86.134.123.224 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These coins were all issued for general circulation purposes!! How else would I (and countless other people) have collected examples from my change?86.134.123.224 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britains' first £2 coins were gold coins issued periodically from 1822 onwards. This article is about the base metal coins - there is a link to the separate article about the gold coins at the top of the page. Contrary to 86.134.123.224's assertion, the 1986-96 £2 coins were NOT issued for general circulation purposes but were legal tender which is how they (very occasionally) ended up in circulation; the Royal Mint site itself describes them as commemorative. I only once saw the coin being actually used in a shop. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highest value coin?

The opening paragraph of the section "Bi-metallic coin (1997 to present)" claims that it "is the highest denomination coin in common circulation." This refers to the highest denomination coin in British circulation, right? Because the Japanese 500 yen coin (worth something more than £3) is very definitely in common circulation. Whether it refers to the demonination of the coin, or its value, the Japanese coin seems to be "higher." Or am I missing something? Cerowyn (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, in circulation in the UK. We can add that if you like, if it isn't self-evident. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced addition

I removed this edit as unsourced. Begoon (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over use of non-free images

At the end of March 2011, I raised an issue regarding the heavy use of non-free images on numismatics articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images. Three weeks later, there's been no response. My intention is to remove much of the non-free content of coins/notes from this article for violating WP:NFCC #3a, requirement for minimal use, and WP:NFCC #8, since many/all of the non-free images are designs not specifically referred to in the text by externally sourced commentary. If you have concerns about this issue, your are invited to discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 £2 coins

The current page (at the time of writing) states that the two 2011 £2 coins (Mary Rose and King James Bible) will be in effect limited to an issue of 20,000, and use a Royal Mint shop page as a reference. Two points: 1) There may be 20,000 of those specific presentation packs but that doesn't mean that there are only 20,000 in all as many could be in other 2011 coin sets. 2) Putting them in a category called "Limited edition collectors' issues" can give the impression that will only ever be 20,000 of any source when it is likely that the coins follow in the footsteps of the vast majority of £2 coins and become issued into circulation and have a mintage of several hundred thousand if not a few million. Yes I see that the current page tries to describe the present situation but perhaps it could leave less room for ambiguity? Keowned (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest move

It strikes me this should be moved to either two pounds or two pounds (coin). It's adequately disambiguated from double sovereign and while there are two pound coins for Guernsey, Jersey etc., this would be the primary topic and if someone was minded to write about Gibraltar's two pound coins, that article could take the parenthetical. Two pounds is at present a redirect here. Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 November 2023

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.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Two pound coin. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two pounds (British coin) → Two pounds – No need for disambiguation. While there might be, in theory, articles such as Two pounds (Guernsey coin), or for other British colonies and possessions that still use and issue pounds, as a practical matter the topic would be covered under Guernsey pound, etc. This is clearly the primary topic and should be moved to Two pounds. Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and WP:NOTAMBIG. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Two pounds coin instead for WP:NATURAL disambiguation, perhaps? "Two pounds" sounds like it might be about the amount in general rather than the coin. (EDIT: Or Two pound coin per below comments. No opinion between those two.) SnowFire (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Two pound coin' is the vernacular. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that. Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Two pound coin as WP:COMMONNAME. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Two pound coin per above and WP:SINGULAR. Dank Jae 03:21, 13 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.