Talk:Two pounds (British gold coin)

Is the title of this article correct?
According to the title of this article (as well as the note at the start), the difference between this article and British two pound coin is that the former describes pre-decimal coins and the latter post-decimal. This does not seem to be true. This article seems to cover the continuation of the gold £2 coin issues right through decimalisation and beyond. So, the distinction seems to be one of coin series rather than decimalisation per se. 86.133.243.5 (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Agreed. I have moved it to Two pounds (British gold coin). Moonraker2 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical vs. Current Circulating Coin
Reverted a paragraph here.

While it may be technically true (I assume) that the current £2 is issued in proof condition, it seems clear that the original paragraph referred to the historical (pre-1997) coins. Otherwise, why would it say "although the issues of 1823, 1887, 1893, and 1902 did circulate" unless it was to be assumed that the coin did not otherwise circulate?

Since the present coin *is* in circulation, and since it isn't the subject of the article, the changed version doesn't make sense, and it can be assumed that this wasn't the original intent. Ubcule (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , can you please clarify which version(s) of the coin your modified paragraph was intended to refer to? Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure. The preceding paragraph correctly says "but has been minted every year since 1997" (and not "but was minted ..."), because this practice is still continuing. "Was" would mean it is historical and has now ceased. At the start of the following paragraph, "the coin" clearly refers to the same thing (or category of things) as does "A two pound coin" in the preceding paragraph (as there is no intervening reference to another class of coin, which might supersede it). Thus "has been" is needed again in the following paragraph for exactly the same reason: "The coin has normally been issued in cased "proof" condition ...", which refers to the same continuing practice of minting £2 coins as does the preceding paragraph. Hope I haven't laboured the point too much and that this is helpful.Ehrenkater (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - I see your point, but that wasn't why I asked (see (#) below). I wasn't trying to be nitpicky, I just found it a little hard to explain why I felt the sentence- in its original form and moreso after you'd changed the tense- was misleading.
 * "The coin was normally issued in cased "proof" condition" wouldn't- on its own- preclude the possibility that it was also in general circulation.
 * However, since it then goes on to specifically note as that "the issues of 1823, 1887, 1893, and 1902 did circulate", the logically implicit reading is that any other issues not specifically mentioned as exceptions *weren't* in general circulation.
 * The problem is that the era of the modern £2 coin isn't listed as an exception, so the implication is that *it* isn't in general circulation either... when, of course, it is!
 * Part of the problem I had was that changing the tense more strongly implied that this included the post-1997 coin, making the misleading implication above more likely. My personal belief is that it was not intended to cover the present-day coin, hence my opposition to changing the tense.
 * We should also bear in mind that the subject of the article is the Two pounds (British gold coin), and not the present-day one which has its own article. (#) I asked specifically which coin you meant because I'd considered the possibility you *may* have been referring to some special gold version of the modern £2 coin which *isn't* in general circulation. I doubted that, but I thought I should ask anyway.
 * Otherwise, I'd have assume the original sentence above was meant to only refer to the *historical* gold coin, in which case changing it to the present tense was misleading? (Even then, I don't think that the original wording- which wasn't yours- was as clear as it might have been).
 * Ubcule (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We should also bear in mind that the subject of the article is the Two pounds (British gold coin), and not the present-day one which has its own article. (#) I asked specifically which coin you meant because I'd considered the possibility you *may* have been referring to some special gold version of the modern £2 coin which *isn't* in general circulation. I doubted that, but I thought I should ask anyway.
 * Otherwise, I'd have assume the original sentence above was meant to only refer to the *historical* gold coin, in which case changing it to the present tense was misleading? (Even then, I don't think that the original wording- which wasn't yours- was as clear as it might have been).
 * Ubcule (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ubcule (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ubcule (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)