Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/21/2020 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Very sensible words, Jerry and Mike. I agree wholeheartedly with all of what both of you say. You're right actually - why should we share all our collective expertise with that pair who would no doubt take it and use (and mis-use !) it entirely for their advantage. We are better off without them. I just implore fellow members on the forum to really think carefully about ever giving them custom. We, on the forum, are collectively so much better (and more knowledgeable) than those two "dealers"... Yes, Mike, contact them and request the return of the postage cost to you. I have done some legal research and can give you this if it helps: Distance selling regulations and Sale of Goods acts were actually replaced in 2014 and 2015 respectively, with what is now known as Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Consumer Rights Act respectively. Both would seem to apply in your case. Courtesy of the Which website, this is the clause about goods that are faulty or not as described: If you receive faulty goods and wish to return them, the Regulations are in addition to your other legal rights. So, if your goods are faulty and don’t do what they're supposed to, or don’t match the description given, you have the same consumer rights under the Consumer Rights Act (which replaces the Sale of Goods Act from 1 October 2015) as you have when buying in store. Any terms and conditions that say you must cover the cost of returning an item wouldn’t apply where the goods being returned are faulty. It is this last paragraph in particular that is relevant, but feel free to quote the whole lot at them ! I may not be legally trained, but equally I am no barrack room lawyer - just someone who wants to stand up for what is right and what are our rights, and will take time to gain that knowledge. In fact, are any forum members in the legal profession and can confirm the above? I bet some of us are. Please do let us know how you get on!
  2. 2 points
    There’s always the Small Claims Court, which would almost certainly find in your favour, if they don’t have a lower limit for claims; might be worth a mention. I’m not entirely enthused by the idea of the likes of this duo stalking the forum; I don’t think a small pool of negativity here will alter their business practice, we are not the sort of customers they rely on; but a legal assertion of customer rights might. A copy of their massive catalogue came with my Coin News again this week. The Pembroke penny caught my eye at a bit over a grand. “How likely is that?” I thought. So I had a look at the grainy image. How could any-one be certain of the mint of this multiply and poorly struck coin? And I certainly can’t tie in the letters I think I can see. If you are going to pick a mint, pick a rare one. I wouldn’t have much hope for the Henry III Wilton penny at £50 either, no photo there. Jerry
  3. 2 points
    Actually on aesthetic grounds I like the first of the 1920s. I posted mine I believe (don't ask again as I have "pie"itis) which is very near to a matte proof and nearly flawless - almost begging me to grade it. I also have the specimen ducktail 1920 that I posted (on PCGS website in Pop Reports); these two are my favorite G5 collection coins in all probability. Oh, heck, here is the specimen: 1 / 1 (1920 1/2 Cr Satin) (Proof) PCGS PR61
  4. 1 point
    Just landed, my new Group III type 3b example. It has some nice provenance, including: Ex Grant Francis collection, Glendinings 03/1920, Lot 138 (illustrated in G. Francis' paper 'Silver Coins of thee Tower Mint of Charles I, Chapter II, BNJ 1917) Ex. R.C. Lockett Collection, Lendinings 17/10/1961, Part V (English), Lot 4477 'very fine, rare' Ex Lord Rodney Smith of Marlow collection, purchase by Spink, 1969 Ex J.G. Brooker collection, SCBI Brooker 324 (this coin)
  5. 1 point
    Interesting point, but not sure the RM was always so fastidious with proofs as we like to think. The edge milling on this coin is nearly sharp enough to cut your finger and has the "duck tailing" mentioned in Bull, and the devices are as sharp as I have ever seen - much better than the 1924 proof/specimen. Not sure if this is the coin in his book.
  6. 1 point
    Where's Doctor Potter when you need him? He'd know how to handle such types...
  7. 1 point
    Seriously outrageous. I rest my case. This is absolutely unacceptable (and, I am led to believe, illegal under the distance selling regulations and sale of goods acts) and I really don't think you should even begin to accept a £6.50 loss for their mistake/incompetence/deliberacy. This is clearly their "policy", and as I said in my earlier post, they are clearly doing this so as not to lose money themselves but let customers take the hit. If every mistake was actually paid for by them, then they might actually sharpen their act up, but, no, they don't give a sh-one-t, and until we customers act, it'll go on. i would politely suggest the following actions: You get back in touch with them and demand your £6.50, referencing distance selling regulations. As Craigy is happy, contact Chris P to see if he is too, and then refer Ingrams to this site/thread. We on the forum boycott them and further spread the news of their appalling service among the coin fraternity. Do members agree, or am I being the unreasonable one??! Originally I wasn't going to pursue this, but on further reflection I think I will. If I hadn't mentioned the cost in my e mail to them, then I wouldn't. But having done so, I find the fact that it's been totally ignored as of zero importance, deeply irritating. It's definitely not the way I would treat others. So yes, a further e mail on that topic will be coming their way soon. I'm no barrack room lawyer, so I won't be mentioning the legislation you refer to, but they'll get the message - trust me on that. Oh, and no, you're not being unreasonable.
  8. 1 point
    That’s called stacking where you take multiples of the same picture at the same settings then stack them in Lightroom or starry landscape stacked and theoretically it brings out better detail. Images should be taken in RAW format. I took my picture with the Sony DSC RX10 M3, it’s has a 600mm zoom lens.
  9. 1 point
    Just acquired my first George I crown (today's DNW auction)
  10. 0 points
    Same. 3rd of April with Tesco. I popped out today. It was ugly. Shops look as if they have been looted. Nothing of use in my local Aldi other than fruit and veg. Seriously thinking of dusting the air rifle off and going out lamping.
  11. 0 points
    I did an online shop - with much website difficulty - from Waitrose yesterday. When I came to checkout I was asked to pick a slot first. Then was told that there are no slots available for the foreseeable future. So much for 'helping the self-isolated'. 😠 😥





×