Rob

Am I right in thinking that if your bitcoin doesn't slab PF70, it's a bit suspect?

Many thanks

And the other side

Anybody have any idea who made these or if it is in a reference volume. Aluminium, 31.5mm diameter, 5.21g and below the lion reads RD NO 572729/10 - the RD NO presumably meaning registered number.

I too drive an asthmatic dog kennel. I remember once being asked why I hadn't waited a couple weeks to get the new registration, but had to point out that come the time to sell, nobody had ever cared when my car was registered. They were only interested in whether it worked, had a full complement of wheels, or an MOT or not.

It would help if we knew who this individual was (in confidence if you don't want to post names). People ripping off others is a perennial plague. Three weeks ago I had a guy who successfully placed 3 orders from 11 attempts for 8 wildly differing coins in both value and type using a total of 54 different cards. Those 11 attempts used 4 different names from 3 different addresses. He then got quite animated and angry when I refunded them and explained that I only shipped orders paid with good funds from legitimate sources. What is particularly annoying about this is that there is a cost to me, because the card processing charges are not refunded, though the stolen cards do have their full balance restored. Sadly there is no obvious method of contacting the card issuers to advise them that the cards are being used in this way. Tried to do that in the past and was told it wasn't possible.

Scott was a couple miles up the road towards Bury. As stated previously, some of the early members were kids that may have abandoned coin collecting in exchange for the regular distractions - we have all been there! I know of a few members that are still active, but don't contribute any more, but neither do they use social media. On the broader question of past members, they must be somewhere. Presumably Facebook has taken a good number. What is certain is that they don't post on here. I don't understand why people wouldn't look at a forum, but would go on FB when a dedicated numismatic forum is going to be populated with people with more than a passing interest and therefore potentially a greater knowledge base. If you consider the past year and a half since lockdown started, the number of people who started/expanded their collecting must have been considerable, yet the beginners section has only had 5 new topics this year and only had 15 topics posted in 2020. That has to mean people aren't asking questions and are taking the plunge without too much thought, or just relying on social media for their knowledge. It's possible that the wide range of readily available information on the net has negated the need to ask questions - albeit with the caveat that you shouldn't rely on everything you read. But that is probably a lesson to be learned later.

Looks to be heavily polished.

Using the top left quarter as TAS, then the opposing one must be RAM for DER(R)AM, because Bristol, Canterbury or London wouldn't work, and I think you can eliminate RACI because the last bit of the preceding quarter isn't an O, leaving Durham by default. With nothing in the centre of the reverse, I would think it's probably S2114, struck under Laurence Booth. A bit more detail would help!

You also have to consider punches used for medals

I'm not convinced the prices reflect rarity of any particular box, rather the work involved. You have a base cost for materials which won't vary much whatever the contents, but the 4 hole gold would be cheaper than the 6 hole silver, and the 10 hole long set involves the most indents to form.

You might have a situation here where there were several halfcrown dies used over time for the proofs from the sets. We already have an 1839, 1839/41 & 1839/43 halfpenny plus an 1839 sixpence with both the first and third head obverse, not to mention any number of Una varieties. The sixpences provided anecdotal evidence of the 1839 sets being produced up to the 1880s, given the third head was only introduced in 1880 - otherwise it is difficult to come up with a logical reason for making one 40+ years after they were first issued. We do know that sets were produced to order after 1839. I suspect ESC is incomplete in its designation of what was included in the sets, but haven't checked what is extant in complete sets as of today. There is an argument for saying the Unas were struck separately because people would likely have wanted one as a stand alone piece, but the same could not be said for the humble halfpenny which are only likely to have been made as part of a set, and here we know of at least three dies used. The halfcrown could also be a case of more than one die pair being used in the sets. More research is definitely required.

Here we go. As suspected, ebay appear to be imposing a blanket 20% import VAT on coins from the EU. This 1813 IOM halfpenny should qualify for the 5% rate being an 'antique coin over 100 years old'. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/255041253270?hash=item3b61a4af96:g:gsYAAOSw7a9g4goA They are adding a line saying + 20% VAT on new listings. Old listings will probably not show it until purchased because the old listing number applies indefinitely on an automatic relist. Bid accordingly, or better still avoid. If in doubt, leave it out.

Personally, I wouldn't get too tied up about whether the mint had old dies lying around. The answer is yes because there is plenty of evidence for reused dies more than 1 year after they became obsolete, thus eliminating their immediate reuse. 1848/6 and 1858/6 pennies, 1848/7/5 and 1858/6 halfpennies, 1854/1 and 1863/1 shillings, numerous groats etc, not to mention the 1839 proof halfpenny which is also known over 1841 and 1843. The latter is interesting insofar as the proof sets were struck to order long after 1839 and in all probability right up to 1882 when the mint was refurbished. When the 1841 or 1843 halfpenny dies were recycled for the proof sets is uncertain, but it could have been any time within a 40 year window and you had to have a spare die or two lying around to recycle in the first place. Don't forget the inverted die axis 1841 halfpennies all used a common well worn reverse die, so these coins were obviously trials to test out the obverse dies.

He must have copied and pasted some of this. Using otherwise good extremely fine has all the attributes of a dealer description. Just about everything is wrong. Title - 1806 instead of 1807. 'No berries on branch', which I suggest is mainly due to the coin being corroded to b*****y. Only 1806 has no berries. Green toned, plenty of lustre - bizarre. 'Weakly struck in legend' - actually, after allowing for its general condition such as the wear to the bust, it's about as good as you will get in terms of legend as this series is notorious for filled letters. Can't comment on clashed dies given the condition. 'Ring of verdigris on the exergue' - presumably that's the exergue on the reverse at 3 o'clock? I reckon he's copied a description of an 1806 from somewhere and just changed the date