1949threepence

Constructive criticism only Be very interested to see it, VS.

I agree. Despite the rarity it would look totally out of place in an otherwise mainly UNC collection.

OK, thanks gents.

What an absolute 'mare for him.

Don't know. I've made an offer for BIN's on a number of occasions, most of which have been accepted. So no idea why they'd be reluctant to make a realistic offer.

I'm actually in that position right now, as I have a number of relegated coins following upgrades. I sold the last lot to Colin Cooke. Hoping to do the same again as part exchange for another coin.

Yes, absolutely. It was the tendency towards overpricing the modern coins which, in retrospect, seems a bit odd. But, like so many things of any given era, it was probably totally the right thing at the time, or seemed so. What is obvious is that huge quantities of circulated coins were being taken out of circulation and offered by dealers at enhanced prices. Another noticeable trend was the one of offering for sale, tubes or mint bags of uncirculated modern coins. I wonder if psychologically, the effect of seeing uncirculated items which were theroretically still available from circulating coins, but in practice almost impossible to find, lent them the cache they needed, pre decimalisation, to cause an unrealistic explosion in prices. Just a thought. I did notice a BU 1918KN which was being offered at £150 (just over £2000 today), and indeed, £2000 might well be what it would change hands for now. Possibly more.

Yeah. Never mind buying coins to slab and sell in the US ... we should be building a time machine, going back and buying up everything at 1960's prices! But nothing post-1936 Maybe we should think about selling some items at 1969 prices !!! I can't believe some of the prices back then. For instance, in November 1969, "Earl of Tooting" were asking £60-0-0 for an UNC 1925 shilling, and £25-0-0 a piece for uncirculated 1930 & 1934 shillings. Manor Antiques wanted £8-0-0 for a BU 1958 threepence, "City Coins" were asking £24-0-0 for a GVF 1949 threepence. "Joan E Allen & Company" were asking £48-0-0 for a BU1932 penny. Given that the average weekly wage back then was £26-0-0 it's no wonder the average punter would have been priced out of many good purchases. I know - the ultimate silliness in my book was from a 1970 price guide, where a BU 1932 penny was valued at £50, while a BU 1797 twopence was valued at a mere £35! Two weeks' wages for the 1932!! £50 then adjusted for inflation, would be £683.50 now ~ for a BU 1932 penny !!! Some people must actually have paid those amounts, and sustained a significant loss on their investment subsequently. Even if collected as a hobby for keeps, there'd still be the gnawing feeling that if they'd waited, they'd have got the item/s massively cheaper. inflation calculator edit: at 2010 prices

Yeah. Never mind buying coins to slab and sell in the US ... we should be building a time machine, going back and buying up everything at 1960's prices! But nothing post-1936 Maybe we should think about selling some items at 1969 prices !!! I can't believe some of the prices back then. For instance, in November 1969, "Earl of Tooting" were asking £60-0-0 for an UNC 1925 shilling, and £25-0-0 a piece for uncirculated 1930 & 1934 shillings. Manor Antiques wanted £8-0-0 for a BU 1958 threepence, "City Coins" were asking £24-0-0 for a GVF 1949 threepence. "Joan E Allen & Company" were asking £48-0-0 for a BU1932 penny. Given that the average weekly wage back then was £26-0-0 it's no wonder the average punter would have been priced out of many good purchases.

Don't know ~ could be, but need a better pic.

This GEF 1860 with lustre (1 + C, F7, I think), is from the lady who is selling off her late husband's bun penny collection. It looks like he was a man who appreciated quality items, if what she's sold so far is anything to go by. Currently standing at £565 with 3 days to go at the time of posting, I would imagine it'll get a bit more. Someone here might be interested, possibly. Colin Cooke has one in not dissimilar condition for £1200 (ex Alderley collection) The border looks a bit haphazard though. To me anyway. link

No, it was just as good as this one. How can you take it out of the equation if you never even saw it ? It's his grading that's out, based on the pictures. But this was a good pic and the UNC status was about right.

You don't have to worry about me bidding as I already have a good example. This is a lovely coin (apart from the dandruff on the reverse photo!) and one I'm sure you'd always be pleased to own. I'm saying that, as someone who missed out on a couple from this collection and still hasn't go over it! It's now at £334 with 18 bids and a few hours to go. Considering that Michael & Rendell Ingram had one about as good, going for £375 a couple of months ago (and they are not renowned for their cheapness) I think this coin is in danger of going for an unrealistically inflated price again.

Happens to the best of us! That's my bloody photograph That's the one thing that eBay are hot on. If you report the seller as using your photograph without permission - they will remove it pretty smartish. After all, it's a breach of your copyright. The coin you see is not the coin you get.

Just to extend thanks to Rob for a very kind offer, which I've accepted, of some old Coin Monthly mags at a very reasonable price. Thanks Rob They arrived today and I've been reading one or two from 1969 (only two months so far). First impression are of a pre-occupation with 1951 pennies back then. They were almost the holy grail. One dealer wanted more for a BU specimen, than for an uncirculated 1881. I'm intrigued by some of the prices being charged back then, and might well do some comparative experiments with inflation and today's prices. They really are an intersting read. Once again thanks to Rob.

What makes it worse is that he obviously knows the grading of VF is utter tripe. Didn't know that, Bob. Thanks. I bought some shillings from "Richparfishing" in 2009, and wasn't that happy with one of them when they arrived.

You knew it was 1927 all the time, didn't you Stuart ? Just joshing with us to see who was on the ball........

What amazes me is that a company like NGC would allow such lax standards to prevail, when they must surely realise that the resultant obvious and crass errors will severely tarnish their reputation as a first rate concern. In allowing such mistakes, (whether by accident or design), to continue, they are lending themselves to utter ridicule.

I think this lends credence to the theory that the Mint was so preoccupied with alterations in 1882, that a lot of its work - particularly low value denominations - was farmed out to Heatons. Yes - the particular obverse / reverse die combination for London 1882s does not occur on any of the Heaton pennies, so is a sure-fire indicator. Yes, and whilst that is a very compelling argument in favour of the 1882 no H existing as a literal separate entity, it does not actually preclude the possibility that they were produced at Birmingham, as both sides of the die combination 11 + N were used in other Heaton die pairings for 1882H. We will never know the actuality. All we can do is speculate.

Just to extend thanks to Rob for a very kind offer, which I've accepted, of some old Coin Monthly mags at a very reasonable price. Thanks Rob

Have you got a theory ?

He's left his e mail address ~ somebody should send him a link to this thread

The Royal Mint state that no bronze coinage was struck at the London MInt during 1882. Remains open to speculation whether they were struck in error at Birmingham, minus the H.

Although extremely rare, I wouldn't go for anything as poor looking as that. It's here I remember it well. Not the best pic in the world, but you get the general impression of a nice coin.

Unfortunately I've absolutely no idea, Dave. All I do know is that I would love to see some of them, They'd be a great read. Is there any way of getting back copies, or e images ?