Leaderboard

Yesterday i received payment from them after about 10 days for three seperate invoices and had numerous this year. Two other forum members i know have also got a refund within a short period of time. All you have to do is POST them the original envelope and invoice (i keep photocopies) showing the duty paid (NOT email them) accompanied with a brief letter or the form you can print off, asking for your refund and with your bank details. If your buying a few its also easier to send them together, maybe at the end of each month.

Flan lamination flaw, yes, but double strike no - you mean instead clashed dies, thus imparting part of Viccy's face to the reverse die and then all subsequently struck coins. And the vertical bit by her nose is a corresponding clash from the edge of the shield on the reverse. I suspect the misformed G is also the result of the clash with whatever letter from the reverse legend corresponds with it. All interesting, but nothing really abnormal or a genuine error here as die clashes are very common in the Victorian series and lamination occurs as a result of trapped gas bubbles in the metal mix for the blanks.

I agree with @Sword on the lamination error. I think the odd feature on the reverse corresponds to Victoria's lips, so possible a partial double strike?

Definitely so. The crude, porous surface is proof of this (probably due to a high zinc content).

I would suggest the 1816 is a contemporary forgery in pewter. The colour looks all wrong for Silver, and the wear is excessive. (They were often made ready worn to disguise any imperfections.)

Solid very fine for me. By the way, it is an example of the 1758 over 7 overdate. Both the plain date and the overdate are very common, but might add a bit of interest for you...

George IIII 1821 Six Pence 1st reverse this coin was only minted for 1821,....... and found here to be in a nice condition...👍

It's like a maze, Ian, but I did find this bit:- The above is from the government's website here Obviously no idea if your item is over 100 years old, and quite how they draw any meaningful conclusion about whether it's part of a collection or a collector's piece, I've no idea. All items of numismatic interest are potentially part of a collection, so I've no idea what they mean. Nor do they state what the reduced rate of VAT actually is.