Rob

Maybe it couldn't be bulked. If a vendor has submitted a single coin, you can't bulk it with someone else's property. At that point it comes down to the minimum value you will accept for a single lot. Even if it doesn't sell, the auctioneer would get their fee.

That looks like a cataloguing copy and paste error from the following lot. i.e. 1709 is the egg laid by the lot 1710 chicken

Given the mintage quoted in Coin Yearbook is over 3 million, clearly at least two or three dozen dies were used and given the short life of dies in this year, possibly more. That leaves lots of scope for different die identifiers to be noted. The one I have in my trays is a high 47 for example - easily seen due to a flaw through the hair to the cheekbone level with the eye. A quick visual check online showed the three varieties listed by Colin, plus the same dies as mine in LCA 151. Baldwins 70 had one that appears to be a wide 7 and another example had a weak diagonal to the 4. I think a repaired existing die is the more likely cause if a 1 was used. If so, a worn/broken punch would be ideal for partially punching in a digit.

It's such a horribly pitted and battered specimen that I'm not sure what I see is the original layout. Is the weakness of the vertical part of the 4 due to corrosion or not?

It's the quantity that makes me think it might be a single action that did it. If it was a case of copy and paste text you might get 3 or 4 images with the wrong file name, but it shouldn't take long to recognise that 154 has replaced 156, particularly as it is often pairs of mismatched images and so the good will be in close proximity to the bad. Occasional lines of faulty instruction are easy to make simply from looking away from the screen and returning to it at a different place. Can't criticise anyone for that as we all do it on a day to day basis.

The computer is just the icing on the cake. At least a human has the capacity to question their actions.

Single errors are usually one-offs. Multiple errors are frequently global one-offs. I hope for their sake that you can identify a section of code, enter the correct phrase, and hit return. Somewhere will be 154 instead of 156 surrounded by a lot of computer speak. If it is possible to do a global adjustment, then it should take a couple of seconds to rectify.

The problem appears to only be with the online catalogue. The printed images all look ok. I know what they have done. The error images are all for sale no 154 as far as I can see. e.g lot 1896 was a 1675 farthing, so you have a Vicky crown obverse paired with a 1675 farthing reverse. Similarly, lot 1916 shows the same image as the catalogue for the reverse of lot 1916 in sale 154. I'm sure they will realise soon and sort it. Though if a case of copy and paste when creating the listings, they might be a while.

The title sort of fits with the 'bare to part with' in the OP though.

I thought it was the other way round. i.e. it was always going to be a proof in our eyes, but not theirs. It must be the inconsistency that is throwing us. We've had this discussion before - somewhere.

Import VAT is 5%. That's it. It's the same tax that you see imposed on the hammer price in auctions which have been submitted from outside the EU. It is reclaimable if you subsequently re-export outside the EU.

Do they give PR numbers of less than 60? I thought they reverted to F, VF, XF, AU irrespective of whether it was a proof or not? Could be wrong though

Have they laid the wrong suit, or gone out of turn? One must assume the latter

It is probably a reflection of the reserve demanded by the vendor. You cannot have a reserve higher than top estimate, so if one sold on eBay for 700 and the vendor wants/expects 500, then the estimate must reflect the reserve. Nobody has to buy, and LCA get a fee for listing from the vendor whatever the outcome.

Copy and paste is a bugger. We all make mistakes, and self-assurance means we can read something through a few times without picking up a mistake. The key is to get someone else to proof-read because they will make a different set of idiosyncratic mistakes. In this case though you are dealing with a completely different section of the catalogue.

Now you are definitely trying to wind me up. Placing of apostrophe and an unrecognisable penultimate word. Please.

That was a 1731 shilling. You can see it in the unconfirmed varieties section.

Seems to be contagious. Apostrophe in its for a start. Upper case I and S? Missing t? Full stop?

Just a blocked die, but in that grade not worth any more than normal.

There is an 1876H halfpenny with a 6 overlying a farthing punch 6, so this can't be discounted.

The last digit was punched in by hand, so this can vary in distancce from the third number. It is the widest I have seen to date. any further right and it could fall off the edge of the earth.

Rust spot? Or a piece fallen off the die? I doubt it was intentional.

There is no sign of the horizontal, so it could be an initial attempt at putting the 6 in upside down. To punch in a number would take a few blows, so if only one side of the numeral was entered and the error identified then corrected, it should be possible to see the above.

I always thought the POWs' trousers in the Great Escape were made in Yorkshire.

picture? a clue? preferably both coins.