Gary D

.........Not to mention scanning the lines of coins paraded in those "penny falls" machines in amusement halls, to see if there were any there worth trying to coax out (sad but extremely enthusiastic git that I am) On a saturday morning I would take my £1 2/6 paper round money and go into the Lloyds bank next to the paper shop and get £1 bags of 1d 1/2d etc until I could not make up the £1 any more Did you ever find any that were worth keeping, Gary ? (and have you still got any of them) Although my name's not Gary, I've only just caught up with the end of this convo. (By the way, I seem to remember those bank bags of pennies were 5/- not £1, I never had £1 spare in those days!). What pennies did I find? One 1953, two 1936 in EF, four 1946 mint dot, the usual hoard of 1922, 1926 (not ME!), and 1932, no end of Edw VII and Victoria Veiled Head, never more than AF, quite a few 1912H, a few 1919H, two not very good 1918KN, various nearly flat bun pennies ... nothing to disturb Glendinings over. I had slightly better luck with halfpennies : a 1938 BU, 1935 GEF with lustre, and 1909 GVF. I still have all the ones worth keeping, but have shed most of the dreck. Sorry I missed the question to me. I manage to build a significant part of my collection as I was only interested in date runs at time, no that I'm not still. I don't think I have any of the original collection left know as I have been exstensively upgrading in the past 3-4 years. Gary

[\quote] Don't know whether the above is tongue in cheek or not, but I'm pretty certain it's not low tide

I'm ok if it's a repeatable error like the 1946 dot but so many are just one off's that escaped quality control and should have gone in the scrap bin.

Do try to persuade ChrisP to include it in CCGB! I've tried but so far, no luck (oh well, time will tell...). I did persuade Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, so that's good at least. Peckris, Chris has a copy of my book and I am happy for him to include any of the varieties I have described, either in CCGB or the new 'Peck.' I guess its up to him what he wants to include. One issue through is what constitutes a 'genuine' variety and what has been accepted as one, even though its technically arisen as a flaw. It may be that Chris only wants to include those types which have arisen through design changes or where dies have been repaired following damage. Sure, but if "The Bible" sees fit to include it ... and after all, CCGB does feature the 1897 version of "the dot", so for consistency sake it could go in I'd have thought. Still, as you say, it's up to him. The problem with these coins with various dots etc, are they varieties or errors. They seem to come and go from favour over time. It's a bit lke the 1926 Halfcrown with the missing colons after OMN. It's now recognised as filled dies and comes in a whole variety of shades. I have a 1 colon missing but they also come in no upper stop, no lower stops , no stops after GRA etc. So it's gone out of fashion as a meaningfull variety.

The pounds I've spent on coins and they turn out to be not what they look to be. It's a real problem with ebay as once they have finished compressing the photos I'm suprised you can even tell which side of the coin you are looking at. And yes the single sided coin is a pet hate of mine also, along with the guys who show the date side along with a stock photo of the reverve. I've lost count of the rare 1965 6d I've seen because of the wrong photo. As to the original post you must remember the 1903 open 3 is an R7 and a very well known variety. To find one on ebay unattributed is like winning the lottery, twice in consecutive weeks. You have to go for it though as occassionally you come up with the goods. I have a coin on the way from Australia which I paid £20 single bid. I'm hoping it's a 1902 low tide with wide 2, an example is currently up to £350 on Colin Cooke. I'm fully expecting it t be a very poor 1902 high tide when it arrives, I live in hope.

BMC 2214. F 164A. Dies 1*+C. Near Fine, buckled. Rare - 17 bids and now up to £480 - anyone here ever seen one of these? Well its a fairly rare variety, although Freeman only classifies it as R5. The latest version of Freeman (2006) gives a price of £300 for one in fine condition, so allow a bit more for it now being 2009. However, would you pay £400+ for that coin in that state? I'm not even sure its as genuinely rare as is claimed for it, since Freeman R5 isn't exactly rare. There are probably a good many out there still in the boxes of unwanted well worn junk that nobody can be bothered to sort through. My recommendation would be for forum users to go through their boxes of junk - you never know. Are you sure it isn't that extra variety that Gouby records - the intermediate obverse? If so I understand it is VERY rare (Freeman R5 isn't really rare at all). I don't know but it's the 1st one I've ever seen for sale.

the easiest way to spot the reverses is to look at the wave below the shield on the right - if there are 3 ripples, it's Reverse B. Also you tend to find that Reverse A has hardly any rim at all and the teeth are disappearing off the edge, compared to Rev B. By far the easiest way to tell the reverses is to look at the 1st 1 in the date. Rev A to tooth and big teeth. Rev B 1 to space and more teeth and finer.

Yes, ultimately it is the seller's responsibility to make good any loss. Although as I mentioned a few weeks ago, Royal Mail do push items of recorded delivery post through one's letter box, unsigned for, and without removing the tabs. This creates an open door for unscrupulous buyers to say they have not received the item, and get a full refund, in addition to also holding the item. At this point it's the $2100 investment I'm more concerned about. As long as it's sent with full tracking I'll be happy. A couple of months ago I have a $100 coin come from the States and the tracking showed it had been delivered. It had but to the wrong address. It took Parcel Force a week to recover it, it had been delivered to a secure business and they couldn't get it to get it back.

It's the 1+B mule, I also have one in about the same condition. It's supposed to be scarse but I've found it harder to find than the 176 which is rated rare.

I have found the answer myself thanks. I have posted the link here as it is usefull information. Lost in the post

You need to find out what the terms of the insurance policy are. Does it cover the full UK market value of the coin in transit from there to you? If you lose the coin, you don't want to lose what you paid also. To me it's what I paid that I'm worried about as at the end of the day that's real money. It was an ebay purchase paid for with paypal for what that's worth. My question is, who is liable for something lost in the post, apart from the carrier, the sender or the reciever.

I couldn't decide if this is the correct place for this question but as it does involve a British coin here goes. I've just purchased an expensive coin from the USA. The seller has asked the question" do I want it insured for the full amount at his expense" Well I guess under insuring it could save my some import duty (15% VAT $300). So my question is, who's problem is it in the unlikely event that the coin should go missing, apart from me loosing the coin of course. Gary

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D. The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ... (My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!) Hmmm, you're right about the "D", Peck. In terms of distance from the rim, the same could be said for letters "W" & "V", as well. Interesting that a 1904 2a has been found. My collection is still in the bank after my trip to Netherlands and Germany so I can't check my 1904s but when I first read about the 1903 2a on Michaels site I checked mine and I have a 1 and 2a. I've now been looking for a 2 for ages and was beginning to think that the 2 didn't realy exist and what was being called the 2a was the only variety along with the 1. Gary I see Dave Webb has now come up with a 1906 type 2a and by coinsidence my 1906 type 2 is a 2a. So I now have a 1903 type 1 and 2a, and 1906 type 1 and 2a. Comparing my both my 2a's with my 1904 and 1905 type 2s I'm starting to form the opinion that a 2a is just a 2 with a blocked die.

the "1933" has gone for £500!!! I bet the buyer go a shock when he bid the reserve. 10-49 feedback, I hope they knew what they were doing. I think the second bidder had it about right £102

Recently I've receive on two occassions coin just sellotaped to a peice of cardboard. Appropiate comments and feedbback was left.

Its not split horizontally as such, its split down the centre so in effect, I have two separate coins. Like this you mean? I like that error Rob, very interesting. I'm starting to put together a nice little collect of 3d errors. I think brass 3d's are gradually becoming a specialty within my larger collection. I'll have to photo what I have and post up sometime just for curiosities sake. Gary

Its not split horizontally as such, its split down the centre so in effect, I have two separate coins. Like this you mean? Thats it exactly. Curious as to why and value. Thanks It's caused by a flaw in the sheet that was used to punch the blanks from. The sheet was likely folded during the rolling process or even contained a bubble which was elongated by the rolling. Either way you end up with a sandwich and if the blank it punched wholely from this area the coin can part at the seam. I have a 1967 that shows a partial split. As to value, in the UK curiosity only. In the USA get both halfs slabbed together by one of the major TPGs and the coin will still have curiosity value, but the piece of plastic could be worth a tidy sum. Gary

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D. The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ... (My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!) Hmmm, you're right about the "D", Peck. In terms of distance from the rim, the same could be said for letters "W" & "V", as well. Interesting that a 1904 2a has been found. My collection is still in the bank after my trip to Netherlands and Germany so I can't check my 1904s but when I first read about the 1903 2a on Michaels site I checked mine and I have a 1 and 2a. I've now been looking for a 2 for ages and was beginning to think that the 2 didn't realy exist and what was being called the 2a was the only variety along with the 1. Gary

Still better than having the 'you weren't in' card pushed through the door with no attemp to see if anyone's in.

I'm not sure this would stand up legally? It would be the equivalent of saying that all X's jewellery is "a single item" and therefore the lost engagement ring isn't covered as the combined jewellery value exceeds the single item limit? I'm afraid it works just like that. If you are under insured although the item being claimed for is within the limit you will only get a proportion of the value

All the insurance companies I've dealt with in the past insist on whole of property insurance, so you can't for example just cover the living room and a bedroom contents. Therefore, if you insured the general household contents but didn't declare the 'valuables' then they would consider it as underinsured if it came to a claim and you provided a list of missing items to the police. I think this would cause a problem when the claim was entered. For anyone in this position it is probably worth checking with your insurer. To only insure a few specific high value items is also a bit of a grey area as the same would probably apply. You can rest assured that a burglar is unlikely to spend hours sifting through the trays in order to weed out the most desirable items and leave the crap, so a total loss is more likely. The whole collection being treated as a single item has its advantages, as you then don't need to flood the postal system with revised insurance details every time you make a major purchase assuming the overall level of cover is adequate. I spoke to my contents insurer about having my collection seperatly covered and informed them that its value far exceeded their valuables limit. The fact that it was covered elsewhere was not considered a problem.

You insure for their current value not what they cost. Just think of all the Hs KNs MEs etc picked from change, 1d each. The receipt just proves you own the coin.

I wonder if they do female organism yet.

It was suggested that I keep an inventory off-site and was required to list everything seperately with a value of £1000+ Gary

Yet the other R's seem OK. What's the significance of the R in Edwardvs, that doesn't occur in the rest ? Why does this mark it as a fraud ? Perhap just wrongly jumping to conclusions but all of the known fakes I've seen have this broken R