1949threepence

Like many people these days, I use internet banking, mainly from my desktop. For the most part, I've had no problem with it, and have found it an extremely useful and convenient resource. Recently my own bank has been pushing for me to download their mobile banking app, apparently in readiness for when the additional security measures are introduced in September this year. That is explained here and is a whole other discussion in and of itself, in terms of inconvenience/annoyance to the customer. But as for the mobile app, I decided to give it a go - thinking, well you never know, it might offer a wider scope of operation in some way. But I'm afraid it was a disappointment. It actually doesn't do anything that can't already be achieved employing ordinary internet banking, and what's more, I found I still didn't need the mobile app when using mobile devices such as a tablet or smartphone. Was still able to, for example, transfer money using a smartphone and accessing internet banking via a google search for the bank's website, in the usual way. As for the new security measures, nowhere do they explain why the app will help in navigating them. From what I can make out, it would seem that for a much larger percentage of on line purchases than at present (42% compared to 2%), the additional security measures will be needed, typically consisting of a unique 6 digit reference being texted to your smartphone, which you then insert onto the relevant part of the screen in the website you're trying to make the purchase from. Still can't see how the app makes it any better. Of course it's tough if you don't have a mobile, or, possibly even more pertinently, if the text is delayed getting through, as often happens.

Could be die fill - just a thought.

"That is just the way that system works"

That's ridiculous. It might get £7.50 on e bay.

Opinions vary, apparently.

Thanks.

According to one poster on here XF40 equates to good fine - link to table Although according to other equivalence tables it equals EF.

Well played Michael. Sending a link to this site was probably the clincher.

Although it's not been withdrawn from sale yet, so presumably the seller is contesting the findings? Don't know how it works?

The relevant extract from the online chat I've had with e bay customer services is as follows:- 09:01:45 UTC Michelle

I got the same reply as Jerry. Here is my follow up New message to: lifeasas-64 It's our business if fellow collectors get ripped off because a coin is misrepresented as something it's not. I've reported to e bay. New message from: lifeasas-64 (54) iv had everything evaluated and been advised in detail on the value and specs of each item , if your not interested in purchasing it then I do not see the need to message me , iv seen the 'site' were coin collectors get together and bitch about peoples items and I find it rather pathetic and have reported various members , it would be a good idea just to mind your own business instead of concerning yourself with mine. many thanks Your previous message Hi, That's not a 169, and anybody who knows what one is, and is after one, will already know the difference. It's a very common 2 + D 168. A 169 has the base of the "1" in the date numerals centrally situated above a tooth. See Freeman page 55. Your coin doesn't.

I bought my 1869 penny from him in October 2015. Actually managed to knock him down quite substantially. He seemed OK.

You may also have missed this one, Richard. At any rate, it's not loaded on your rare pennies site yet:- The F30

Richard:- The F41 The F39A

Just been in e mail contact with the seller of the batch of lower grade rarities we've been discussing on here, and he tells me that - as I suspected - many of the coins came from the June dnw auction, including the F38 pictured above. Obviously those huge batches of bronze on offer yielded some great finds. What's interesting is that the F39A and F41 that were also sold on e bay last Sunday night, were not the ones pictured above. They were much inferior. So maybe he's keeping them for his own collection, or plans to sell them on at auction himself.

You've done a fantastic job Jerry. That's a really nice looking place in a perfect setting. Something to aspire to and well worth the cost.

I've sent him a message outlining his "error" - for all the good it will do.

Indeed, although again, as Richard pointed out about the Michael Cole collection, this one was hotch potch as well. No sign of the Andrew Wayne collection, often referred to, comparably, in their offers.

No great surprise.

This one went on LCA for the same amount (hammer) in March 2014. A really nice one.

Here's the F38 I won earlier this week. Not a great specimen but extremely rare, and another Freeman type off the list.

Yep, that's a beauty and a stunning bargain, Blake. The obverse is near EF. Here's my VF specimen:-

My F76 isn't up to much, Blake. They are exceptionally difficult to get in any grade, and in decent grade, near impossible. Have you got a pic of your F69?

What irritates me is that the media are referring to this alleged row as though it was a hard indisputable fact, whereas all we have to go on are the utterings of extremely biased neighbours, clearly intent on stirring up trouble for Johnson, and no confirmation or otherwise from Johnson himself. Now he has momentum trash demonstrating outside his house. They should be dispersed by force, and if they don't go, arrest them and chuck them in prison Prove it or shut up.

Yes, he told me the same thing when he delivered the cabinet I ordered from him, earlier this year.