1949threepence

Probably not much help, but I don't suppose there's an abbreviations page towards the back of the book, is there? If not somebody on here will know straight off, I'd bet.

So this coin became available again at the latest LCA, and I bid for it, and won it - before I became aware of this thread from a couple or so years back. Lot No 1253: Penny 1861 8 over wiry 6, Gouby AA dies D+d, of the same style as the overdate pictures in Gouby page 41, with the underlying digit similarly positioned, but of a more wiry style Fair My fault for not checking properly. It's obverse 2, not 6 - so it's not a 33A. But whether 8 over 8 or 8 over 6, not certain. Probably 8 over 8 and misattributed by LCA. Still an interesting acquisition either way This is ex Baldwins 3.11.12, Lot 558.

Post contents amended and transferred to the "opinions on lot 558 of june LCA auction - 1861 8/6" thread.

Absolutely Pete. Never a need to upgrade buying something like that.

Very pleased with the 1902 LT (lot 1285) I won at the LCA. True, I did pay over the usual odds for it. But well worth it in my view, as it's about as close to flawless as it's possible to get for a currency strike of that age.

I agree Jon. It's up to the punter what they buy. Stupid yes, but their money and their call, at the end of the day. The only ever serious advice I would ever give is that if you're going to buy chintzy crap, make sure it's gold chintzy crap - at least that will always hold its bullion value.

It's obvious that many lots went unsold over the weekend.

Managed to get through a few minutes ago. They confirmed they'd received my payment and will be despatching the items today. So if you've transferred your payment into their account, you should get your bid wins tomorrow (obviously if you rang up to pay, then you'll already know this, assuming you asked them)

Just realised I received an e mail from LCA this morning and have paid into their bank account - once I'd managed to enlarge the tiny font in the banking details box.

Can't get through to pay. Either engaged tone, or no reply. Bound to be busy though.

I won both of the lots I bid for - first time I've ever won anything at a March LCA

Possibly, although there is a huge difference between obverse and reverse. Difficult to tell from the photo. You could always ask the seller for his opinion. He is a member here although he's not posted for a bit @argentumandcoins

Chinese animal years - this one's (2019) the Pig, I understand.

Seriously though, I think somebody's just added one too many 0's.

I wonder if anyone has ever asked Michael Freeman what he thinks about these "A's" being conveniently added to different types by different auction houses? Maybe it's the toning.......

Well as far as lot 109 is concerned, they say this:- Obviously that will carry considerable weight in terms of provenance. Although neither lot 109, nor 112 look anything other than currency strikes to me. Maybe in hand they might look more convincing. As you say Chris, we must defer to the experts.

There you go, Chris ETA: How are you meant to meaningfully view the item, with those tichy little photos? Also, with lot 116 how do they know it's from 1902 if it's a blank piece of metal? Not sure this is a completely convincing explanation:- A bag of pennies from 1902, doesn't necessarily mean they were all minted in 1902. Not specified that it was a mint bag.

Sacrilege !!! - but nice one anyway. Neat capture, Jon.

It's a plausible consideration, Chris.

Definitely "detracts". What a super coin it would be otherwise.

Very interesting. Thanks for the replies, gents. I knew there were some subtle differences in the 1863 open three, especially with regard to the serif (or spike, as Gouby calls it). But none, as far as I know in the 1903 one. Nevertheless, the basic shape of the open 3 is pretty much the same in both cases. I'm still somewhat perplexed as to why they bothered, especially in the case of the 1903. But that goes with the territory on old coins where detailed records no longer exist. With the 1863, there's the possible experimentation aspect to lend considerable credence to, as Jerry alludes to.

Just thinking - interesting that these occur in just 2 years, 40 years apart, 1863 and 1903. Both also feature different types of threes, with the 1863 having a straight horizontal top and straight side bar at a 45 degree angle, before the normal curved base. No three after that, until 1937, featured such a three. Moreover, the open quality is pretty much identical in both years. Haven't read anything about why these open 3's occurred. Looked, but found nothing. Maybe I'm missing something somewhere. Anybody got any thoughts?

Yep, definitely an F10.

Don't think you missed anything other than it was a very nice coin. Choice piece, well worth the money.

Wrong on every level. But it won't stop the Cooper/Letwin amendment being voted on this week. If that gets voted through then we won't leave without a deal. Always assuming that the EU accepts a request to extend article 50.