1949threepence

Indeed - older equipment is often more user friendly. Newer often seems to throw up unnecessary roadblocks which stymie your progress. I'm becoming increasingly wary of anything with "smart" in the title, as I like to have total manual control over any and all equipment. I'll decide what, when and where - not some inanimate programmed object.

I don't think so. But might be worth putting it on screen, next to a genuine one and comparing the two.

We stood alone militarily, although the help we got from the USA pre 1941, was considerable, despite a still strong isolationist leaning in the States............But,. I'm reminded of the words of Roosevelt's representative Harry Hopkins on a visit to the UK to see Churchill in January 1941:-

Indeed - it was a multi party effort. It's true that we did stand alone up until the Soviet Union and USA joined the war in June and December 1941 respectively. But we certainly couldn't have beaten Germany alone. We only won the Battle of Britain because they changed tack and started bombing cities instead of airfields. We did contribute a hell of a lot though, that cannot be denied. Especially in terms of intelligence from Bletchley Park, night bombing of German cities and in North Africa. Equally it should never be forgotten that Stalin connived with Hitler in 1939, to carve up Poland. Sorry, World War 2 is one of my big historical interests. I'll shut up now. What's a "Britian" when it's at home?

I don't think so Richard. All chrome browsers are now showing "Not Secure" when a site is "http", rather than "https" - the "s" standing for secure after the preceding "hypertext transfer protocol". It simply means it's unencrypted. Many sites were just "http" previously, but it went largely unnoticed as it was simply embedded in the web address. Now they have to show us. But rather than use their commonsense by simply flagging up secure sites as "secure", they have to say the non secure sites are "not secure" as though it represents some definite risk to the user, which, on a forum, it really doesn't. I'd worry if any site involving the movement of money wasn't secure, but not this one. This link is useful.

It is so obviously a fake ad. Nobody is ever seriously going to put out an ad like that if they really are looking for volunteers.

Not the first time DNW have got mixed up with their postings. In October 2017, along with my F17, I got someone else's job lot of coins addressed to me, but with the buyer's details inside. Didn't mention it on here at the time, but rather decided to send it back to DNW after calling them. The buyer lived in Bristol. As a reward they've sent me all the coin catalogues since.

I'm unsure. I did look through the various F96's & 97's in the LCA auctions over the years, and my principle seemed to bear out. But looking since at some other examples, it doesn't.

Yes, you're right Pete. Having looked at Gouby and one or two other examples, it would appear that the date widths can indeed vary between the two. For one heady and not very cautious moment, I thought I might be onto something

When I placed my newly won F98 alongside the existing F96 & F97's yesterday, it also prompted me to compare the dates on all three, and I immediately noticed something I'd not spotted before. That was the quite discernible difference in the positioning of the "9" between the F96 & F97. The F96 "9" is palpably closer to the 7, than on the F97. Firstly I discounted the possibility of an optical illusion. It manifestly isn't that. Then I wondered if it was merely an oddity peculiar to my two coins. So I started looking at other F96/97 pictures together (of which there is no shortage), and noticed it was the same with all of them. Given that the two die pairings are 8+J and 9+J, the essential differences are between obverses 8 and 9. But these are subtle, whereas the difference between the positioning of the 9's on the F96 and F97, hit you in the eye immediately. Notwithstanding they are both reverse J. Might be an additional useful pointer in determining whether it's an F96 or F97. Note: Freeman states the following - "(The date numerals of reverse J in 1879, when combined with obverse 9, usually appear thicker and in higher relief than in other years with other obverses)" . But that's not quite the same thing. Here's my two side by side as a comparison, F96 on the left and F97 on the right:-

Welcome Villa Rose. Let us know what your collecting specialisations are.

Very good question and interesting answer.

Indeed, and if you do handle any coins without gloves on, make sure you hold the rim, avoiding actually getting your fingers on the surface of the coin. If you need to cough or sneeze whilst handling a coin, or looking at one, turn away, as even the tiniest drop of saliva can cause a carbon spot to appear on the coin months later, the size of which will usually be greater than the minute spot which caused it. You can get surprisingly clear photos of coins just by using a smartphone or tablet. Good luck, Bob, and enjoy the hobby.

Astounded how quickly my DNW auction win from the Hiram Brown collection, has arrived. Only paid yesterday. I also noticed that the invoice was posted in my account within 3 hours of the win, and the procedure to pay online could not have been more user friendly . That's a welcome departure from previously, when even several days afterwards, all you would see was the previous invoice, and you had to ring them to pay. Well done DNW. I actually managed to do something online without it being overly time consuming, complex and annoying. Kudos to them.

My 1879 narrow date penny from the recent DNW auction has arrived. I'd estimate at GEF with some residual lustre. Really pleased, as this particular variety is extremely difficult to get in high grade, but not too scarce in grades up to VF. Bit like the 1864.

Damn, all the best puns have been used up.

I'm gonna knock...on wood

So does this Mr Wood actually exist or not? The next obvious question.

You've noticed....... I did eventually get to speak to a real person, with normal conversational reactions, a normal name and a normal UK accent that I could understand. But it took a lot of time and patience.

Realised £750 hammer, so was obviously recognised. I wonder if it went for a bit less than might have been expected because Lot 582 was also an F14, and described as such. That fetched £800 hammer.

@Bronze & Copper Collector is called Gary, I think.

It's Mike, Pete So how did the auctioneer play that? Did he say there was a bid of £2k? Thanks gents.

...and the one I made an absentee bid of £2000 for - the 1879 narrow date penny, lot 609 - went for £700 hammer. So that's mine..... I made that high bid in a "who dares wins" kind of way and it's paid off. Thought I might have to pay more than that. Literally the first one I've seen offered in that grade, with lustre, since the 2010 Workman sale. No way is that F6 a proof in my opinion.

Can't even get the date right !

I think illustration 5 was the original sketch. The note underneath states:- "5-8 Evolution of thrift design, showing Miss Kitchener's original sketch (5), her two models (6, 7) and the modified version by Mr Metcalfe (8)2