1949threepence

From time to time, I noticed on the Spink auction that a little message would pop up which said words to the effect of "Do not delay bidding, the auctioneer will not wait". So even if they are hovering over the bid button, that's still not justifying an abnormally prolonged delay in my opinion. 5 seconds tops.

What about the remaining 14 days?

On the basis that a line has to be drawn somewhere, I'm inclined to agree with you. On Friday, there were too many prolonged silences awaiting internet bids, not to mention the aforesaid hammer decision reversal. At the end of the day, if there is a delay in the internet bid reaching the auctioneer - for whatever reason - that is not his fault. He surely has to call it on the basis of what is in front of him at the fair warning moment. So, as you say, once the hammer goes down, that should be bid successful. It has to be, otherwise the credibility of the sale is compromised and the whole process becomes shambolic.

I think there was more than a couple of bidders, to be honest. At least three, with two on the internet bidding against each other, and possibly more than one in the room.

Bargain, well done.

Will do

Yes. There was a very obvious problem today with their internet feed, which I'm sure others will also have observed. I've definitely not noticed the same issue with dnw, whose room/web interface seems to run very smoothly. The time lag was at the auctioneer's end, as the internet bids were coming through immediately on my PC. That was confusing for the auctioneer, and in the case of lot 208, somewhat unfair on the room bidder. Paradoxically, of course, it would also have been unfair on the internet bidder, had the decision gone the other way. Bad combination of circumstances. As far as opening accounts with Spink, do you mean some kind of special account? The one I opened, just an ordinary customer account, needed nothing.

Yes, you're right Pete. It's clearly low tide, but it's still a keeper and better than the one I've got. I might well do a free raffle for members who are interested, on the other three, as long as the winner pays postage. I don't really need them.

Yeah, it's not bad, and my current 1897 isn't that marvellous. This is how they described it:- I'm impressed you can make out that kind of detail on the pic.

Although it's described as high tide, Pete. No wonder there were no other bidders lol To be honest I couldn't get a clear view on screen, as Spinks photography isn't very good. Ah well.

I listened to most of it, and successfully bid for two lots. First thing I noticed is that whilst I started off viewing, it was not possible to view and bid, so I ended up on audio only. Second thing I noticed, which may or may not be controversial, is that with Lot No 208, there was seemingly a successful room bid, and the hammer came down - thud - then an internet bid flashed up. Actually it had flashed up on my screen just milliseconds before the hammer came down. The auctioneer then reversed the hammer decision, and let the auction continue. This obviously annoyed the room bidder, who I distinctly heard say "hammered to me", but the auctioneer disagreed. Should they do that once the hammer has come down? I suppose you could argue that the internet bid was made prior to hammer, but the room bidder was unfairly misled into thinking he had won the lot. I thought the auctioneer seemed quite rattled at times with the internet bids, and understandably in a way, as several were coming through, and appearing separately on my screen. But obviously not appearing on his at the same time, and when they did, I think they all appeared simultaneously. There was a clear time lag on many of the lots, between them appearing on my screen (and obviously other internet users), and them subsequently being visible to the auctioneer. I didn't think this was very good. I won lot 257, which consisted of an 1897 high erm, low tide penny, 1897 halfpenny, 1897 farthing, and 1901 (darkened finish?) farthing, the first three in GEF with good lustre, for just £60 hammer !!! - reasonable value I thought. I also won lot 266, the 1905 shilling in VF and pretty much problem free, which finally completes my 1902 to 1936 shilling date run, last added to in 2009. It was the one missing piece. Got that for £380. Hope it's not a fake. Lot 2005, the 1826 penny in UNC, was estimated at £500 to £600, but went for £2,800 ! How did everybody else who bid, get on? Well, I hope

12:23 and auction still not started........ Was supposed to start at 12:00 - unless they mean 12:00 GMT, which would make it 13:00 BST?

One or two little snippets of interest there for today, and even if there weren't, I always enjoy listening in. This one also has a video feed, I note. Great stuff, something to look forward to later on.

Cheers mate. Got it by process of elimination. Just browsing the catalogue now

Which auction is that, Pete/Rob? ETA: Got it, Spink

At times the forum is a bit quiet and there's seemingly not much to contribute to. Matt signed in on Tuesday, I note, but didn't post. I'm the same, some days.

An example of Pareidolia. You don't get that many on coins.

I've only had one so far, and I had to wait until 18th April to get that !!!

Mine too, Richard.

Interesting. Never seen that before, Cliff. As Terry says though, there's probably many more varieties to be discovered yet, particularly among those first few hectic years of bronze production. Reading Michael Gouby's book on the 1860 to 1869 period, it does appear that James Watt was not terribly efficient, especially at first, and I do wonder if some of the deviations from "norm", that we see, are due in part to working at high speed, cutting corners and an "anything goes" attitude in order to meet production targets. If that meant carelessly repaired dies, or a wonky 1 in the date, then that was a small price to pay as far as they were concerned. With that said, he does seem to think that the scarcer varieties of 1861, which also contain flaws, as we know, were produced exclusively by the Royal MInt, as reverse dies were tested, against various obverses, prior to obverse 6 and reverse G being the accepted standard. That's not to say Gouby is definitively correct, however. After all this time, there has to be an element of speculation and inspired guesswork. I think they should have stuck with reverse F. There's something oddly attractive about it, in my opinion.

Thanks Terry, that's really useful info and well researched on your part. I would never have realised.

Whilst I'd already got a Freeman 20, the one I've just managed to get is a full grade higher, about NVF. I don't think it's worthy of the title "penny acquisition of the week", it is nonetheless an acquisition, and it is somewhat scarce, so I'm quite pleased.

Could be just that. In one sense it's a hell of a bargain. In another it does have that serious blemish which defiitely detracts. Can it actually be treated, so as to remove all traces?

I was sort of momentarily tempted myself, Pete, but decided I couldn't live with that.

This is a damn shame. A Freeman 30, 6 over 8 in otherwise very reasonable condition given its rarity, but the Queen is smoking a pipe. Some graffiti artist has mucked about with it. link to offer