1949threepence

Still wouldn't pay £2k for it. Would you?

Thing is, whatever way you choose to remove the soldered on parts, the residual damage will inevitably be severe. Don't forget, the initial damage occurred when the parts were soldered on. Removing them will just further that.

Yes, I thought the same. You can still see his lug 'ole, which would probably have gone in a post mint accident.

I can only see one - this one - and I think I can detect a mark where the H should be. Besides which, even if it were the genuine article, £2k is a rip off.

Quite a few 1860 toothed border bronzes can appear like beads in certain areas. But they are teeth, not beads. To be a beaded border, the beads would have to go all the way round, 360. Even if the other side was toothed, making it a mule. You don't get part mule/part tooth on one side.

That's an interesting one. Sometimes it's difficult at first glance to decide whether the mark is a minting flaw, or some later post mint, circulation trauma.

At the risk of becoming a bore on the topic, Paul Redford sent me another e mail, with a link to the drawing he had found, which actually isn't the same one I looked up. The one he found is the same style of drawing, but of a different subject, and his signature is initials and surname, same as on the note. Anyway, I'll shut up and clear off for a bit. Sorry to babble on.

It'll be very, very interesting to see what it does ultimately fetch, gents. Especially for dispassionate, uninvolved observers

I've now received a further e mail from LCA, still in response to my first e mail, as follows:- I believe the drawing Paul refers to, is the one shown below, which bears L.C.Wyon's signature. Compared to the one in Lot 1189, I'd say it is the same signature, so the document appears to be authentic.

OK, thanks. I'll take a look.

In fact my cynical side got the better of me and I e mailed LCA putting that very point to them. I've copied and pasted my e mail and Semra Cetin's reply below. I agree with what she says, with the reservation that I honestly believe the provenance note will attract a much higher premium than usual, due to its unique and very elevated status. I wasn't sure I'd get a reply, but fair play, I did. I was probably being somewhat fanciful expecting handwriting tests to have been done, in reality.

I don't think art has ever really reached the masses either, in the sense of them owning a valauble work of art, as the sort of pictures sold at Christies, is way out of the ordinary bod's league. Let's be honest it's also way out of our league as well. That said, I agree with all the reasons stated above as to why paintings are considered more desirable to look at, by the majority. I do concur that the collective pre-conceived image of the average coin collector in this country, is indeed of somewhat eccentric retired gentlemen, dressed in clothing redolent of a more genteel era, which might be offputting to some, especially in the younger age group. That's a pity, because if it really did take off in the UK, it could be huge, given our heritage formed over many centuries. I also agree that the image in the USA is totally different. There it is just accepted as a mainstream hobby which might potentially turn a profit.

Thank you, Richard. So maybe £295 was actually a much more reasonable price than I first thought, given the condition.

They're still in very high demand, Pete. You've not wasted your money.

In what will probably be my final penny acquisition for 2016, I've managed to get this really nice F26 from Rendell Ingram for £295.00. Maybe, possibly a tad on the pricey side - as they usually are from that dealership - but I agree with their description of aUNC choice, although the strike is a tad weak, especially the ribbon on the obverse. In addition, only the W of LCW under the shield is visible. Not the rarest of the 1861's, but still a welcome addition.

Indeed. I'd be amazed if they didn't. As you say, word would soon get around the numismatic community if they refused, and their credibility would be badly affected. Not only that the coin passed muster for selling in the first place, but also that they wouldn't admit to it/agree to a refund, when the item was discovered as a fake.

So if Steve's coin is the one you picture, Paul, and dated 1770, it's the bust of a young man, rather than an old woman.

If it's any help, the coin pictures I have taken on my tablet (2013, Nexus 7) and then uploaded to here, have not been oversized.

He did indeed, although it's a "see below" footnote referencing die damage and hasn't been assigned a rarity. Not in the 1985 edition, anyway. Yes, I bet he does regret it

If it wasn't good enough for Freeman, it's not good enough for me

He's 'avin a larf, surely

OK, thanks for that. Sounds good.

Presumably you can programme the phone with known callers, so it knows who to let through?

Not as far as I know. Of course, it would be helpful if LCA would do a close up of the date, with overstrikes. But they never do. ETA: assuming you were referring to that, Jon, and not the previous post. Apologies if you were.

Here it is close up - and no. Can't see it at all.