1949threepence

The ringer on my landline is permanently turned off, and only people I know have my mobile No. Therefore I don't get these crappy calls at all these days.

There was something else they got badly wrong a few months ago. It was either they'd missed the fact that a coin was rare and had touted it as normal, or vice versa - can't remember which. I think somebody e mailed them about it.

To get the grade so wrong doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the rest of the operation.

I had all manner of issues with uploaing pics, then tried photographing new coins with my tablet, saving the resultant pic, and then uploading onto here - finally found a method that worked without an issue arising.

Well it is Pete, but it's not every day you get such distinguished provenance. Although the cynic in me says anybody could have written that. I wonder if it's been verified as L.C.Wyon's writing by a handwriting expert, comparing it to documented Royal Mint archival record, say. .

£6k - is a possibility.

My latest acquisition is a Freeman 17, which is in GEF with some residual lustre. Unfortunately there are some light but noticeable scratches, especially to the reverse, which do detract somewhat. But as it's scarce, otherwise very nice, and I got it for a reduced price, it was worth buying. Another notch on the 1860 and 1861 joint series project bedpost.

I've absolutely no doubt you already know about this superlative Freeman 4 with added original provenance from L.C.Wyon being offered at the forthcoming London Coins Auction, but just in case others don't, I thought I would post the link. If I had the funds, I'd go for it myself.

deleted - quoted myself !

It's whatever attracts the buyers. Rarity in absolute terms isn't always the driver in that sense. In the F103/F90 situation, both would undoubtedly sell in fair condition, but I'd lay odds that the narrow date would ultimately fetch more, probably because it's immediately recognisable without further study. I'd certainly sooner have an F90 over an F103. By the way, you can see some more F103's here

Would that be before or after somebody offered you £7,500 for the pair?

Just imagine this scenario: A fair F103 and a fair1877 narrow date are posted to e bay at the same time. Which one will attract the most attention, and the hottest bidding war?

Well according to Michael Gouby, there are 5 known F103's compared to 7 known F90's. As you say, Freeman has the F90 at R18, but classes the F103 at R19. Personally, I do think Gouby has a slight tendency to estimate the number of admittedly very rare coins, on the low side of actuality. As to whether you pay £5k for a fair example of a 103, well personally I wouldn't. The best known specimen is EF, and Gouby has that at £1200 (2009 values). A VF specimen of a 103 went at the Bamford auction in 2006, for £1000 - it can be seen here £5k might be in the ballpark for a fair 1877 narrow date F90, though, as it has a lot more cache than the F103.

I'd vote for their independence in a heartbeat.

From that point of view Matt, you are spot on. The PCGS photos clearly misrepresent the true postion. Here are the two pictures side by side, for direct comparison. The raw Spink one, and the slabbed one Cathrine supplied:-

Absolutely agree with this. For a start it isn't 100% clear whether the reverse scratches are on the slab or the coin, and furthermore, it's a very nice coin anyway. As you rightly say, Richard, these coins rarely survive in a literally perfect state. After 156 years that would be amazing.

I too would love to know that.

The new pics above still show a very nice proof, albeit with a few light scratches on the reverse.

Yes, the weight is the only thing which doesn't follow. But how it managed to circulate for whatever number of years, as a blank piece of metal, I really don't know. You would have thought it would have encountered multiple refusals at selling points, and been returned to a bank, where it would most likely have been withdrawn. Bit of a mystery, Matt.

I don't think it's legit to be honest. It may be my imagination, but at 7 o'clock on one of the images, I thought I detected a trace of old border teeth, and gaps at the bottom of the metal, consistent with the area underneath the Monarch's head. If I had to speculate, I'd say it had been tooled at some point, to make it look like a blank

But maybe more fragrance in the UK

The stand out piece for me is the Freeman 4, with absolutely original provenance from L.C.Wyon, no less, who presented it to Mrs Letts, the wife of a friend of his, the Reverend Letts, with a handwritten note, available with the coin, it the original case. link

Well, the good thing from our point of view is that Trump did say the UK would be at the FRONT of the queue with regard to new trade deals. It is, though, becoming difficult to lend any further credence to polls, which these days seem increasingly askew.

Hypocrites of the first order.

Looking back at the old Coin Monthly magazines from the late 1960's, some of which I bought from Rob a couple or so years ago, it's abundantly clear that there was little short of a mania for 1950 and 1951 pennies. For example in the August 1969 edition of the mag, Stewart Ward of London was offering an UNC 1951 at £22 (£326 corrected for inflation as at 2015). By contrast Ray Bennett of Sutton Coldfield was offering a BU 1949 at £1-17-6d (£1.875) and £27.83 today, corrected for inflation. Also offered was a 1953 BU penny at £6, which, incredibly, you could get for less than that today in absolute terms, let alone a correction for inflation. In the "market movements" section of the mag, a 1951 penny in BU is shown at £20. Just shows what heady days they were in the coin market.