1949threepence

No, the base of the three in your example is too rounded. With an open three the base is flatter.

Bad luck, David, and well spotted anyway. That would have been a neat capture.

That's the way it should be. All posts, right from the first one you posted when you first joined, should show the current cumulative total. Your first post doesn't remain on 1, and so on. They all show the same number, so that you or anyone else looking at any post you made, will know instantly how many you have posted in your time here, in total. Some forums do have a slight update problem in that whilst the post you just made will show the correct total, some older posts lag a few behind, and it takes them time to update. This forum seems OK in that regard, though. ETA: I see Matt has already explained this principle. Sorry.

Matt, with specific regard to the groups, I've noticed that some posters still retain the "Numismatic Research Group" tag, especially those who haven't posted in a while. Also, some have "Unidentified Variety" when they have posted more than 30 posts.

I can't disagree with that

It's a bit weird anyway. If you look at the seller's other items they are flagged up as follows:- "$18.40 International Priority Shipping to United Kingdom via the Global Shipping program" So it's a bit of a mystery why this particular coin should be causing a problem, unless it's something to do with the high price and the insurance. The only option is to contact the vendor directly and ask what the issue is.

I don't think we've got any forum legends yet

So Matt, what post counts separate your Newbies, from Juniors, from Regulars from Fledged, from Luminaries, from Veterans etc?

Yes, I agree. On closer inspection it is obverse 4. The hair at the nape of the neck sweeps towards the ear, which it doesn't on obverse 3. We could do with a clearer picture, as you say. On all obverse 4's, the "L" of L.C.WYON is flawed and appears as an I.

Don't know about a Spink classification, but I'm pretty sure it's a Freeman 10, obverse 2, reverse D. The most notable giveaways on the reverse are that the exergual line curves upwards slightly on the left hand side. On the obverse the I, and the T's of "BRITT" are slightly out of alignment with the BR, curving away clockwise. Also the "L.C.WYON" signature stands well clear of the toothed border, but not almost on the bust as with obverse 3, for example.

When I post an actual pic on pre decimal, it appears on all three of my home devices, but is visible to no-one else. Also invisible on my work PC. Christ knows what the problem is, but there you go. Plain weird. I've had to resort to uploading my coin pics to an image hosting site, and then posting the links on here.

I am now. Thanks for the heads up. Managed to retrieve the second one from ITV player and watched it - and just seen the third one "Brocket Hall" earlier on. Absolutely brilliant, even if, as you suggest, "dumbed down". Even if only some of the narrative is true, what a formidable woman Victoria must have been.

£85 for a 1950 set - absolute bargain. Given the age, some degree of toning, however slight, is almost inevitable. In this case from the ribbon.

Successful snipes often entail making your bid massively above the latest bid. That way, you will almost certainly be way ahead of the competition, but still only pay slightly above the bid immediately below yours. Works for me anyway.

On my recently acquired F28, the P points to a gap. Obviously, there aren't that many available for direct comparison. A relevant point may be that two mints produced pennies dated 1861, the Royal MInt and the James Watt mint, with the latter eventually producing by far, the vast majority dated 1861. Many varieties already exist for both 1860 and 1861, and who knows how many times the various dies were recut, with minor variations occurring each time. That much is obvious from the often clumsily prepared date numerals, which seem to be differently spaced and not infrequently sloping, at at an angle.

Hi, I sent you a PM a couple of days ago. Are you still selling?

Yes, maybe Brian will buy if Bob is willing to sell one. ETA: Not sure why it's showing a post of Matt's from 29th June. It's not the one I actually quoted

Bad luck, Brian. It's frustrating to get pipped at the post for an item of rarity like that.

Bad luck, Brian. It's frustrating to get pipped at the post for an item of rarity like that.

That's what I failed to do - many thanks, Paul

Screenshot of how it shows up in my browser

It usually is, Pete, to be fair

Well this is lot 969. On my devices, when I blow it up, it just shows a blurred image, for whatever reason.

Not massively impressed with the DNW website. If you try to blow up the pics, all you get is the same size, blurred, and whilst the items I saved to "my cabinet" were retained for a few days, when I tried to look again just a few minutes ago, the page was empty.

Great tactics