1949threepence

One thing I've noticed on my PC, which is Windows 10 and running Chrome, is that the circular twirly thing never stops - in other words, the page never fully loads, even though I can navigate and post (apart from above). This is not the case on my other devices.

What did they say to you?

They could have dealt with it a lot better, Pete. I would have understood it more if the amount had been £50k or it was a lot of smaller amounts in a short space of time. But if you're selling high end coins - as just one example of normal business practice - £2,500 will frequently be exceeded.

Thanks for the heads up. I have to say that £2,500 is an extraordinarily low sum to suspend someone's paypal account for, on the grounds of possible money laundering. I've just checked my paypal account and my limit set at $2796.00, sending and receiving limit. You can apparently lift the limit, but before you posted the above, I wasn't even aware it existed. Paypal state that the limit is there "for security reasons", but don't make it crystal clear what precisely these security reasons are, nor why it is necessary to inconvenience customers by having them. In fact they don't give any other qualification to that statement at all. This limit should be flagged up on joining so that we all know. I'd be seriously pissed off if it was me.

Superb. The wide date 1876's are quite difficult to get in high grade and that is a really neat example.

Even that won't work for me on my PC - still brings up the last thing I quoted on the thread and stops me typing any text. Fine on tablet and phone.

I bought mine, a Mascle, in January 2010, and I think it was among the last to be made by Peter himself at his St Leonards on Sea premises. I think it was about £130, certainly nowhere near the £216 now being asked for. Although, annoyingly, I can't locate my old bank statements from about that time, to check.

Cheers Matt.

I'm wondering if this is a compatability issue, as I've just tried on both my tablet and phone, and would have been able to post normally in the same thread that's blocking me on the PC.

Just wanted to make an interesting point about these concerning the price, as we were discussing them last night in Mrbadexample's thread. A couple of years ago I bought some old "Coin Monthly" magazines from Rob, and in one of them, from December 1972, I noticed that they were being sold even back then. One of the popular cabinets still going today, called "The Pheon" then sold for £17.50. Today it costs - for the Standard model - £360.00. Over the same period inflation, which has averaged 5.9% per annum, takes it to £208.28, so a big increase over and above inflation. Here's a pic of the ad:- Of course, that over and above inflation increase may have something to do with the type of wood being used. Back then it was "obeche", whereas now it is mahagony. Don't know.

Oddly enough I'm getting exactly the same thing on a different thread - this one's clear. But tried to post something on a thread I posted on last night, and it just brings up the last thing I quoted and locks the page, so I can't even type any text - what's that all about?

As far as the green stuff - verdigris, you could perhaps take a look at the tips in this thread

That's exactly what I thought before I bought mine (except in my case it was pennies rather than Farthings), but I've never once regretted it since, and my coins are perfectly preserved in there. It's a one off, once and for all cost you won't regret - trust me. Go on, buy it - you know you want to, and you know it makes sense

Emboldened bit made me cringe MBE. I'd seriously consider getting a decent cabinet for your coins - Try Peter Nichols they are the best available in my opinion.

Neat capture. It is, as Rob says, doubtless the result of a grease blocked die, but interesting nonetheless, and adds weight to theories of why certain features apparently didn't appear on the coins of other years (1876 and 1882 no H). Well spotted - of course you could always refer it to the Royal Mint for official analysis. I know they're always happy to address such anomalies. It doesn't say too much for modern quality control methods, as you'd imagine a fair number were minted with the same feature

Bob, that's really interesting. There's another one in a similar position on an 1875 specimen, pictured in Gouby's book "The British Bronze Penny 1860 - 1901" - see picture BP 1875 Ce in the photo below.

Ian, I'm not convinced that is a dot on your 1897. It's very tiny, and typical of any number of minor faults seen under magnification in the fields of a coin that age. The 1909 dot is similar to the 1897 (main) dot, although personally, I think it's just a co-incidence that it's in the same area of the coin as your 1897. I very much doubt that it's the same die, 12 years later. The above is only my opinion and I appreciate others may differ considerably.

I agree. CGS75 is about MS63 on the Sheldon scale, so nice, and a very reasonable price.

I'd say near VF. There's a lot of contact marks on the obverse, and on the whole it doesn't look that brilliant. You might get a collector who'd want it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Really, I think bullion value only would be a realistic way of looking at it.

EF+ Copper, I'd say 1853, 1854 or 1858 - probably £80 or so. GEF + Bronze Viccy, as you say 1901. But as far as buns are concerned, probably 1890 or 1891. Maybe also 1887, as they don't seem too scarce in high grade. I reckon you could get one for about £100.

Thanks Bob, that's incredibly useful correspondence.

Well yes and no. Firstly I totally agree with Jerry's remarks above regarding this specific point. I'd also say that "die errors" arguably include such worthy items as the 1862 penny from halfpenny dies, the 1860 beaded border/toothed border mules, and certainly include the 1861 and 1862 8 over 6, plus 6 over 8 types, which were doubtless a result of the die repairer forgetting that the figures should be the other way round on the die. They may be errors, but they are very obvious and tangible errors, which have attracted a huge premium. Conversely, differences arising from worn and filled/clogged dies, have not - one exception being the 1897 dot between the O and N of ONE PENNY. Freeman lists this as a unique variety (No 147), and as such, it too, attracts a premium, despite the fact there is evidence to show that it was the result of a die problem, and that some specimens show only the merest trace of a blemish in that area.

Theoretically it could have have been either scenario. When such a penny - from a worn or filled die - was first minted, it might have shown faint traces of the H which did, as you say, wear out completely over time. Or, less likely, there was literally no trace at all to the naked eye. At any rate, I think we can safely assume that it was never the intention to produce the 1876 penny minus the H, as no 1876 pennies were struck at the London mint. They were all struck at the Heaton mint.

Just as a rider to the above. In his book "The Bronze coinage of Great Britain", Michael Freeman says that the lighthouse is believed to represent the Eddystone Lighthouse (which is about 12 miles SSW of Plymouth Sound), and the ship is thought to represent "The Golden Hind" (Drake's 16th century ship which circumnavigated the globe).

"Britannia rules the waves" - in the Victorian era the British empire was truly at its height, and we actually did "rule the waves". The reverse design of the bun penny features Britannia seated and the accompanying ship and lighthouse reflect the ruling the waves sentiment (fact as well). That would be my theory at any rate, although I must confess I can't find too much written down about it.