1949threepence

I will too, although I bet it'll be in the crosshairs of many collectors by now.

Have you tried accessing from a different device? - just a thought.

Interesting. My old short cut does still work OK. I wonder if the new set up is incompatible with the operating system on Stewie's browser. That's always a possibility. Normally, these new set ups have backwards compatibility, but maybe this one hasn't. It migt be as simple as converting from say, Internet Explorer to Chrome. I had to do that to continue accessing one site a year or two back.

Good thinking I've just tried the forum on my tablet (2013 nexus 7) and it's fine. But on there, I did get a little pop up window asking me if I wanted to allow or block browser notifications, so I clicked block, and now under notification settings, I've got a red box with a white cross in it saying "browser notifications disabled". Of course, this will also apply to private messages, si I may change back.

Agree with Bob. It looks like a classic 1860/59 to me. They mostly all look pretty much like that.

I got the same message for my username, David.

It is a bit. Not sure why a complete notification opt out isn't available. Maybe Chris can tell us. Might just be the way the software has been built.

Just a thought about that - it doesn't allow you to completely opt out, so I've gone for one e mail a week, containing all notifications.

Can't see a member's list under this new set up.

Thanks for the useful information, gents.

Obviously with them being so scarce, you're lucky to get a halfway reasonable one. What are yours like then, Pete?

Discounting proofs and stuff from modern mint sealed bags, all coins have been handled by somebody, I've never had someone give me change using cotton gloves or handling every individual coin by the edge! Just serendipidy that some coins develop a fingerprint or carbon spots as they age, there's a lot to be said for nice even toning on bronze rather than chasing lustre I agree, David.

Superb coin and so rare. I don't think anything can be done for the Freeman 69 that I have. It was polished probably decades ago, with brasso or something. That tell tale sheen never leaves, despite some re-toning in the interim. Here's a picture of it. It doesn't look polished in the pic, but it is:- 1874H F69 reverse 1874H F69 obverse Shame because it's otherwise not too bad for a quite rare specimen.

Although I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of fingerprints on such coins, appeared during, or shortly after, the brief time they were in actual circulation. So the fingerprint is most likely from someone long dead. I'm not sure how careless or otherwise staff at specialist coin auction houses are. Do you have any evidence to support an assertion that they handle them carelessly? What does bug me are those endless pics on e bay with a coin photograohed in somebody's hand. At the auctions I've attended, the coins are in and out of the wallets at a million miles an hour, and being handled by anyone who wants to inspect it.Not good as far as UNC examples are concerned. Not such an issue on below EF.

As mentioned in the original title Jerry...... honesty or knowledge ................Maybe greed ?. Combined with stupidity as the pic he used says CGS reject due to cleaning.

Wonder what his reserve price was......

Always seems to be the case with really rare items, that they've been cleaned, polished and/or have verd on them. Yes, it's obviously a poor specimen. It was the rarity which drove me.

This is it here with apologies for the limited experience !

It was only fair, but even so, still a bargain. I've got a web page of it saved whilst the auction was in its early stages. Unfortunately I made a right horlicks of it, so you can't see the reverse properly, but I'll screenshot it, and post a link so you can see it. Just to give you an idea.

I must be honest, if I saw a rarity that the seller hadn't spotted, I'd go for it at the cheap price without informing them. It's the opposite of "caveat emptor". Don't know if there is a Latin phrase for "let the seller beware". A few months ago on e bay, an Irish seller listed a load of what at first sight was the usual washer like dross that crowds the pages. However, on closer inspection one of them turned out to be an 1860 Freeman 8 mule. A fact that wasn't lost on many other viewers. It went for £376 - and I missed out because the sodding time was out on the e bay clock. So my last second £400 snipe failed. The seller must have had the shock of his life - I'm sure he had no idea what it was.

Do you have any before and after photos you could upload, John?

Although I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of fingerprints on such coins, appeared during, or shortly after, the brief time they were in actual circulation. So the fingerprint is most likely from someone long dead. I'm not sure how careless or otherwise staff at specialist coin auction houses are. Do you have any evidence to support an assertion that they handle them carelessly? What does bug me are those endless pics on e bay with a coin photograohed in somebody's hand.

Some very nice coins, but most are massively overpriced, in many instances, absurdly so even with slabbing. I've got most of them anyway, although I do like the look of the 1870. That is nice.

Neat capture, Matt.

Just for a few seconds I thought it might be a Freeman 38 obverse 2, given what looks to be a larger than usual gap between the Queen's Head and the rim - certainly akin to one. But it's not. As you say, just a bog standard 1962.