-
Posts
8,081 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
262
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Articles
Everything posted by 1949threepence
-
Well he's got one I'm very interested in.........
-
Just as good - cheers Pete. Much appreciated. He's got some good stuff by the looks.
-
Do you have a link, Pete?
-
That's a superb looking coin, Paul.
-
Thanks Jerry - I went through that process of examining it numerous times, as I couldn't quite believe what I was seeing. As far as the F77, I bid £60 for the one at the March LCA, which eventually went for £65. I wish I'd bid a lot more more. It was described as fine, but was nearer VF and totally problem free. £150 for a decent fine F77, I'd go for.
-
Royal Mint again!
1949threepence replied to Geordie582's topic in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Indeed, it's this case Scott. But their definition still has them as legal tender. To most people, legal tender means it is a coin of the realm which can be tendered in exchange for goods and services. Whilst I can understand shops refusing or being uncertain when offered the coins, the same should not apply to a bank. It appears to me that goalposts are beig artificially moved to accommodate the convenience of banks and others, as opposed to the convenience of customers. -
Royal Mint again!
1949threepence replied to Geordie582's topic in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Yet they make the absolute statement of fact pronouncement that Crowns are legal tender. The statement is totally clear cut and without any degree of ambiguity. So if they back pedal and say that actually, no, they're not acceptable by banks or for use as currency, then to my way of thinking they are deliberately misrepresenting a material fact by stating that they are. Could lead to a very interesting legal argument if tested in court. Are there two separate definitions for "legal tender"? - not that I've seen. -
You're perhaps right, Prax, although I haven't seen any diminution on demand for rare varieties at auction. Quite the reverse in fact. Although, somewhat paradoxically, some real pearlers do seem to sail right under the radar. As far as 1861, it's an area I'll be turning my personal attention to, quite shortly. Another year with numerous varieties. Many of then not nearly as well known as their 1860 counterparts.
-
I regularly scan dealer's pages, auctions and e bay, Jon. I'll keep a sharp look out for a decent pre 1860 copper halfpenny/penny at a reasonable price for you, and report back if I see one.
-
Just going back to the emboldened part of your post, Jon, I did feel honour bound to point out to the seller that he had perhaps unwittingly offloaded a very rare coin, and I received this very gracious reply from him:-
-
1862 Penny with missing Characters
1949threepence replied to RLC35's topic in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
The only thing I can assume is maybe an extremely worn die. Maybe at one time the letters were faintly visible, but have since worn away completely, leaving just the normally struck letters visible. Of course, the Y of PENNY is also absent. -
Thanks Jon. Basically the indicators are the taller helmet plume on Britannia and the unique lighthouse. It's a bit like the one on reverse H, position wise, but slightly thicker and with no rock to the left of it.
-
Thanks for the heads up. Are they the ones already on his website (they're nice enough), or some new ones he's yet to add?
-
A very basic error by NGC
1949threepence replied to Accumulator's topic in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
They do, but to be honest, if I was sending a coin off for slabbing, I'd enclose a detailed description of precisely what it was, and ask them not to slab it if they disagreed with my findings. Surely it's a bit of a no brainer leaving it to chance? Or am I being hypercritical? -
Cheers Pete
-
Got one !!! Off e bay. I don't think the vendor realised what it was, and only a couple of other bidders did. But won anyway. As is usual with these types, it's not in brilliant condition, but the rarity dictates that beggars can't be choosers Freeman 76 penny
-
LCA March
1949threepence replied to PWA 1967's topic in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Thanks for the list, Richard. Useful. -
LCA March
1949threepence replied to PWA 1967's topic in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
I'm astounded it was unsold at the conclusion of the auction. I was toying with the idea of placing a £1750 bid on it, but decided on other coins instead on the grounds I'd be outbid !!!. Had I known it would not go in the auction, I'd definitely have bid. -
LCA March
1949threepence replied to PWA 1967's topic in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
I was probably thinking it's extremely difficult to find a decent small date 1862, and this was one of the very best I've seen. But having looked again, I do take your point about the obverse flaws. -
LCA March
1949threepence replied to PWA 1967's topic in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
I don't recall any corrosion on the coin, which looked a pretty much flawless VF to me. -
LCA March
1949threepence replied to PWA 1967's topic in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Does anybody know what happened to the really choice 1862 date from halfpenny dies, penny, ex Freeman ex Bamford that was on offer in the original catalogue - from the Elstree/David Reissner collection? I can't see any trace of it in the auction realised prices, and it also seems to have vanished from the original catalogue. Both of them have now merged the once separately listed collection, into the main body. -
Is this proof or not?
1949threepence replied to Nordle11's topic in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Beautiful coin, but I don't think it's a proof, unfortunately, Matt. Might be a specimen strike, however. -
EU referendum - in or out?
1949threepence replied to 1949threepence's topic in Nothing whatsoever to do with coins area!
Thanks for all the contributions, guys. I haven't been on for a couple of days, and was quite surprised to see so many replies. Some really helpful and useful posts from both perspectives. It seems to me that there are two main issues which concern people the most - the first of these is the economy. How wold we be affected if we voted out? The consensus seems to be that we wouldn't be as well off as we are inside the EU. The second issue is the very obvious one of migration. This, I know, worries many people a lot. Especially as it pertains to the hundreds of thousands of migrants who arrived in Germany last year, and who may eventually all get visas to travel here as part of the free movement of people. Would their behaviour be a cause for concern? would there be pressure on people to dress or behave modestly/sensitively in areas of high migration numbers, so as not to upset the migrants? Are there ISIS sleepers within the migrant group? What's going to happen to all the migrants backing up in Greece and Turkey, now that the rest of Europe are fencing themelves off - that's so ironic. Pre 1989 the fences sealing off Eastern Europe were to keep people in. The fences now dividing Central from Southern Europe, are to keep people out I don't know - I truly don't. It's almost impossible to predict. As others have said we do need migrant labour, especially seasonal migrant labour for work on farms, and I do like Cameron's idea of just accepting 20,000 migrants from the camps in Turkey, over 5 years. Many more than this and we could find ourselves in real crisis, give the already extreme shortage of accommodation. In my area, for example, even very ordinary 2 bed terraced houses in rough and ready areas, are becoming like gold dust, both to buy or rent. So I'm still undecided, although if anything, I'm beginning to come down more on the staying in side - on balance, this may be better.