1949threepence

Modern day proof sets are a massive rip off.

Some very naive buyers out there, who fall for this crap.

You're right. It loses all credence immediately, seeing that.

Another interesting little snippet on 1954 pennies from the Chard website

I'd agree with GVF/NEF for the first and plain Fine for the second.

This got me thinking, I don't ever recall hearing of a fake or fasimile 1954. A quick search on Ebay, finds sites who will sell me a:- gothic 1847, jubillee 1887, 1937 Ed VIII, or 1952 1933 or a museum quality facsimile of an 1862 penny! but no 1954, so I widened my search to international sellers and found this extraordinary fabrication 24 sold but there are 5 left if you bid now Wow, it's even got the King's head on the obverse, two years after he died

This is a reply I received from a Freedom of Information Act request made in 2011. One of the questions concerned the 1954 penny:- Thought it may be of possible interest.

He does know his stuff, and I have engaged with him a number of times on facebook. The only thing that does slightly irritate me about Martin, is that whatever images I (or anybody else) post of a given coin just bought, or whatever, he always has to go one better and post a pic of the best one he's got, or had. But there's no denying he is extremely knowledgeable and helpful, on his terms.

I'd agree with the grading, although with the lion shillings the nose is a bit of a giveaway in terms of wear. Clearly the coin is full lustred, and the King's hair detail is very good. It looks in this case as though there is a piece of the nose actually missing in the first place (die wear possible), as opposed to wear. A slight overgrading IMO. There is obvious great lustre, but the obverse looks slightly marked, and therefore imperfect to me. I'd go for the first one for the reasons above, not to mention the fact that it's 30% odd cheaper.

The 1862/, 8/6, also looks like it is a 1862/1....... http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchterm=1862+penny&searchtype=1&page=Catalogue Bob, when I click on your facebook link I get a message that I'm not part of the audience for that page - any suggestions ? Works OK for me ... nice to see that Martin and David are together at last I just checked it, and it is ok. The page is setup to accept all viewers. There might be a situation where you have to "Like" the page...not sure about that though. Thanks for visiting! ps Very noteworthy that Martin and Azda are shown together on the log, I know David feels very close with Martin! Ha,Ha! Reconciliation at last

The 1862/, 8/6, also looks like it is a 1862/1....... http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchterm=1862+penny&searchtype=1&page=Catalogue I looked at that 8/6 coin and couldn't see the overstrike on it at all. It just looks like a normal date to me. The picture of the same coin in the previous catalogue was better and traces of the 6 could be seen more easily. The 6 never shows up well in photographs (other than in UNC specimens) but the 2 is always wide in this variety, as per the LCA coin. OK, thanks Rashenly. Not that I can afford it, anyway.

The 1862/, 8/6, also looks like it is a 1862/1....... http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchterm=1862+penny&searchtype=1&page=Catalogue I looked at that 8/6 coin and couldn't see the overstrike on it at all. It just looks like a normal date to me.

The 1860 Freeman 9, TB/BB mule is a bit tasty. Will need a large bid though. I also like the 1878 penny, pretty much BU.

Oh sure, but if they're the ones I think you're referring to, they're not touted as genuine anyway.

Yes, thanks Vicky, thinking of going later this month. Some of the grading / descriptions on their pictures lots is, shall we say, interesting ... Example Most of them don't even have a photo attached. Very disappointing.

Yes. I meant to say it also occurs quite widely on the 1864 crosslet 4 - the 4 well separated from the other figures, and often very weakly struck. Obviously, that couldn't be blamed on James Watt.

You must have the magic touch............

Their submission form has clearly stated up to 90 days for standard submissions for well over a year now, so I imagine it was an old form. but I cannot defend their attitude towards customers who phone with queries. To be honest, I think a certain lady is responsible for this poor experience. Indeed, she sounds distinctly arrogant.

Having read the assertions about CGS on both this thread and another on here, I definitely won't be using them if by some remote chance I actually want to have a coin slabbed. They sound nightmarish to deal with. Quite the worst bit for me was altering the offered one month turnaround time, to three months and not amending the form (assuming the poster was not using an old form he'd had for a time). It then appears that all complaints are dismissed in a highly cavalier fashion. Conversely, I've never had a problem dealing with them when successfully bidding at auction.

To the best of my knowledge there aren't any modern fakes of Victorian bronze - unlike, say, the 1905 shilling and halfcrown where fake BU copies from China exist, as well as tooled 1903's.

Yes, just read the article by Peck in the November issue. Excellent .

Beautiful ME, and by a country mile the nicest I've ever seen. Another easy way of spotting an ME is that the lower colon dot after "GRA" is closer to the bottom of the A than a non ME.

Agree with Rashenly. The less than perfect spacing between the date numerals, as well as the numbers leaning at an angle is quite common in the early 1860's, especially in 1861. Mainly, I suspect, on coins produced by James Watt.

Michael, What is the name of the article? I would like to read it. Indeed so - I must order Coin News. Pleased to hear this great news.

OK, cheers Peter. Was just wondering.