1949threepence

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.

Yes, some absolute gems there - especially impressed with the 1875H and the 1878.

He's that type of guy, Pete. Responded to me within a few hours over a query I had about my F69, a year or so back. Top bloke. If you remember from the other thread too, he also signed his Gouby book for me before he shipped it! I should have thought to ask him to sign mine as well

He's that type of guy, Pete. Responded to me within a few hours over a query I had about my F69, a year or so back. Top bloke.

Well.......it might be a worn down die number. But more likely it's just a smudge of some sort. Very difficult to know. f it is a die No, what a shame it's worn down. Of course, they're as rare as hen's teeth, and you hardly ever see them for sale, even at the top auctions. Alfnail had a worn one up on e bay for £995 ( think Die No 4), but he withdrew and sold to a previous client. One of my biggest wants, an 1863 die No - not fussy as to which, or condition of specimen.

Lovely coin, Bob.

Funnily enough it's the same over here. Similar temperatures forecast tomorrow due to exceptionally mild air, coming up all the way from the vicinity of Madeira/The Azores.

I've blown up your picture and I see a slight smudge wher the H would be I don't have the books next to me. seem to recall 1882 no H has a different die combination, so Hi res scans both sides please Fingers crossed for you! David Looks like F12 to me, as the eye is quite palpably closer to the bridge of the nose on F11, which the 1882 without a H is solely described as being. So either tooled, or the photo does not show up the H for whatever reason. Definitely an 1882H and I got all over excited for nothing. Sorry for the fuss, people. A few weeks ago Bernie Workman posted a picture of his excellent London 1882 Penny: http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5326&view=findpost&p=41765 To me the eye does indeed look closer to the bridge of the nose on Bernie's coin. The only one where I can't detect any mark under the date, is the one shown in the link above (Bernie's)

Whenever these 1882 no H's come up, there always seems to be some tell tale mark under the date.

Happy Birthday, Bob - enjoy !

At page 92 of his book, "The British Bronze Penny, 1860 to 1901" Michael Gouby says of the 1897 raised dot, Freeman 147:- "Rev: Die Flaw. Result a small raised dot between the O and N of ONE. It is possible that a small piece of grit, metal filing, etc, got trapped on the die leaving a small indent when it fell out. Thereby, when the die was next used the result was - a small raised dot o the coin! Originally it was thought to be a die identification mark, which has since been discounted." At page 51 of his 1985 edition of "The Bronze coinage of Great Britain", Michael Freeman says:- "Some specimens of 1897 with reverse B are found with a small circular dot between the O and N of ONE. This feature occurs as a result of damage to the die - a specimen showing only a small crack in this area has been seen" So it's possible it might have started out small and grown larger.

Did you ever manage to flog that one, Dave?

So after all the debate we had about the 1882 no H penny 5 years ago, is this latest offering at the LCA for March 2016, the real deal? 1882 no H I still go back and forth on whether there is such a thing as a genuine 1882 no H, actually available for collectors. Whllst I accept that there was an UNC 1882 found with an 1883 die combination (see previous page of thread from Bernie), it could be a bit like the 1954 penny debate. Just the one - or potentially more? If so, were any released into circulation? Or are the ones we see, all tooled? I note the coin shown went for £2,200 last time out. Seems a bit of a risk if there is uncertainty as to genuineness.

Clearly we don't know the circumstances underlying the sale. The vendor may still be in two minds about the remainder of his collection, or may have just decided to sell the ones already listed. Possibly some more will emerge at a subsequent auction, or maybe, as you postulate Matt, there will be further additions to this auction, given that it's still nearly 3 months away.

One of the gaps I'd like to complete in my collection is the F74, F76, F77 and F78, to complete all 1874 variants. Unfortunately there are no 1874's in those specimens on offer in the Elstree sale.