1949threepence

Are you thinking slender three, Jon?

Mine is the ex Frank Stephenson specimen, which I bought from PFK Auctions in August 2017 for £400 hammer. About VF, but nibbled round the edges, bashed in the centre of the reverse, and nowhere near as good as Blake's.

Blake, the very best specimen I've seen is EF - Richard's example.

GVF, some would say NEF with great hair detail remaining. A nice coin, and rare that good.

That's a really nice strong VF example. The F69 is not very difficult to get hold of per se, but it is extremely difficult to obtain in grades above near fine.

Note the tall helmet plume. Unique to reverse I.

It certainly looks that way, yes. Not 100% clear, but that's the logical assumption.

Well at the end of the day, they're in the business to make money.

The above from Chards and absolutely spot on

Useful link to grading comparisons - link You have to scroll down a fair bit to get to the most useful one - "Comparing Grades: UK vs. CGS vs. Sheldon"

Difficult to say whether deliberate or accidental. Could have got caught up in some machinery, or maybe testing the strength of another instrument. The marks look a bit too random to be a statement against the King. Also, given the age of the coin, we don't really know when it was done in the intervening 224 years. Although clearly not too recently !

Thought it was a nice looking coin as soon as I saw it, Jon. So went for it and got it at my max bid £800 hammer (£946.50 after juice and postage). I did like the fact that it was equally as good in hand as on the pic. Reverse is in fact FDC. Some very slight surface marks on obverse. The only other alternative I could see from the same die, was a possibly even better specimen from KB Coins. But the real downside was that they were looking for £2,250, and am really not convinced its worth quite that much. link

With the purchase of an 1806 gilt copper proof from LCA last weekend, I've now got all three 1806 proofs from the KP31 die - Peck 1325, 1326 &1327, gilt, bronzed copper & copper. Whilst I've no intention of even attempting to become a major SOHO proof specialist collector (a lifetime's work, pretty much), it's always good to get a few proofs, and these were easy to recognise because of the incomplete 0 and no base serif to 1.

You're probably right Jerry. With every lot in the SOHO collection having been sold, it would be inaccurate to presume that in any given case, there was one single bidder. The cynicism arises because it appears that in so many instances, the underbidder was co-incidentally, just one step down from the successful bid at maximum.

Although in the case of the SOHO collection, that would be nothing as every single lot sold.

Bid £800 on Lot No 2148 - hammer price £800!!!

There's no doubt about it, the insides of some churches are absolutely stunning.

As long as you know what you're looking for the website is just as good as the hard copy catalogue + the photos are larger and more detailed. The LCA catalogue comes into its own when the realised prices are posted. You can then easily find which items haven't sold.

It would make a hugely positive difference if they did. Essentially, unless you attend in person (and even that wasn't possible this time), then they're all sealed bids. So you have no clue how you've fared until the realised prices are posted. With a live auction - even if the premium is higher - you at least have a chance to really chase the item you want.

£1100 hammer - actually a decent price for such a quality piece. I bid for the 1797 pattern penny (lot 195), but made a mess of the bidding and lost it. Thought for a second as the bidding stopped, it was mine, but then as soon as the hammer went down realised it was still with the auctioneer's prior bidder, who'd obviously bid more.

Actually, that's a very good point. I suppose it's become a bit traditional to post the LCA catalogue, but yes, as you rightly say, the DNW is at least as important.

Yes. It was a bit strange really. I tried again last night on my PC and it still wasn't up. So I decided to give it a try on my tablet, and it worked. Then worked on my PC - all this within about 2 minutes. So it must have come back just before I tried on my tablet

LCA website currently down.

Rolf Harris?

I've seen some really poor standards of written English from quite senior managers at work, such as:- "sort after" (for sought after) "Loose" (for lose) Could of, should of, would of (for have) "hail and hearty" (for hale) "your" (instead of you're) - very common mistake this one. "mite" for might "there" for their are typical examples - and of course, because they're real words in their own right, often spellcheck doesn't pick them up. I agree with Richard about "literally". Its overuse does get very irritating.