1949threepence

Thanks a lot Ian, much appreciated. Will now be saving exclusively for the last piece in the jigsaw. Ah, the scarcer no stop before first W. Yes indeed. Although only seen two, the one I bought, and another one currently on offer with Coopers Coins. So they're also few and far between.

Yeah, but not everybody will. Just those who might be interested. I would if it was me. But fair point, I hadn't looked at it in that way.

Very pleased to obtain one of the last pieces of the jigsaw in the Victorian copper penny series I've been collecting for the last year. It's an 1843 DFF Bramah 3b type, in perhaps near VF. Private buy agreed with Ian a day or two ago, and just received today. Despite a careful lookout and a daily dedicated search of e bay 1843's since last April, I haven't previously seen one. Nor any at auction. Over the last 17 years, 4 have been sold at LCA, in 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2018, but they were all of very low grade, sub fine. This specific variety is a rarity within a rarity, as 1843 is scarce to begin with. If I'd spurned this opportunity I might have been waiting a long time for another. So many thanks to Ian.

You're probably right. Maybe the best way is to wait for a few months, buy another, and see if you can spot the difference.

Chatting to a friend in the town center parking lot recently, and we both said how much we disliked so many Americanisms creeping in. Not to mention how badly some of the automobiles were parked. We were having a good chat, but then a call came in on my cellphone so had to stop.

Another thought comes to mind. Would the intention be to issue a completely new set on receipt of the old one? If so, what would happen to the old sets? Moreover, why not just issue a new package, and ask buyers to destroy the old packages? I'm afraid I'd be asking all these awkward questions merely to inconvenience them in the same way they intend to inconvenience you. Then when you get the usual generic response (as you assuredly will do), you can contact them again to say they still haven't answered your questions, and until they do you won't consider returning the package. It's really good when they want something of you, and you've got the whip hand for once.

No, but the fact that RM have asked you to return it, means you should definitely keep it. What sort of company would ask you to return the entire thing - with the time and inconvenience that entails, plus the cost - merely for a "minor printing/spelling mistake"? Might be interesting to see if you get a reply that makes logical sense (I know that's stretching it a bit in the 21st century) if you contact them and ask what the minor error is.

Sadly the BBC is no longer the bastion of impartial reporting either. Moreover, whilst they would insist they were a wholly inclusive organisation, when was the last time you heard, for example, an Essex, Scouse, Birmingham, Newcastle or West Country accent among its national newsreaders? No shortage of received pronunciation or Scottish accents, but not much else.

We can all learn from it, Martin. In scrupulous fairness to you, I have seen similar heads up posts in the non private part of the forum, go unremarked upon. The problem is the very large amount of non member traffic through the forum, as can be seen if you ever click on the online users link. Even at 3am our time, as it reaches a global audience. Maybe @TomGoodheart could delete the post. Although he's not on here that frequently, and apart from Chris Perkins, we never see the others at all. Or once in a blue Moon. Although if you PM'd one, an e mail is sent out, which they might well see.

I always thought that "data" was one of those words, like "sheep", which acted both as singular and plural. Just looked it up and it appears that "data" is, as you say, the plural, and "datum" the singular - who knew? Well obviously you did, but I must plead ignorance as I have never once heard the word "datum" before. Now I know.

Say what?

Yes it's a beauty isn't it, and the apostrophe is well pronounced. That's well above average in terms of condition.

Knowing the type's history, as just alluded to, I actually did look at both BRITT AND IMP, several times at each as it happens. Concluded that it was far more probable than not that it wasn't a Gouby X, but still decided to go for it out of curiosity, plus the fact that it was cheap and better than my current ordinary 1911, so had nothing to lose - as stated in an earlier post.

I agree, it's completely wrong. As you say, two totally different meanings which could potentially cause confusion. "Distinctly unusual" might be a better way to put it.

Both I's are to a gap. It's interesting you say that Pete, as all the references to the hollow neck variety, pre Gouby, are of the I of IMP to a border tooth, not the I of BRITT. The earliest reference I can find is Court in September 1972, but no doubt it was discovered prior to that. Gouby doesn't even mention the type in his 1986 book, which covers pennies from 1860 to 1970. But he now says the I of BRITT pointing to a tooth is the determining factor. Although both I's point to a tooth on the variety, so the net effect is the same either way. . Freeman just refers to hollow necks in 1911 and 1912. I've never seen one from 1912. Peck makes no reference.

Plus the ones further round look thicker. I bought it anyway because it was a reasonable price and it's better than my current 1911, so I knew I had nothing to lose. Didn't think it was, but was worth a look if only for comparison purposes. But this is my pic of the same obverse. You can immediately see the difference. The moral being, when it comes to border teeth and things pointing to them, pics can be extremely deceptive.

What is the proportion of incorrect English usage, to correct. You do the math (sorry couldn't resist) [pedant mode] shouldn't that be ensure? [/pedant mode]

Why did you decide to give up on collecting, out of interest?

Gouby X or optical illusion? link

I think one of the problems is that you see the word written down somewhere - often in the media - and if it's not a word used very often, you just assume it's correct. Inheritees isn't a "derivative" of a word I'd frequently use, and it sounds looks plausible enough. Whereas if someone writes, for example, "could of" instead of "could have", that immediately hits you in the eye as obviously incorrect grammar. Yet many do.

Here you go, Chris - link Like Martin, I'm not convinced either. Same with a lot of proofs, VIP or otherwise. Sometimes it's absolutely blindingly obvious that the coin is a proof. The differences hit you in the eye immediately. But there's a lot that frankly don't really look any different to a currency issue.

Do not defund the police.

Although some consider that most of the 1935 pennies were mint darkened, the evidence shows that the normally lustred type form the great majority. So I was pleased to actually obtain a mint darkened specimen off e bay for the princely sum of just 20p !

Christ Almighty

PedANT !!!