1949threepence

Even more interesting is that my latest order from the United States will be diverted to Royal Mail once it arrives. I've been following the item on USPS tracker, which yesterday showed the item at Los Angeles airport (presumably ready for a flight to the UK - although given LA is the West Coast of America, would be a long haul flight) - link I'm not sure whether the time given on the USPS website (6:32am) is local time, or whether corrected to GMT. I'd think it more probable than not, that it's local time. But anyway, that was 19th November, today's the 20th, so I decided to put the number in the parcelforce track and trace, and got the message that the item was being dealt with by Royal Mail (see screenshot). I look on the RM track and trace, and see this So essentially, still not fully clear as to why one is dealt with by Parcelforce and the other by Royal Mail - UNLESS it has to do with the type of USPS service opted for. This was the cheaper one, although the approximate arrival dates were virtually the same. The last parcelforce one, was the more expensive (didn't get an option), and last year's RM one was also the cheaper tracked USPS version. Anyway, whichever, my advice is to check progress every single day, as you just can't rely on people to do their jobs properly.

Although the price is a bit of a giveaway. If it were truly an 1863 die no 3 under date in that higher grade condition, it would already be a lot higher as more experienced collectors realised what it was. In auction it would almost certainly go for probably > £6k, as it would easily be the best of the very small cohort.

Here's an original:-

Hmmm, that's an interesting one, since the 1853 plain and italic dates do attract dealer attention, but apart from Gouby's website there is no reference detailing variants of that date. As far as I know anyway. So the conclusion has to be that the difference in 1853 date style is sufficiently eye catching to a critical mass of dealers and collectors, such that it's become widely recognised. ***NERD AND PROUD OF IT***

The moment they open the packet, and then frantically look through a magnifier to know for sure they've been shafted. Even then some would be in denial.

I've noticed many dealers note some date styles in their sales. The obvious ones being 1857, 1858 & 1859 small and large date. Also the 1853 plain and italic 5. But little else, and not date widths. Surprising that the 1856 PT date size variances aren't taken into consideration. Maybe because they're scarce so don't need a further selling point. I believe I'm correct in saying that the 1856 OT only has the small date.

If that's a three, I'm Mother Teresa.

I'm surprised they were still minting 1p's as late as 2017.

Sorry to say pretty much all the auctions at the moment, are very disappointing - unless you're a gold collector.

Indeed, but why should one coin sent USPS be dealt with by RM, and the next, also sent by USPS, be dealt with by Parcelforce? There's no doubt a perfectly logical explanation, such as a change in procedure agreed between the two 'departments', but it would be interesting to know the exact thinking. Not that it would probably be much more than a bland generic reply completely ignoring the question I asked........but I live in hope. They are nominally separate, but given that the two are mentioned on the same website, they obviously work in close tandem.

Had a few thoughts about this issue, and the one thing I do find slightly interesting is that when I incurred customs charges last year, the item came via USPS and then Royal Mail (as opposed to Parcelforce). At that point I received an e mail from Royal Mail (which see) informing me that an item was on its way and that Customs Charges were likely. Subsequently I received a letter from the local delivery office informing me that I had a package and the amount of customs duty to pay - which at the time I did at the collection point by card payment. The package had both my mobile No and e mail address on the outside - hence the earlier e mail from RM. Why wasn't the second notification via e mail? Why the difference? The recent delivery from USPS, like yours, came via parcelforce, and I received no such e mail, despite the fact that, as last year, my e mail address was on the outside of the package. Although I did receive a letter, this time from a different delivery office to my local one. I might write to Parcelforce asking them to explain why there are different approaches to different packages. After all, if an e mail was a requirement of notification (or one of them, where possible), then one was not received, you've got 'em, as there would be clear proof they hadn't sent one.

It is possible. Truth is we just don't know for sure. But it does seem somewhat improbable that they had an 1852 die, but never utilised it for 263k pennies minted in that calendar year.

I think it highly doubtful that any pennies dated 1852 were ever struck. They surely wouldn't strike 263k and then melt them all down again? The evidence points to the pennies struck in 1852, all being dated 1851. Given that the official figures show the same mintage in 1849 as in 1851, and the fact that the 1851 is actually nowhere near as scarce as 1849, it tends to suggest that the combined figure of 532,224 is nearer the mark for 1851 dated pennies, and that many of the "268,800" pennies struck in 1849, were actually dated 1848 - kind of ties in with the relative scarcities of all three years. With all that said, of course, many of the mintage figures for that period seem meaningless given the comparative scarcity now.

The 236k comes from Montagu (1885) who states:- Well yes, but the overwhelming consensus is that they bore the date 1851, from 1851 dies. For me that kind of throws into doubt the 1852 die having ever been produced, else why wouldn't it have been used for these additional 263k pennies? Although there may be some other convincing logic which lends stronger support, other than the apparent 1858/2 penny, to the suggestion that an 1852 die was produced. Incidentally 263,424 appears to be the correct mintage as it equates exactly with the quoted value of £1097-12-0. As far as the mintage for 1851 is concerned, not sure where Wikipedia's figure of 432,224 is from, but the mintage I have is 268,800 (co-incidentally exactly the same as the figure for 1849). If you add together the official 1851 mintage and the presumed additional 1851 mintage produced in 1852, you get 532,224 - 100k more than the Wikipedia total you quote. Maybe a calculation error on the author's part. Neither Montagu nor Bramah speculate on the existence of an 1852 die.

Thanks Richard.

Yep, I know when I called RM about the coin that was delivered to another address, and then another tracked which was shoved through the door, the response I received was factual, but there was no attempt at an apology. In fact the agents I spoke to were quite offhand, I thought. Piss poor customer service. It is coming USPS, and it has got a tracking No. I will be keeping a very close day by day eye on it, and checking the parcelforce website as soon as it is shown as arriving in London. Hopefully it will make it that far.

It comes up when you click on "contact seller". You get the following range of queries:- Details about the item (2) Postage (6) Combined postage (0) Make an offer (1) Pay for the item (2) Returns (1) Other (1) If you then click on "make an offer", you get asked if you want to look for an "answer" - which then comes up with:- Make an offer: We found 1 answer(s) How do I make an offer? The seller hasn't enabled offers for this item. See if they'll consider — send a message with your best price. Although you could of course ignore the looking for an answer bit, and just go straight into sending a message to the seller.

Having read Michael Gouby's interesting article in the May 2010 edition of the Numismatic Circular, regarding the 1858/3, actually being an 1858/2, I'm intrigued to find that it's not necessarily an "either/or" here, as I'd previously thought, but possibly both, given that at least one dealer has both an 1858/2 and an 1858/3 on offer. The two (apparent) types can be seen, one underneath the other, in this link from KB Coins. Magnification of each is available. I'm not going to try and describe them, but suffice it to say I'm not sure either fit the classic description. Gouby's compelling argument is that an 1852 die was struck but never used for circulation (dated)1852 pennies. There is no dispute as to the fact that 236,424 pennies were struck in 1852, but none bearing that date were ever found. However, 236,424 is very much along the lines of average mintages in the 1840's and early 50's. So why wouldn't they have used the 1852 die for such a comparatively large mintage, if such a die existed? Is the jury still out, or has it already returned a definitive, or even unanimous verdict?

Looks like you were right, Paddy. Thanks for the tip. I made an offer of $300 on this coin The seller made a counter offer of $345, which I accepted. Met me in the middle. It's about in line with what a such a coin would trade at in the UK, and it's certainly a lot better than the current small date 1857 I've got which shows signs of old cleaning. At the original price it was one of their better priced coins. That'll have to be the last coin I buy this year, given what I've spent recently. Just hope it manages to reach here OK.

They'd have to be barking mad to try 😼

Hmm, you might be right there Paddy. Although I've never tried it before, I might make an offer on one of the coins which does look quite nice. Will keep this thread posted on developments. ETA: with that said, I do still think that a not inconsiderable premium is added for slabbing. If it was the bare coin I'm sure they wouldn't dare ask as much as they do.

Well yes, except there's no provision for a best offer on any of those coins. It's take it or leave it.

See this link I wouldn't dispute that they are all very nice coins. Top drawer in fact. But they are an object lesson in up to 100% + premium applied to choice items, merely by virtue of the fact they are slabbed. Not worth it.