1949threepence

@blakeyboy sent you a PM.

The number of times I've just missed out on getting a decent F148 is getting ridiculous. I've also got an 1856 OT, but only in fine. £975, which for an UNC with 70% lustre isn't at all bad. You won't find anything on line for Dave Craddock. He's a bit old school and doesn't have a website - e mails out his lists about once every 4 or so months. I'm at work at the moment, but when I get home I will send you his e mail address and phone No so you can get added on. Unless somebody does it in the meantime.

Scroll up the thread, Richard. It's further up. Posted by @mick1271

Consistently over £3k. Shame about the verd as otherwise not in bad shape. Be good to see the obverse.

Looks distinctly like a F192A, 1922, reverse of 1927.

The ones I wanted (although I was about to cash in my £2k's worth of premium bonds to get them) were the 1856 OT in A UNC/GEF, and the 1897 F148 high tide UNC with 70% lustre.

The irony being that in that condition...what, GVF, maybe NEF? it would be by far the best known if it were really a die No 3 under date, and worth probably about £6k, I'd say. On a different note you have to be lightning quick off the mark these days to get what you want. Dave Craddock's new list was e mailed out on Wednesday evening, but I never noticed it until Friday evening. There were two coins on it that I was seriously interested in. But when I rang Dave on Saturday morning, they'd both already gone. An object lesson in keeping a very close eye on your e mails.

So that may explain why I've been stung twice for customs duty on successive slabbed coins from the USA. Whereas the raw coins I've received from there (co-incidentally or otherwise) have arrived free of duty. Although how they would know whether the coin was slabbed or not, without opening the envelope, I don't know. The packages have simply said "numismatic item".

If so, the buyer will be in for a severe disappointment. Always best to compare with a verified example of the real thing before you commit yourself to buy anything with a degree of uncertainty attached to it.

Can't see one, unfortunately. Incidentally, the one above says its designed for the i pad, but it works just as well on an android device. Just installed it on my phone.

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.