1949threepence

Indeed - the coin shown in this link is a very clear example of a Bramah 10b Whereas the one in this other link is an equally good example of a Bramah 10c As you say, there are no doubt more than 5 types of 1858/7.

*won't let me edit my post* Should just add that Michael Gouby has identified five of them, but has anyone here collected them as a stand alone variety?

Out of interest, have any pre 1860 penny collectors bothered trying to separate out the different 1858/7 varieties? Bramah notes: "at least five dies have been altered in this way, the varieties being perceptible by the slightly differing positions of the 8 in relation to the 7 below it". Peck makes reference to 1858/7 as a single variety. As Bramah didn't use any photos or illustrations, it would clearly have been extremely difficult for him to adequately describe each 8/7 variety in words only, as the differences would probably have been too subtle to lend themselves to word description only. It was different for the two identified 1848/7 varieties, 10b & 10c, which are very obviously different from each other. He described them perfectly, and of course, they are both available in relative abundance.

What Jerry is referring to is the number of feedbacks showing for given bidders, as per the screenshot below, which is from the auction in question. You can see that the winning bidder had no feedback, possibly implying that it's an e bay account set up specifically for shill bidding. Obviously there's no hard evidence to definitively prove it, but that is the suspicion. Conversely, the previous bidder had a feedback score of 250 implying that they were an established respectable e bayer. The percentage of positive feedback is the total number of positive feedbacks given by buyers/total number of feedbacks, given to that seller. So if somebody had 1000 feedbacks, 999 of which were positive, and one negative, their positive feedback would indeed be 99.9%.

For anybody interested, the June results have now been posted.

Congratulations to this bidder - £750.01, cheap at half the price lol Bidder Bid amount Bid time 7***3(feedback score: 0) £750.01 5 Jun 2020 at 4:21:06PM BST

Quite obvious shill bidding. The coin itself lost all semblance of a credible price when it soared past £230. Interestingly the latest bidder has no feedback. Of course, shill bidding is risky as the "shillers" can easily find themselves the only ones left in the race. Pretty obviously that will happen in this case.

The supermarket time slot difficulties are now beginning to ease. Many more available.

No. To quote from, and courtesy of Paddy's post from Friday at 11:17am, there are three types of EasyLive auctions:- LCA have chosen option 3, which merely shows the items. It's actually no different to just looking at the same coins on their website. Don't even know what they've fetched.

I agree with demonstrating peacefully. In fact I'd join them. But vandalism, looting and desecration of monuments will instantly distract from the gigantic cause the demonstrators have, and cause them to lose sympathy from the masses. It also hands ammunition to Trump. They've even vandalised and looted black owned businesses, and a black security guard was killed by them. The truth is that the trigger happy US police are out of control. Bear in mind it's not just African Americans and Hispanics they shoot dead/otherwise kill or brutalise for spurious reasons, it's also white people. Although, proportionately, it's mostly black. The Guardian ran a year long article 2015/16, citing every single person shot dead by the US police in those 2 years. Obviously some were reasonably justified, but what struck me was the number of people stopped for the most trivial of reasons, like a defective back light, and who then were shot dead in the subsequent exchange with the Officer. I truly think some of them are looking for an excuse to shoot people. That's what needs looking at folks, and it shouldn't be lost in rioting. That's a total distraction from the cause, which actually includes everybody. It's not solely a race issue. George Floyd shouldn't have died for a nil end result.

Thanks Ian, that's really interesting. I hadn't realised there were so many different small date varieties for this year. I never thought about Gouby's website and must take a look. Somewhat surprisingly Peck only mentions different date sizes in relation to 1857, 1858 and 1859. Yet there are obviously a number of others. Richard and John refer to obvious differences with the 1856. Also, for a further example, the pics below show two 1853 pennies with obviously different date sizes. The first darker one is a plain trident, and the other an ornamental trident. Reading Bramah's book, it's clear he didn't really rate date size variations as being of special relevance. At page 108 he states: "The figures of the date yield innumerable minor varieties of size, shape and position". He then only refers to one such variety in his year summaries, that of type 24a (1857 plain trident) "date in much smaller figures. (Numismatic Circular March 1895, col 1108)"

Talking about 1858 pennies, I've been collecting the various types of 1858, over the last month or so - and there are quite a few. One thing has struck me with regard to the "small date", which pertains to 1857, 1858 and 1859. The small date is made distinctive by the 5, which is clearly different to the 5's on the other 1858's (same with the 1857 and 1859). I've now got an 1858 small date, which co-incidentally doubles up as an 8/6 overstrike. Now I'm not sure whether all the 8/6's are otherwise small date, or whether the 1858 small dates are all 8/6. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

Wow.......

Well spotted Paddy. That's a bit disappointing to say the least.

Good question. The mechanics of such events are very often not explained. I went into the easy live site a few minutes ago, and investigated so as to ascertain the precise position. It would appear that there are live auctions of various types every day, and they are listed. I went into one at random, and it is a live auctioneer who you can see and hear going through the bids. One thing I did notice is that even if you've already "registered" on the site and they have your details, you have to click "register" again on the individual auction, in order to bid in that auction. It's a bit confusing as when you see "register to bid", your first thought might be that you've already registered. If they must choose this rather circuitous route, it might be more logical to say "click here to verify personal details in order to bid on this auction", rather than employ confusing terminology. link to an auction taking place live now

If I bid for anything live, I'll make sure I video it for evidence, in case of any funny business afterwards.

Also you can be pretty much sure that the final hammer price is correct.

Certainly comes across that way doesn't it.

That does seem to be it. Obviously many potential bidders will be completely unaware as it's not flagged up on the LCA website. Or if it is, it's incredibly well hidden. Thanks for the heads up Paddy

Theories as to the precise reason why die numbers were placed on a very few pennies of 1863 have been aired on many occasions over the years, both by independent authors and on here. The favourite two being a) to test the die, and b) to identify the individual die operator. But in truth no-one knows for certain, and I hasten to add, are still very much in the dark. Testing the die strength/quality does sound the most plausible option to me, as we know from very well highlighted documentation made at the time, that die strength was a major issue. Although one would have thought that by 1863, many of the problems surrounding dies breaking had been resolved. Nevertheless, die cracks were still frequent at this time, as was die slippage. If it was to ID an individual operator, I'm not sure quite how effective that would be (or the point of it), as staff tend to either leave or move to a different area of the business. I'm sure that was just as much the case in 1863 as it is now. So clearly the initial operator assigned to say, die No 4, might have left a few weeks later, then it would be someone else. Although of course, the new man could easily have been assigned a different number. Nevertheless, we only have 4 numbers to go on, and a vanishingly small number of them. So that suggests - and I don't think there would be any dispute over this - it was a very short lived experiment. Started for no clearly defined reason, and ended again, for no reason apparent to us. As a result of the uncertainty I decided to send an e mail to the Royal Mint enquiring as to whether or not they might know of a possible reason. I knew this was a very, very long shot, as I've absolutely no doubt the same question, or variants of it, have been sent to them on many previous occasions. Also, I knew that to get anywhere, the person dealing with my enquiry would have to extensively interrogate old records from 160 odd years ago, potentially reading a lot of pages, and I wasn't sure how much enthusiasm they'd have for that, or whether in fact they'd just rely on previous stock replies to answer my current enquiry. Obviously one's level of success will vary depending on the skill, intelligence and motivation of that person. Nevertheless, I don't recall ever reading what the Royal Mint's view was of this, hence why I pressed ahead with my enquiry. Here is my enquiry and their reply, which I very much appreciate:- So there we have it - not much. Kudos to them for replying though. I honestly thought it might be forgotten with the pandemic having caused so much disruption. So many thanks to Chris Barker. I did wonder whether to put this in the "More Pennies" thread, but decided to create a new thread, as it might be easier to locate on a google or site search if anyone else makes a similar enquiry. It might well help them. I did wonder whether to just add to the "More Pennies" thread, rather than create a new one. But thought

That's odd. I thought I answered this post an hour or so ago, yet it seems to have vanished. Actually said that I never collected halfcrowns and florins. Yes, you're right about the 1920 and 1921 pennies. Many of them have very streaky lustre.

The only post 1920 I had the slightest difficulty obtaining in UNC, was the 1924. All the rest, no problem. Although every 1920 I saw, including the one I have, seemed to have a greyish tinge to it. So I do wonder if that story about used shell casings from WW1 being used as part of the mix, is apocryphal or whether actually true.

Both superb photos Blake. Your garden looks great, as you say a riot of colour. I do like those well stocked gardens. Then the robin pic is just so rural. For such a small bird they're remarkably confident around humans. It was crappy job time for me today. Noticed the number of windows caked in dried on bird muck, and also the drain needed cleaning out. Put it off all day until 7:30pm, and then went out armed with bowl of hot soapy water, sponge and brillo pads. Not the pleasantest of tasks but had to be done, and didn't take too long. Also a bit cooler then with a refreshing breeze. The drain was a lot easier than it normally is, as the detritus was so dry. Managed to remove it all in a few seconds and just rinse the grating. Mostly leaves.

Hmmm, not sure about that to be honest. When I collected 20th century shillings about 10 or 11 years ago, I didn't notice a great deal of difference in difficulty obtaining high grades of George V both pre and post 1920. The really difficult ones were Edward VII, apart from 1902 and 1910.

Interestingly, gold coins are exempt from VAT - link The rest are covered by HMRC notice 362 which basically says that items of numismatic interest over 100 years old, come under the umbrella definition of "antiques" and as such are entitled to a reduced rate of VAT, presumably 5%, although no actual figure is quoted. Unused postage stamps over 100 years old are VAT free, whereas (conversely and by definition, one would assume) franked postage stamps and coins over 100 years old are not, providing they are not a collectors piece or part of a collection - if nothing else, it might be worth getting this latter point clarified with HMRC, as they could all be described as collector's pieces or part of a collection. So on the face of it Ian, unfortunately I think it is VAT at 20% for your banknote.