1949threepence

Ian............no. Neat capture anyway.

Blake, it's something we have commented about in another thread. The differences can be amazing. For another very striking example, see Richard's rarest penny website for the F175 & 176. There are examples of each where Richard has highlighted massive differences when photographing the same specimens.

...and this is the pic, I took when I received it - the colour shown being the actual one visible to the naked eye. Quite what cause that degree of variation I don't know. Didn't make any difference as I was perfectly happy with the colour they had, and the one as it turned out to be. But it does appear that the type of photography can hugely influence a coin's appearance on a photograph.

I don't know whether lighting is the cause of the colour misrepresentation for the F8 I won at the September 2019 LCA. This is the photo they uploaded to their website:-

I make my own judgement on any given coin, and all I would expect is a decent representative photo of it, or 7 days approval, combined with basic honesty. I get very pissed off if I'm deliberately lied to. I'm not bothered what grade the vendor assigns, as long as not absurdly out, or what price is asked. I will decide whether or not I want the coin, and if I do, then I will pay the asking price whatever that may be. The market finds its own level.

Mick, which is the closest in terms of how the coin looks to the naked eye?

Of course the other main driver of society possibly going cashless (and maybe even shopless) is the massive rise in internet shopping. Jerry is spot on about protecting the vulnerable - the only problem being the rise in the number of outlets who opt to no longer accept cash. Often an excuse as they find handling cash time consuming and inconvenient. However, as long as the government compel banks to accept it, there will always be an acceptance of money, especially among small traders for whom it provides a foolproof tax dodge.

Neat.

If we ever go cashless..... ....don't think it'll make that much difference. People will still collect coins as icons of a bygone age. I hope we don't go completely cashless, although I accept there are those who are strongly pressing for us to go down that road, regardless of other's opinions. It irritates me that so many things are now enforced as cashless. Even the canteen at work has now gone cashless, with payment by contactless or via one of those infernal and vastly overrated "apps". Being able to pay by notes and coins is quite possibly the last bastion of true personal anonymity we have.

The bargain there was obviously the £300 sale. DNW sound as though they were way out with the estimates. Of course, there are bargains to be had at any given auction. A rare coin might go overlooked by all but the one person who wants it on that day. It happens - not often enough - but it happens.

By the way, did Baldwins definitely grade it as aEF in 1943?

No, not at all. But the grading given by some e bay sellers is not merely the difference between "about EF" and "EF or better". It's more the farcical assessment of a coin as EF, say, when it's only fine.

Agreed. When buying any coin, I take very little notice of the grade assigned by the seller. I don't even take much notice of my own assessment, as even personal opinions on grading can vary depending on when you look at it.

I agree with you about doing your own research, and my own motto, at the bottom of all my posts, reflects "caveat emptor". But it's still essentially dishonest, or at any rate being "economical with the truth". If Wessex Coins do get the asking price then it's one hell of a mark up from what they bought it for, including juice. It's not illegal, and I wouldn't have much sympathy with a buyer who fell for it and started whining. If it was me, I'd be annoyed more with myself than them, learn from it and move on. Any buyer should have performed, as you say, due diligence. But that still doesn't in any sense negate the sharp practice involved, and it doesn't enhance their reputation as honest brokers. Yes, it's still opinion based. They don't have to go along with previous gradings.

What I find most dishonest about Wessex Coins is not the difference between "about EF" and "EF or better", as that's fairly subjective. It's the fact they've deliberately omitted to mention the result of the 2019 Spink auction, whilst including the 2015 one, and adding "previously purchased from Baldwin in 1943". Of course, they'll be found out eventually by whoever buys the coin (assuming someone does) and they're doing their own reputation more harm than any short term profit can do them good. I certainly wouldn't trust them.

Any resemblance between Ray Alan and Donald Trump and Lord Charles and Nigel Farage being purely coincidental - apart from puppet strings being pulled of course.

Dyslexic as well as an idiot.

I wonder if they considered going to once a quarter, instead of monthly. Of course, if they had found some means to survive and continue, they'd have experienced a definite renaissance as the internet age got underway.

Very nice.

The new MP?

Very possibly. A receipt for payment is surely evidence of sale, and as I said above, in a shop the item and receipt are simultaneous - thus, if a mistake has been made it's then too late for the seller to retract. Over the internet, that is not the case, and it would appear that the receipt has no legal consequence, as the seller has more time to realise his error, and renege on the sale. In a shop, of course, the possibility of carrying through the error to point of sale is more likely, because the original pricer is unlikely to be the individual on the till.

Went for £3,500 hammer in May 2015 - link Went for £2,200 hammer in September 2019 - link So it went for less the second time, and it certainly looks aEF, not EF or better.. Both sales by Spink Who is the second seller? They've conveniently omitted to mention the drop in price from 2015 to 2019.

OK thanks chaps. Some good legal thinking there. It's an interesting one. Of course, in a shop you'd be handed the receipt on completion of the transaction, together with the item. On the Internet it's different, as the receipt is sent to you in advance of the item. In the case of a shop they couldn't reasonably come after you demanding return or extra money, as the sale would be closed and the item already in your possession.

Oh sure, I appreciate that. Plus there are many get outs. The dealer could just say he'd lost the coin, or had already sold it. Nothing anybody can do about that. The only scenario I was thinking of was literally the one where he admits to still holding the coin (a unique item) but refuses to send it on. Bit of a legal grey area? As Chris said above, if he had already sent it on, then I think that really would be it, and he couldn't possibly try and get the buyer to return it at that point.

In the kind of case I'm thinking of, the sale has essentially been concluded online, the buyer's money deducted from his bank account, and an "auto" receipt sent, courtesy of the seller's own software. So when it comes to this:- No problem with the first bit of the above - it will definitely be a genuine and honest mistake on their part, but with regard to the emboldened text, you could almost certainly argue that the buyer will have noticed, because from their perspective they've spotted a bargain. However, the contract of sale is surely complete by default, as the seller has left it to his own software to oversee the transaction? The fact he offered the coin at the wrong price, and wasn't supervising the sale itself, is down to his own carelessness, and the buyer has bought in good faith. In my opinion, any rate.