RLC35

Here you go Tom... Cross-site scripting (XSS) is a type of computer security vulnerability typically found in Web applications. XSS enables attackers to inject client-side script into Web pages viewed by other users. A cross-site scripting vulnerability may be used by attackers to bypass access controls such as the same origin policy. Cross-site scripting carried out on websites accounted for roughly 84% of all security vulnerabilities documented by Symantec as of 2007.[1] Their effect may range from a petty nuisance to a significant security risk, depending on the sensitivity of the data handled by the vulnerable site and the nature of any security mitigation implemented by the site's owner.

I sent Stacks / Bowers a note advising them of the two (2) errors in the coin descriptions. I'll let you know if I hear back!

Accumulator, Here is another one in the same auction that is wrong...this is NOT a mule! https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=502&lot=13201 PCGS promoted one, a few years ago, that was not a mule (it was chastised on this formum at the time), and a Officer of PCGS came on the Forum and tried to explain away the fact that it was wrongly attributed. This looks like the same coin. "Bronze and Copper Collector" could tell us for sure, as he looked at the coin first hand!

I was beginning to feel the same way Tom. Glad it isn't just me! Ha,Ha!

Good advice Tom...BTW, nice coin!

Asking for slabbing included is a good idea. It's $1500 USD if that makes it any better..... Chris, The Bay Peddler is always "way" overpriced on his coins, though he does have some scarce coins. Your best bet with him, is to ID a variety that he hasn't noted in his description. He isn't up to date on varieties. I once found a GEF 1880, 8 over 8, on his site priced at $80.00!!!!!!!

The site is up, but "View new content" and "Mark items as read" is not working correctly. Just a FYI....

It's not just you. The site has been down for 48 hours here. I spoke to Chris yesterday and he knew about the problems and was working on it. I'm glad it's back (after a fashion). You only realise how much you use it once it's not there! Another addict? Certainly missed here. As you say, it's not quite sorted but I'm sure Chris is on the case. I had never seen this site down...but I couldn't sign in, or re-register! I wondered was everyone having the problem, or just me! Glad to see the site back up.

Peter, It's odd you should mention the lottery. After I found the 1849, I did try my luck on the lottery, but I'm sorry to say, I didn't win anything! Ha,Ha! Accumulator, I have most of the Victorians except the following: F14 1860 Sig under foot F8/F9 1860 Mules F45/46/47, +5 below date, 1863 Of the above, the one I would really like to find is the F14. If anyone has one to sell... I am interested!

Recently purchased 1849 Penny. This is going to be a upgrade to my set!(at least for now, Ha,Ha)

The USA does not have a import tax (or VAT) on coins. Of the two U.S. Houses you mentioned, Heritage is by far the superior Auction House, both in following (clients), and reputation.

Justin, They are always good, when you "find" them! Ha, Ha. Great find!

wha? He killed a Dragon Dave, most Scotsmen just marry one I can see this conversation getting nasty! LOL!

I do hope that's the case - I wouldn't have any degree of confidence in diagnosing one without the tooth as an indicator. That's interesting - when I was a schoolboy collector, I noticed the 'recessed ear' examples (without yet knowing that's what they were called), but only recently learned of the broken tooth feature. They were quite distinctive, but perhaps more so when fairly worn? Maybe they are harder to spot when EF - UNC. Peck, You are correct, it is easier to detect the Hollow Ear, with a coin in Fine or below. In the upper grades it is a little harder to see (I just checked a few!).

Not really a recessed ear at all really - its the area around the ear that's recessed - the normal bust is convex, whereas the resessed ear type has a definite concavity - best seen if you view the coins at an angle Once you know the difference, you can spot them a mile off, even on badly worn examples David, Your lead on a focal, for the flatter effigy (hollow Ear) is a really good way to differentiate the two apart! I would have never noticed it! Thanks....

BEAUTIFUL COIN BOB, One of the nicest I've seen and almost certainly amongst the finest known.... Thanks Gary...coming from you that means a lot. You have most of the scarce Victoria Pennies, known to man! Ha.Ha!

Here is the obverse Dave. Yes the Dealer did what how scarce it was. When I asked him to lower the price, his response was..."do you know how scarce this coin is?" I paid through the nose for it, but not 7500 pounds!

Thanks Derek, and David, I just looked at the CGS "Finest Known" 1877 ND, and mine and it are very close! Once in a while, you get lucky! Ha,Ha!

You're quite right, Gary: 1915 top, 1916 below.... http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o310/declanwmagee/Coin%20Forum/1915-1916RE.jpg[ So how did one die make so many coins? You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices. This is what we're trying to determine. For me personally, I'm saying they're likely not the same dies at all, but rather an error (or deliberate marking) further back in the production proccess, at matrix level, though I don't fully understand the matrix story myself. If the two coins are different dies, then that would rule out a blocked die, except by an amazing coincidence, suggesting damaged matrix (or original cast, whatever that's called - anyone got any decent educational links for the matrix proccess?), whether deliberate or not? I'm a bit hazy on the physics, but I seem to remember that the original design is a massive piece of sculpture that gets reduced in a complex piece of engineering that scales down the original EXACTLY. From there, I assume that a master matrix is produced and is used to create the punches automatically. So I would hazard a guess that the tooth - if it was broken deliberately - was possibly done on the matrix which would explain the slightly haphazrd success with the operation. Is the matrix not the opposite of a coin (like a die)? If so, you'd have to add something to it, rather than remove something to effect the missing point of a tooth. Exactly Nick. To mis-form a denticle like it has on the 1915 and 1916, part of the denticle woud have to be "clogged" or filled with something, so the metal does not flow correctly into that part of the die. You see quite a few of the 1916 broken tooth pennies, so the Mint personnel didn't notice it for a long time, or they didn't care that the clog was present.

Steve and John, Thanks for the kudo's. Yes, it is a F90, and I think I will eventually offer it for sale...I not sure when. It is nice to be able to say I own one! Ha,Ha!

I just returned from the Chicago International Coin Fair, with a really neat purchase...a Narrow Date 1877 Penny. I bought it from a Florida Dealer, who had owned it for years!

I have one, and found the same issue. Not very good for coins, it always has a reflection, or a halo effect!

Coinery, Add me to the list for Bronze!

I should have looked on Mal Lewandon's Half Penny Disk of varieties first...he already has this coin listed, as a F289 (MJL 2005), a 1862 Half Penny, with a missing top horizontal on the "E". BTW...this coin is a 1862, not a 1861, as I have it listed on the header! I really need to start using some of the documentation that I have! Ha,Ha!

It can't be an upside down F. The horizontal parts would be on the other side of the vertical if it were. Right Nick. It is a mirror image of a F...not a F itself. I don't know how it could come about though, because it appears that there never was a horizontal line at the top, which it would take to would make it an E.