secret santa

I sold this coin to John Spring a few years ago and, when it appeared on Ebay recently I emailed the seller to tell him it was a forgery, a doctored 1853 penny. I believe he must have sold it to Torcoins who are now trying to sell it as genuine. Ebay should be told.

Rob You were too quick off the mark - I amended it immediately to remove your name.

More interestingly, the 1862 with A to left of lighthouse has no rocks. Not true.

I put this little cartoon up as I and my peer group found it amusing. Looks like it's time to leave this forum.

Re the discussion about 1909 F169 examples 20 and 21 being the same coin, the supplier of the picture of number 20 says that they are not..... But that vertical line does look similar.........

I've just received the catalogue and it deserves to be prized as a very well illustrated set of coins.

I've had a reply but the owner of example 20 sold it to Dave Craddock who may or may not have put it in to LCA. So, the jury's still out.

John Jerrams did introduce a new set of identifying numbers (Satin number) in his Bun Penny book but they are very rarely referenced.

You're right - Chris Perkins did once say that he was considering a total re-write which could involve updating/amending Freeman identifiers (F numbers) but without a "governing body" to adjudicate on such things, I think that the F numbers should be left unchanged.

She's mentioned on their website http://www.coincabinets.com/news.html

I can't make up my mind, but I've emailed the guy who sent me the pics of example 20 to ask if he put it into LCA's sale.

Yes, Noonans are claiming their lot 527 is the same one you refer to (Gregory lot 258) in terms of the provenance.

It's a pity that the catalogue doesn't contain a narrative description of Philip Richardson and his collection.

Have you posted details of these in the past ?

Sadly, I don't own it - I got the pictures from the Spink sale.

Just to tease you:

This same person also advertised a (non) 1862 8 over 6 and another spurious dot coin recently - avoid him like the plague.

Yes, that's why they don't want to list Medusa. I've now pointed out to them that it's not really a pattern - there are only circulated specimens in existence, whereas genuine patterns tend to survive in near FDC condition.

Over a year ago I wrote to Spink suggesting some additional varieties to include in the Penny sections of their "Coins of England" annual catalogues. I listed the following types with pictures of the interesting features: 1847 Medusa, 1858 large rose, 1860 ONF, 1862 3 plumes, 1862 VIGTORIA, 1862 B over R, 1863 open 3 and 1909 F169. I felt that they were all worthy of mention with associated values as they exist in collectable numbers, and offered advice from my records on recent prices paid for these types. I thought that Medusa would be a certainty. Today I received a reply saying that they would include only the 1858 large rose and the 1862 VIGTORIA, despite already including 1863 over 1 (a much less obvious type) and 1903 open 3. Rather disappointing.

Ditto.

That was a different one, as far as I know.

Can anyone supply the link to the F38 so that I can upload it ? Thanks R

A question for us all. Has the value of coins peaked ? Do you need the money ? Is the number of predecimal collectors likely to increase or decrease ? Oh for a crystal ball !