jelida

I think that’s a very good analogy. It does seem so far that the survival of high grade coins in both instances is disproportionate; I wonder if as possibly experimental issues whether many were held back from release at the time? Jerry

Fair enough. It is perfectly reasonable not to get involved. Sadly I do not know the man, but I would certainly be prepared to try and arbitrate in a dispute between friends, as I have in the past elsewhere, including professionally. After all, we’re all friends here. Jerry

He has no right to do that. You made the claim, he had been reimbursed. The disposition of the compensation has nothing to do with him. Does he really expect the coin for nothing? His honour is slipping. Pete knows him well, perhaps he has some influence. Basically he is accusing you of intent to criminally defraud the Royal Mail. Jerry

I am sure he will pay, he already has the coin on his website stating the price he paid you....he would have to alter that to ‘got it for free due to a mix-up with the post’ or something similar. I am sure he is an honourable man. Jerry

I can’t believe it, Marleybob is trying it again, now with some extra corrosion and a modified storyline. See much previous discussion on this thread. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Unauthenticated-1933-george-v-bronze-type-penny-gap-filler-dirty-bent-read-all/124513709632?hash=item1cfd986e40:g:I4cAAOSwYBRf8Z6b Jerry

And there is further and more ‘in depth’ discussion of the rules regarding loss and compensation elsewhere on their site. The problem is that the coin is now known not to be lost, and as far as I can see the compensation is only an entitlement where the object is lost, as at one stage it was. The provision may no longer stand. However there is no mention of subsequently recovered objects in the published rules, though in general terms insurance compensation paid is taken to be in lieu of the object ownership in the event of recovery. If the purchaser is intent on getting the coin for free, then Richard is wise to be seeking legal advice, if indeed this is the case, and I look forward to hearing the outcome. I would not feel comfortable selling/posting coins to any individual who declined to pay under these circumstances, on moral grounds irrespective of the law, and I hope it is not the case here. Jerry

I suspect the metal detector will answer your questions. Not convinced by the magpie theory- they collect shiny objects to decorate the nest to attract a mate, and its the wrong time of year for that. Unless you’re my wife, who seems to do it all year round, and especially at Christmas .......perhaps I should take the hint? Jerry

I think the RM has a legal obligation to deliver the mail (unless to do so would in itself break the law) irrespective of ownership of the contents. The matter of compensation previously paid is dealt with independently. I suspect they would rather have the money back, than assume ownership of the temporarily lost item, which could of itself be subject to legal ownership dispute. Jerry

Pete, you are wrong in the way you are looking at this. The reason the purchaser has the coin for nothing is that Richard gave him his money back quite correctly under consumer protection and sale of goods laws, but the item subsequently arrived. That is the essence of the situation, as I explained before the compensation has nothing to do with the purchaser whether paid by RM or an insurance underwriter acting for RM. I suspect that Richard is under a legal obligation to return the compensation, if the small print is examined, whether or not the RM or underwriters pursue it. You really cannot expect Richard to carry legal and financial liability of a four figure sum just so the purchaser gets a free coin. He has not paid for the coin, as Richard gave him his money back, and until he does pay he has no right to the coin. The law really is pretty straightforward in this case, and I am sure if he is honourable he will make the payment or return the coin. If he refuses - which I doubt is likely- then he would be doing something wrong and word should get about, for the protection of us all! Jerry

Hi Pete, I did say that the other potential claimant over the coin was the Royal Mail, but they would almost certainly want the compensation back, rather than the coin. At the moment the buyer has had the coin for nothing - that is certainly not right- nor can the two parties split the compensation as a potential windfall, as if it is eventually re-claimed, that liability falls upon Richard. So any other course than the one I outlined is fraught with risk for Richard. I hope that the purchaser plays fair and pays for his purchase, and is happy with it, I think that outcome is most likely; penny collecting is a small world, and word gets about. Reputation is important. Jerry

Hi Pete, It is covered by the laws relating to the sale of goods, and the transfer of title. Although other terms can be agreed between purchaser and vendor (for example the commitment at auction is made at the fall of the hammer ) it is usual that goods are paid for in full, and received by the purchaser for title to transfer. This is why the seller is responsible for ensuring delivery, and re-imbursement or replacement in the event of non delivery. Return of the payment if accepted effectively cancels the transaction, just as if you return goods to a shop and get your money back. Even if one party chooses not to abide by this, just as no seller is allowed to accept money and not provide the goods, a purchaser has no right to expect something for nothing and either party has recourse to the courts. Obviously what I write is my interpretation of the law, but I think the gist is correct. In terms of the Royal Mail compensation, the contract is between the RM and the individual who actually purchases the postage and insurance- the seller. It is after all the seller who needs the compensation, he is already committed in law to reimbursing the purchaser under the sale of goods act. Jerry

I doubt he would have any choice in law. The only other potential owner to you is Royal Mail, but they are much more likely to want their money back. When my 1858 large rose small date disappeared in the post, I made a point of not accepting a refund on that basis- I wanted to retain title in case it does eventually appear, though that is not to say that the actual acquisition in that circumstance would be straightforward. Much more so in your case, providing you still have his name and address. I would gently suggest he pays for it now, if he wants it, though not unreasonable to wait for the right moment. The matter of the RM compensation is nothing to do with him. Jerry

I really wouldn’t be too worried even if the RM quite correctly demand the compensation back. The purchaser accepted the re-fund, so title has reverted to you even if he is now in possession. If he wishes to keep it, he has to pay you again. Otherwise he can send the coin back to you. A small claims court would find in your favour, though I’m sure it won’t go that far. I would simply ask him politely which option he would prefer. The purchaser can hardly deny receipt, the RM could not request return of compensation without evidence of delivery, or at least collection by his representative. Jerry

Donald Trump in residence?

I think they are different coins too. There appear to be at least two die pairings for this coin , both my coins are the same dies as your coin, Bernie. And then there is this pairing, a coin sold on EBay a couple of days ago, a pretty terminal set of die cracks on the reverse and some doubling of letters on the obverse. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1860-penny-LCW-below-Britannia-039-s-foot-Ex-Rare-Freeman-14-dies-3-E-Gouby-E-e-/174577295437?hash=item28a59e204d%3Ag%3A3vcAAOSwEwdf7J7T&nma=true&si=4WOcaJoe%2B3BOCGYYmHhm0CXIVrI%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 Any more F14 reverse dies known? Jerry

I don’t actually agree with this, Blake, though of course there are caveats. Personally I find wood, copper too soft to budge most true verdigris (as opposed to that green waxy ‘protoverd’), and I tried sharpened copper wire and found it tended to simply burnish the surface I was working on with a thin layer of copper. I find I always come back to the same steel needle mounted in a plastic handle that I have used for thirty years, with its perfectly smooth point, and occasionally hypodermic needles with their chisel like tips . I actually find it quite difficult to mark copper or bronze with the former unless through lack of care, but a hypodermic can certainly do damage. But then again I am using a binocular microscope usually at x40 where a letter fills the field of view, and I can see exactly what I am doing. And I am happy to take many hours, and give Verdicare time to work, often overnight. Believe me, if I were to visibly damage a rare coin during conservation (for when we negate verdigris on copper alloy we are preventing future problems) then I would not do it ! But always act within your competence, and get a powerful magnifier. Jerry

I must admit if it were mine I’d try to remove the verdigris. How I would try to achieve that would depend on the appearance under the microscope. Treatment would be somewhere between Verdicare and picking with a fine needle, and brick acid! I have found mildly diluted phosphoric acid on a cotton bud works well, the verd fizzes away yet the metal does not seem affected. The coin does then need re-toning however, a quick start can be made with dry flowers of sulphur in an ice-cream container, covered with tissue and the coin placed on the tissue and lidded and placed in a warm place (windowsill, radiator). Check every few hours. But as always, experiment on low value coins first. Jerry

I think they are quite rare, at least it took me a long time to find mine. The Copthorne example (catalogue still online at Colin Cooke) in worn condition attracted a considerable premium if I remember correctly. Jerry

Aha, that one is safe with me.....😃 Jerry

There is a recent Archers storyline where a Saxon hoard was found in Ambridge, and of course Eddie Grundy is trying by nefarious means to detect the site himself. I think it’s meant to be a sort of comic relief, while exposing the darker side of metal detecting. Not really particularly helpful to the hobby. Jerry

As a general rule this is true, though there have been instances of ‘specials’ such as a double weight stater some years ago that was taken on the basis that it was a presentation coin or had some special use and was not currency, similarly a piedfort hammered gold coin. A dubious distinction at best. But one aspect of the latest review is to consider whether to bring within the act individual coins (and artefacts) of particular importance, as determined by the powers that be and creating a significant gray area and ambiguity for finders and coroners alike. My own suspicion is that this would simply encourage non-reporting and black market sale, quite contrary to the whole ethos of the voluntary reporting scheme. I do have some sympathy with those who are concerned about the potential loss of some remarkable objects to study, which is why I would encourage reporting even with some element of compulsion and time allowed for recording and study, but not necessarily state acquisition against the wishes of the finder/landowner. There are already laws regarding export of antiquities allowing for state purchase to prevent loss to the nation, and perhaps a register of the whereabouts of known exceptional objects within the country could be obligatory. That might be acceptable to both sides of the argument. But the review is increasingly driven by politicians and curators down an acquisitive route, and I think in the long term this will not be good for the heritage industry or the hobby of metal detecting. Jerry

That’s what puzzled me, as I bid upper estimate for one and was ‘outbid‘. The reserve must have been above upper estimate! But I like Lockdales....the 1862 B/R penny in VF at £8 came from one of their trays at the Midland, and I also bought my 1863 die no 3 and 1882 no H there at reasonable prices, and an excellent unrecognised F763 for £180. Jerry

Yes, that is also possible. He probably made a simple error - which he wouldn’t have done if he took his own photos, rather than using Lockdales- but then his short fuse and erroneous assumption he was right let him down. Not a great advert for his dealings with potential customers. Jerry

I think what he has done is to use the Lockdales lot 230 pic to sell lot 229 on EBay. I have suggested this to him. I think he dug himself an ever deeper hole by his cursory response, and follow-ups. But I might bid on the coin I missed at Lockdales, just to piss him off further.... Jerry