mrbadexample

What I was trying to say but explained much better.

If you get chance Mike, it's worth listening to the live auction. The auctioneer would refer to your £2000 bid as "with me" until the bidding exceeded your amount, then it would be "in the room" or "on the internet" etc.

Wouldn't you get it for whatever the auctioneer started at Mike - somewhere near the estimate? You'd only pay £1900 if someone else had bid £1800. Or have I missed your point? If it was LCA you'd get it for £2000.

Sorry, should have made myself more clear - these are the two F282s posted on this thread. I'll have another look at the article when I've a bit more time.

Ok....Gary has kindly provided me with a copy of the applicable articles. Working my way through, I'm not 100% convinced that the first and last images are both F282. Looking at the differences in the rocks by the lighthouse, I think these may be different reverses: Any thoughts?

...which you could obtain from... Please.

Thanks all. I've been using Richard's site (https://headsntails14.wordpress.com) for pennies, and one thing I notice is that he makes good use of letter and colon pointings to gaps / teeth etc. This can be really helpful with worn specimens. Freeman doesn't seem to note these very often. I am frequently impressed by our penny collectors' ability to identify washers. Somehow I suspect halfpennies are a lot more difficult.

Pretty much the same way I approached it Paddy. The 1875 was easier as much less choice, obviously. I eliminated reverse L as you did, and obverse 11 has the kink in the forehead from the hairline, level with the lower colon dot after D: The 1861 is a bit of a nightmare, especially with a worn coin. The one pictured is from ebay which I chose as a mid grade starting point. Again, the fourth leaf and lighthouse were the keys for me too. How about this one? Think obverse 7 again, but struggling with the reverse. F, for F279?

Yes, but not with the die pairing used. Someone made a mistake. That's not the same as choosing to fulfill an order with a die that you hadn't originally planned to use but would do the job.

F321?

I think the key word is "error". If someone chooses to use a die that they didn't originally plan to use, but was necessitated by the failure of a current working die (as Rob suggests with the 1926), I don't see this as a mule - it's intentional. Agreed - this was an error as they wouldn't deliberately produce undated coins... ...but they did. A couple of hundred thousand as I understand it. So I don't think quantity comes into it.

Hi all, As I struggle to get to grips with bronze halfpennies, I'd be grateful if someone could check my guesses please. F282? Thanks, Jon

I can't believe you didn't know that was Richard's site! It is, as you say, a brilliant resource and one that I use frequently and regularly. I am eagerly awaiting the halfpenny version. Richard, if you have time to correct the other "appalling errors" I have noted: George VI reverses: "This reverse was used in 1927 only on F217 and F218" should read "1937". George V reverses: "This obverse was used from 1911 to 1913" should read "reverse" Small things, I know, and no criticism intended Richard.

Ah, yes. I seem to be missing one of those from my collection.

I think Pete's right with F97. Thanks both.

F108?

F98?

To be honest I don't have much sympathy for the buyer when it's that poor.

Can't beat Gary Larson. Best cartoonist ever.

Nice job.

"You'll have to take that up with Fedex sir" would be my guess.

Would it be worth contacting Heritage and letting them know that Fedex charge 20% when it should only be 5%? It's prejudicial against a UK buyer.

I would like to volunteer for the post of "suitable heir" please.

Pete said I should.