Martinminerva

The page now says "the listing is no longer available." That often means the seller has sold it off-platform! Wonder if some idiot made him an offer he couldn't refuse?! Keep eyes peeled, though, in case it is relisted with a different or more accurate description!

I see it's already at £155 !! Some people are really gullible... Hope no-one on here is bidding. Surely if you're willing to pay a three figure sum (or maybe more ultimately) for a "rarity", you'd think you'd know enough about coins to know that this IS NOT a die number penny. I think it has actually been doctored to masquerade as such - and not very well at that! Any guesses what it will finally make?! And then for whoever buys it, any guesses as to when they'll realise they've been burnt! Presumably if and when they try to resell... Fools!

Just seen this on eBay... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Victoria-Penny-1863-Die-Number-3-Nice-Grade-Extremely-RARE/233786563271?hash=item366ec3dac7:g:JucAAOSwT~lftTJx Really don't think so!! Beware! Do others concur??

Ah, but they can do Lab-tests...😋

Ok, not an O over sideways O, nor a G over sideways G, but I have just listed on eBay an 1874H farthing with C over C as per wybrit's post above, if anyone's interested, with this link... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284069502338 I have another one myself, so this one listed is a duplicate, but I don't know how many more have been noted? Not as spectacular as the sideways double entries, but it's there if anyone wants it as a variety!

Yes, isn't it, Mike? But just shows that there are rarities still out there, even if recently dug up. I'm not going to try to clean it at all - too much risk of damaging the evidence! Anyway, don't care about the reverse! The verdigris looks dead and inactive, but I will be sure to keep an eye on it.

And more pics...

Well, here's a pretty good acquisition I think! It is an example of the 1860 penny F15 dies 4+D, but with the I of BRITT struck over a T (or vice versa). Ok, it is a detector find and has its issues, but the base coin is solid enough and not too worn, and the error is clear. Only one other was known, I believe, and is on Richard's rare penny website. Interestingly, I can confirm that actually it is the modified version of obverse 4 with central cut fishtail, which also would appear to be true of the one already on Richard's website, but not sure if this was observed at the time? Pictures below (and in next post too...) and feel free, Richard, to add them to your penny site. Not that I would ever contemplate selling it, but what sort of value might it have given on the plus side its rarity, but on the down-side its overall state??

Great, Mike - glad you like it and it's gone to a good home. Initially, I was a bit worried that the tracking number said it hadn't been delivered yet, given various previous posts about dodgy post, but all is good!

I have just listed a slightly battered 1854 over 3 penny here on eBay, Mike, if you or any other forum members are interested. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1854-over-3-Genuine-overdate-Victoria-copper-penny-Very-rare-and-seldom-seen/284038614822?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160727114228%26meid%3Dfe85d40bab1b47699207c764eec150ee%26pid%3D100290%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D203128428461%26itm%3D284038614822%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2060778&_trksid=p2060778.c100290.m3507 it is very edgy and has been historically cleaned, but it IS a genuine specimen.

Thanks for such a swift and detailed response again, Ian. Really interesting and helpful. Wonder if Richard might be interested in pics of some of the 13 for when he updates his rare penny website that he said he would do?? Also, great spot for your 2009 small date specimen from ebay! A jolly nice coin!

Hear, hear! An amazing piece of dedication and meticulous study. Wow! This might be an even sneakier follow up question: of those 6 small dates and 7 large, do you reckon they were 13 different specimens, or were some of them coming round again?😮 One would have to look for unique wear points or damage or discolouration etc to be sure, I guess... Since I have been aware of the two types and been looking ( perhaps 5 or 6 years ) for them, I have certainly seen fewer small date than large, both on eBay and in mainstream auctions like London Coins. But your figures, Ian, would suggest similar rarity. I wonder now with this thread and revived interest, if a few more specimens of each type might surface?? Bravo to you, Ian!

Ah, but I bet yours isn't a seven year old iPad 2 ...😀 It doesn't do macro. Not my usual thing I take pictures with, but it was all I had to hand today. Anyway, it still confirmed for Cliff the presence of the die clash he was asking about.

Hi, Cliff. Just looked at my low grade one and yes, the die clash is there. Looks like that is another good diagnostic as well as the die crack through the 5. Apologies for poor quality pics here from crappy iPad, but you should be able just to make out both clash and die crack. They are both much clearer in hand.

Found it : Auction 137, 3/6/12, Lot 478. Sold for £600. The diagnostic feature of the genuinely small date is a die crack running up through the 5 of the date. Think this is the only one sold by London Coins - as I say, their other ones are mistakenly called this small date when they are not. I have a low grade one also with the die crack and think I have seen a picture somewhere on this forum (where??) of another. Any more known by anyone?

Well, blow me, Mike - it was me you have bought it from! Didn't recognise the full name when I came to packet it up for posting. Anyway, really pleased it is going to a good home. I managed to get hold of a better one a few weeks ago so was moving this one on. You now need to look out for a large rose but with a small date! These are MUCH rarer it seems... I have one in rather low grade and have seen maybe only two more. For a long while, London Coins were selling these larger date ones as small date, but they are certainly not! I think they have sold one genuinely small date one for quite a sum. I'll see if I can locate their image of it now... Enjoy the coin! Posted yesterday (Monday) so hopefully you'll get it today or tomorrow.

I see this 1881H F103 sold recently on eBay for an astonishing sum, albeit a very rare coin, and no doubt a real surprise and pleasure for the seller who can't have known. Anyone here buy it?? If we go by Richard's rare penny website, it would appear to be the eighth known? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1881-H-Great-Britain-One-1-Penny-1881H-Mark-H-for-Heaton-Mint-1d-/114312844580?hash=item1a9d939524%3Ag%3Ah7MAAOSwOKpfFLWg&nma=true&si=HsvO6lNGBPRb%2BAmvjfay%2BxU5S9A%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 Just shows that the rarities are still out there!

Yes. Freeman 21, die pairing 3+D. On Richard's rare penny website as example 17. Looks like the verd has been removed a bit...

One more image just to show reverse die is the same, rather than duplicated die number as occasionally happens elsewhere in the series. All die and date digits identically positioned and spaced.

Well, blow me. After years of searching I have finally got hold of another 1867 die 23 shilling which IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE 5+A mule ! Pictures below, alongside the normal 4+A pairing (mule on the right). Yes, a bit battered and worn, but presumably only the second known example? The original specimen sold at London Coins auction 122 in Sept 2008 Lot no 1791 for £320 in NEF. Are there any more out there?

Very interesting to learn therefore that at least 2 dies must have been used for these "bisects"! It prompted me to check mine... Like you, Jerry, I have found that I have 3 of the original BP1898B variety (one near ef, the other two only fair) but pleasingly my other one (sadly only fair again) turns out to be a BP1898Ba type. I know this is a very small sample size, but 3 to 1 might just about be representative?? Any other members got one/more than one to push the sample group bigger? Indeed, any guesses as to how many of either type are now known?

I'd like to echo what has been said both by yourselves and other members here today and hope that now we can all move forward, united in our love of things numismatic. It is good that you acknowledge shortcomings in your photography; it would also be nice to see some sort of progress in customer relationships. My own bad two experiences with you a few years ago were not so much that you made errors in your identifications (although in one order I did specifically ask you to check the die variety of a shilling and gave you specific identifiers to help you do so, which the resulting wrong coin being sent suggests you didn't bother to do so), it was the total lack of apology when I returned them , and specifically your failing twice to reimburse my postage costs for your mistakes that really upset me. For the sake of a few pounds, you have lost my custom, and have done so to others too, including 1949's . A simple sorry would go a long way... As the old axiom goes...courtesy of Google Studies show that a satisfied customer will tell 2-3 people about his experience with your company. A dissatisfied consumer will share their lament with 8-10 people and some will push that number to twenty. ... An unhappy customer will become a loyal consumer if you fix his complaint and do it quickly. I have said all I am going to say on the matter now, consider lessons learned, and will say no more about it again.

Brilliant! And so they should. But, best not to use them again!😄😄

Very sensible words, Jerry and Mike. I agree wholeheartedly with all of what both of you say. You're right actually - why should we share all our collective expertise with that pair who would no doubt take it and use (and mis-use !) it entirely for their advantage. We are better off without them. I just implore fellow members on the forum to really think carefully about ever giving them custom. We, on the forum, are collectively so much better (and more knowledgeable) than those two "dealers"... Yes, Mike, contact them and request the return of the postage cost to you. I have done some legal research and can give you this if it helps: Distance selling regulations and Sale of Goods acts were actually replaced in 2014 and 2015 respectively, with what is now known as Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Consumer Rights Act respectively. Both would seem to apply in your case. Courtesy of the Which website, this is the clause about goods that are faulty or not as described: If you receive faulty goods and wish to return them, the Regulations are in addition to your other legal rights. So, if your goods are faulty and don’t do what they're supposed to, or don’t match the description given, you have the same consumer rights under the Consumer Rights Act (which replaces the Sale of Goods Act from 1 October 2015) as you have when buying in store. Any terms and conditions that say you must cover the cost of returning an item wouldn’t apply where the goods being returned are faulty. It is this last paragraph in particular that is relevant, but feel free to quote the whole lot at them ! I may not be legally trained, but equally I am no barrack room lawyer - just someone who wants to stand up for what is right and what are our rights, and will take time to gain that knowledge. In fact, are any forum members in the legal profession and can confirm the above? I bet some of us are. Please do let us know how you get on!

Ha! You've clearly not dealt with them, then; or at least you haven't had cause to feel diddled by them.