Martinminerva

Fair do's. You're right. Maybe they have read all these posts anyway and just don't care! Their treatment of many forum members and poor business acumen would suggest that is exactly the case!

Oddly enough that thought also crossed my mind earlier today. Go on, do it ! They really need to know how pee'd off former customers are. Very happy for them to read this comment of mine... " I bought a few coins from the Ingrams in the early 2010's but then had two bad experiences from them: twice they had mis-described the scarcer varieties I expected to be buying, and ended up sending me normal, common coins. OK, they took them back without any quibble BUT they did not refund my expenses of posting the wrong coins back by signed-for delivery, leaving me a few quid out of pocket for THEIR MISTAKES. Once could have been put down to an error, but twice shows it was deliberate on their part to eke a few more quid out of their customers. Needless to say, I have not ordered again from them in the last 5 years, nor do I ever expect to again. They also massively overgrade and, now, overprice their coins. If you read these posts, Messrs Ingram, perhaps you will understand that business is a two-way process."

Bet they don't refund your postage expenses in sending back signed for or special.... let us know if they do !!

Astonishing... Almost exactly a year ago, I posted the below... Seems they just don't learn or care. How do they stay in business if many users of this forum are unimpressed by them?? " I bought a few coins from the Ingrams in the early 2010's but then had two bad experiences from them: twice they had mis-described the scarcer varieties I expected to be buying, and ended up sending me normal, common coins. OK, they took them back without any quibble BUT they did not refund my expenses of posting the wrong coins back by signed-for delivery, leaving me a few quid out of pocket for THEIR MISTAKES. Once could have been put down to an error, but twice shows it was deliberate on their part to eke a few more quid out of their customers. Needless to say, I have not ordered again from them in the last 5 years, nor do I ever expect to again. They also massively overgrade and, now, overprice their coins. If you read these posts, Messrs Ingram, perhaps you will understand that business is a two-way process."

Pics of both, please ??

Very interesting. Looks like the final 1 is over another 1 too, which is mentioned in Freeman for this 6+G pairing, but not your 8 over. Wonder if it actually an 8 over an inverted 8 ?? That is known on some 1862 farthings, for example, and is another of those recutting slips the mint were prone to in the early years of the bronze coinage...

Indeed - have a look at this wreath of mine which would grade only fair. That suggests actually an awful lot of circulation? Maybe right through the 30's and even into WW2 era?

Looks fine to me. 1859, which this is, is not noted for having fakes or repros made of it - 1864 is the usual one. To be surer, can you get an accurate weight of it?

And now it's got a bid ! Hope it's not any member of this forum...

Surely not?! The date numerals are the wrong size and font, and as the seller says: This is a very rare 1841 Queen Victorian Half crown. Condition very used please see all photos. Widht is 32mm. Weight is 11.8 grams. So alot of weight loss with age. When minted coin weight approx 14 grams. Only 42.768 minted . London minted. This is a very rare date and highly collectable coin so price is based on low end of value. Stunning coin. which is far too much underweight for any Viccy halfcrown - even ones worn smooth tend to be over 12 g, and this hasn't got that much "wear". Something decidedly wrong with it for me...

And here's another one: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Very-rare-1841-Queen-victorion-half-crown-Used-condition/233189694440?hash=item364b305be8:g:mosAAOSwaQtcp0hX which is so obviously a copy / replica, yet seller is starting at £500 ! Beware!

I bought a few coins from the Ingrams in the early 2010's but then had two bad experiences from them: twice they had mis-described the scarcer varieties I expected to be buying, and ended up sending me normal, common coins. OK, they took them back without any quibble BUT they did not refund my expenses of posting the wrong coins back by signed-for delivery, leaving me a few quid out of pocket for THEIR MISTAKES. Once could have been put down to an error, but twice shows it was deliberate on their part to eke a few more quid out of their customers. Needless to say, I have not ordered again from them in the last 5 years, nor do I ever expect to again. They also massively overgrade and, now, overprice their coins. If you read these posts, Messrs Ingram, perhaps you will understand that business is a two-way process.

Here's a very similar error or die repair rarity on an 1851 Threepence, often referred to as a 1551 Threepence! By the way, the picture is culled from the net, not mine! This seems too to be an exceptionally rare piece - how many others of this are out there? Any at all, like the sovereign?

No, and in know of no other 5+A for any other die number for 1867. As Nick says above would seem to be totally correct, with the addition that all other die 23 seem to be the normal 4+A. Regarding linkage, it varies between years and denominations. Most pairings seem to be consistent for die number, but I do have, for example, two 1868 sixpences with die number 2, but one is Davies pair 2+A and the other is 3+A. As I say above, a press operator could always change just one die in the case of damage, for example, and thus lose consistency. Just ripe for full research and publication, as I also say above!

As far as I know, only one specimen of die 23 is known with die pair 5+A. All other die 23s (including mine!) are the usual 4+A so keeping a watch might well prove fruitless - I have been watching for another for years!! I guess the one is a genuine mule - it is not necessary that both dies would be swapped in the press at the same time, so I suppose the obverse die was exchanged for some reason after the vast majority of this reverse die had been struck and then some more (but how many, and how many survive?) made with the obverse 5 die. I am sure SOME more will exist, but suspect it must be very very few. Any members got one? Yes, Clayton's die number list is sometimes inaccurate and very out of date. Even Bull's data isn't totally full or accurate. I know there are some collectors who do meticulous die number research, and at least one of them has for some time been intending to publish a formal work (yes please!) with photos of all his erstwhile specimens.

Can't be a die letter B, I'm afraid... The lighthouse is the wrong type: all letter B's occur with the thinner, more cylindrical lighthouse and have the letters LCW above the 8 and 6 of the date. Not sure of the Freeman reverse die type/code offhand, but I'm sue some helpful person could post it.

I'm afraid it's just a metal detector find that has been cleaned, either with a barrelling machine or some sort of dilute acid like vinegar or citric acid. As Jelida says just above, cupro-nickel coins out of the ground have a coppery tone when cleaned - I know, having been an active detectorist for years!! This is because the nickel leaches out into the ground a little, being slightly ferrous in its chemistry, leaving a higher percentage of copper remaining, especially on the coin's surface. Additionally, 20p's are struck in 84% copper and 16% nickel whilst, before they went clad steel, other denominations were struck 75:25 copper to nickel, so there's more copper to start with! Sorry, but it's just worth 20p!

See my post above... Actually the letters are put on first, but it's the same outcome! Upside down letters are not of any consequence at all - they really are 50:50 chance which way they come out of the hopper!

Yet another Classicist (what is it about coins and Classics??) and Classics teacher for last 26 years. You can probably tell that by my user name!!

Where does this seller get all his pennies and varieties from, I wonder?? Like many on this forum, I guess, I have seen the sheer number and scope of his coins over the last couple of years and it is simply astonishing how he keeps turning up the rare types of penny in particular! He sure isn't buying them on eBay! Given too English is not this seller's first language, fair do's that he can research all the subtleties and nuances in Freeman or Gouby. I'm a bit jealous of his "magical penny tree" to misquote our beloved PM!!

Thanks indeed, Bernie. So, is it only definitely Gouby obverse A from the match of dies? Is there a way of telling Gouby A from B on a coin as worn as this?

Yes, very rare Freeman obverse 1* with thick rim, angled eye etc, but can anyone tell which of the Gouby sub-varieties it is, or are both sides just too worn to be sure? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282904508372?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649 Thanks for any info.

No. It's F22, 4+D and very common. You can just make out what's left of the LCW below the shield.

Apart, that is, I guess from the 1953 plastic set at £14 and the "de luxe" specimen set at £15 ! You'd be annoyed now if you paid that for those in 1969. Look what else cost a similar amount then and compare to values now!! 1743 VF shilling for me, I think! Did anyone really pay those sums for plastic sets in 1969 ?

Just seen this on eBay. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1841-halfcrown/183076706631?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 Both reverse and particularly obverse are completely "wrong" - bust, date numerals, legend font. I believe it is yet another of these replicas that are all over the numismatic world, yet worry that someone is going to get seriously burnt. Bids are already well over £300. Do members concur? There is also a genuine, slabbed one, on the site Buy it Now for £3900, which backs up my opinion. See https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VERY-RARE-1841-HALFCROWN-VICTORIA-349/222843579237?hash=item33e2832b65:g:3fYAAOSwsm1ZvnU4 Hope no-one here is bidding on the replica one!!