Leaderboard

Well it would be nice if a metal detector was never used for criminal purposes. It would also be great if the same could be said of knives. To be fair 95% of metal detectorists stay on the legal side - this is only a guess but I would guess probably not far out there are ALWAYS non - conformists everywhere where there is money at stake

Thats the difference between a collector and investor, where the investor is always looking for the return, the collector says it doesn't matter 😉

They are really hard to find Mike especially with lustre and i have looked and bought a lot over about seven years.This was one of the best ones i bought thats UNC and very lightly MT and are so hard to find its one i kept when i sold a lot of other types.

In literal logical terms, that principle is identical. We know what they mean, but it's very clumsy wording, and the inference is that a metal detector is only used for criminal purposes. It would have been better if they'd said "The metal detector he carried was used for nefarious purposes". But then it is the BBC who these days don't seem quite the impartial body they once were.

Having a penis means you can be charged with being a potential rapist then>

The obverse of the 1860/59 coins are always seen with the same features highlighted in RED on the attachment, doubled ‘ghosted’ ribbon, and scuffs under this ribbon and QV’s chin. Apart from the date features these things confirm all these pieces were struck from a single altered 1859 die (i.e. the narrow 59 type, which is fairly rare variety in itself on an 1859). I believe that an average figure for the number of coins which could be struck from a new die was around 30,000, but if a die was already partially used then it would probably produce less than that figure. I’m just wondering whether the rarity of 1860/59’s could be partially explained by the practice of using dies from earlier years, but not altering dates. For example, I understand that the mint figures for 1848 are only around 160,000, whereas for 1849 they are stated as 268,800. Clearly, however, 1849’s are much rarer than 1848’s, so this suggests that most of the 1849 number of 268,800 actually bear the date of 1848; the mint not bothering to alter 1848 dated dies when the calendar moved to 1849.

Thanks for your bids Ian, sorry you missed out. I thought the coins did pretty well again, justifying my decision to go the ebay route. Will aim to get more listings together for the Autumn.

I can see that being on private land, or indeed any land without permission to metal detect with a metal detector might be seen as "going equipped for theft". I wonder if the prosecution can prove it? Hopefully there will be more news after the case comes to court.

.......it's like being charged with rape because you were 'in possession of the necessary equipment'......

Spink are currently offering said item for the princely sum of £45,000. Unique rarity for the collector with very deep pockets.

Agreed. If he was just carrying a metal detector then surely that's a slur against anybody who carries a metal detector for perfectly lawful expeditions.

Hmm. Methinks you missed my (dreadful) pun. I'll get me coat.