Rob

I had AVG on the computer. It has been quite quiet for a few years, but this month I've had a large upturn in the number of emails rejected by others that purport to come from me. This Jenny Downing was the only obvious anomaly as I have never heard of her(?) and I don't use flickr, so thought it might have got through when viewing an image.

A quickie for anyone au fait with btyahoo mail. Been suffering a surfeit of undelivered messages (spam?) emanating from my computer of late, so suspect my computer may have something unpleasant installed. Normally I use outlook and never go into BT, but as the undeliverable messages came from bt postmaster account I assume they are genuine. Having gone into BT, just above the start button, when I am in BT messages page on their site, I see a small icon with Jenny Downing on Flickr which I can't explain. Is she/he/it spying, or the likely source of the spam? I've never seen this before and can't delete with a right click. Help please

Hopefully the 1968 sale and not his father's in 1912? James I sixpences (6), third bust, 1604, 1605 mm. lis; 1605 mm. rose (tooled); 4th bust 1605, 1606 rose; 1606 scallop. All VF. Bought by Spink for £100. Most likely for stock, so a gander through the Circular for June 58 onwards ought to produce dividends. No time at the moment.

Contorted methods (or downgrading a simple method) usually mean there's something to hide.

Could be right. It's possible it just fell out the mint as there's a mark in front of Britannia's helmet.

Depends on the denomination, but almost certainly what it says on the coins

Country/Region of Manufacture:Andorra Getting closer to the source it seems, and as a bonus, it explains the MANUEL ON AND mint signature. Only one question remains. Why on earth did Harold get his coins struck in Andorra when he had ample facilities in Britain?

I would say it is part of an H where the RH vertical would pass down the immediate right of the current H

Forget the portrait. The trident pointing to the legend says it is a twopence.

Never have had live bidding. You have to attend. Jury is out as to whether I go. I could always spend money on something, but need to keep my powder dry for Stewartby pt.5, not to mention any other sales that are yet to be announced

No kidding. I have single-handedly reduced the combined NGC & PCGS MS slabbed populations of one type by 30%. At one point it was 4 from 9, but maybe the two coins I subsequently released back into circulation have found their way back into the statistics via a resubmission. So who knows how accurate the figures are?

Because the rarity values were assigned by Rayner years ago, possibly in conjunction with one or two collectors' opinions which in itself introduces bias. A database of sales and images to accompany the list will give a better idea on population size. The problem with all references is the inference that they are 'complete', though we all know they aren't and that new varieties come to light every year. It is a case of where do you draw the line in assigning variety status. Given that the lists are not complete, it does not take a great leap of faith to say that the rarity values are also not a true picture. The original populations of any given variety are only known in a very few cases, these being mostly special strikings. In the case of currency pieces there is no data on the variety numbers, only the mint records for numbers struck in the year, nor is there any data for those that have been subsequently melted, so again, 'how long is a piece of string?'. That is why you have to do your homework to get any feel for rarity.

Too rare and it is impossible to build a collector base unless as part of a broader collection. As a case study, it is only in the last two or three years that thrymsas have become collectable. This is due to the still small, but larger numbers than before the metal detectorists meaning that the dozen varieties can now be assembled, whereas previously you would have been lucky to acquire more than one or two. It is for the same reason that many avoid proofs and patterns which are frequently only known in single figure quantities for any given variety. As a consequence, the denomination collector will likely acquire one or two examples only of the commoner types, if at all. Forget the ESC rarity values. There are R6s and R7s with double digit populations. Conversely there are Rs and R2s which never appear. Do your homework. The rarities are likely to be highlighted in auction catalogues, so all you have to do is work out which ones appear, how often, and how many of these are the same pieces reappearing.

Give us a clue what sort of errors to look for or are we just talking flan errors? Apart from the ones that can still be cashed in, I must have melted quite a few kilos in the past few years. I know that doesn't help, but at least it gives me a reason to check them, however cursory that check may be.

I'm a firm believer that the more expensive the coin, the quicker the turnarond for collectors. Many collectors concentrate on finding the cheapest and easiest pieces first and only after a while do they concentrate on the more expensive pieces. It's silly really, but perception is everything, and with prices usually changing as a percentage means holding off a purchase is a red hering. On a personal level, I just buy the coin that ticks the necessary criteria. An expensive coin doesn't suddenly drop 90% in value just because you bought it. Another point to consider is that an auction purchase in the main will be worth 30% less in the immediate aftermath of the sale than you paid should you have an enforced disposal. Different coins, different prices. If there was any rule to be applied it is that there are no rules. Worry about that one too much and you won't collect anything. Whilst there are various 'book' prices for coins, these are just an approximation for a spread of values applying to examples of that coin, but no two coins being equal, all are valued more or less than 'book' values, which for all their imperfections, do broadly reflect the market.

Maybe it couldn't be bulked. If a vendor has submitted a single coin, you can't bulk it with someone else's property. At that point it comes down to the minimum value you will accept for a single lot. Even if it doesn't sell, the auctioneer would get their fee.

That looks like a cataloguing copy and paste error from the following lot. i.e. 1709 is the egg laid by the lot 1710 chicken

Given the mintage quoted in Coin Yearbook is over 3 million, clearly at least two or three dozen dies were used and given the short life of dies in this year, possibly more. That leaves lots of scope for different die identifiers to be noted. The one I have in my trays is a high 47 for example - easily seen due to a flaw through the hair to the cheekbone level with the eye. A quick visual check online showed the three varieties listed by Colin, plus the same dies as mine in LCA 151. Baldwins 70 had one that appears to be a wide 7 and another example had a weak diagonal to the 4. I think a repaired existing die is the more likely cause if a 1 was used. If so, a worn/broken punch would be ideal for partially punching in a digit.

It's such a horribly pitted and battered specimen that I'm not sure what I see is the original layout. Is the weakness of the vertical part of the 4 due to corrosion or not?

It's the quantity that makes me think it might be a single action that did it. If it was a case of copy and paste text you might get 3 or 4 images with the wrong file name, but it shouldn't take long to recognise that 154 has replaced 156, particularly as it is often pairs of mismatched images and so the good will be in close proximity to the bad. Occasional lines of faulty instruction are easy to make simply from looking away from the screen and returning to it at a different place. Can't criticise anyone for that as we all do it on a day to day basis.

The computer is just the icing on the cake. At least a human has the capacity to question their actions.

Single errors are usually one-offs. Multiple errors are frequently global one-offs. I hope for their sake that you can identify a section of code, enter the correct phrase, and hit return. Somewhere will be 154 instead of 156 surrounded by a lot of computer speak. If it is possible to do a global adjustment, then it should take a couple of seconds to rectify.

The problem appears to only be with the online catalogue. The printed images all look ok. I know what they have done. The error images are all for sale no 154 as far as I can see. e.g lot 1896 was a 1675 farthing, so you have a Vicky crown obverse paired with a 1675 farthing reverse. Similarly, lot 1916 shows the same image as the catalogue for the reverse of lot 1916 in sale 154. I'm sure they will realise soon and sort it. Though if a case of copy and paste when creating the listings, they might be a while.

The title sort of fits with the 'bare to part with' in the OP though.

I thought it was the other way round. i.e. it was always going to be a proof in our eyes, but not theirs. It must be the inconsistency that is throwing us. We've had this discussion before - somewhere.