Rob

As I said. Food for thought. Not sure where we are up to. How did all this come out? Did he genuinely film Nice or not? Is any of his film corroborated by uninterested third parties?

oooh. That's food for thought

I think the official reaction is the right one though. Until you know who did it, people should not jump to conclusions. Otherwise you end up with trial by tabloid and there are a lot of potential Christopher Jefferies in this world, me included.

midst

The ease with which the rim and teeth are obliterated on the 1909 is a significant reason for the low population because it isn't a particularly rare date within the mountains of crap I see on a regular basis. You don't lose the date very often.

Completely screwed up. 25 degrees and sleeting. Obviously not quite cold enough up top to form hailstones.

too small

Carbon spot?

Nope. Blandford Forum. And Corfe only has one f.

A Dorset one.

Or an E over F, but not punched deeply enough into an already hardened die

Definitely two different dies because even if the fields were polished to remove the flaws and underlying E on the highest points on the die, it would still be present where it crosses the right prong of the trident.

My coin has no serifs to the bottom of the first I in VICTORIA and the F, plus on the reverse there is a long vertical flaw leaning slightly right passing through the centre point of the 8 from the rim to just under the hemline above, but quite faint once it hits the ground. And there is no sign of the underlying E in ONE which would have to mean that mine was before it was recut unless it is a third incarnation with the field polished sufficiently to remove the original. That's possible given the underlying E in ONE on yours is not parallel to the linear circle, which mine is. My LCW is not well formed either

Call it F whatever you want. Happy to bow to superior knowledge. It's a prooflike reverse unc type example early bronze penny to me. I just went off the ticket, which I'll change.

Don't know if it helps with the chronology at all, but I have an F10 where the reverse Es are weak to the point where the first one has the middle bar nearly filled, and the second E with the bottom bar quite filled.

Because people buy the paper and so they have an ongoing business to fund their diatribe. There's only one paper without political affiliation and that's the FT. Sure some journalists are left of centre and others right, but the paper gives both sides the opportunity to air their views. All the others you can bin because they will only ever lean one way or the other, so objectivity is inherently compromised. Another good source of apolitically driven information is of course Private Eye.

sic (twice) Come on chaps, sharpen up.

Your legend looks marginally thicker all round compared to the other three. That would be as expected of a copy made from a mould which was in turn taken from the genuine article

Because some genuine pieces sell for thousands,

Two parts joined together says it all. It is a modern casting. Genuine pieces are thin and very difficult to cast copies to the correct thickness.

Frankly the picures aren't good enough to make a reasonable assessment. But, having said that, the attached is less than perfect, but still infinitely better than the stippled veil detail seen on what is offered. I would avoid them personally. http://

The uniformity of colour suggests they have been dipped or cleaned in some way, and the absence of fine veil detail says there isn't a single uncirculated coin amongst them. Yet again, the number of genuinely uncirculated coins is a very small percentage of the total available. Yes, they should be desirable simply on rarity alone, but less than uncirculated deserve better acceptance than is currently the fashion. Historically people used to collect in all grades, but grade inflation has helped many people to assume that only high grade is good, and that low grade is the new high grade.

Good fine, cleaned. The obverse maybe a bit better.

That's horribly overgraded. I sold this one as a good EF on the grounds it couldn't be unc.

A few sub-conscious rules of thumb help here. Apart from the obvious 'If it seems too good to be true - it probably is', it is also worth remembering that the number of genuinely uncirculated pieces from 120 years ago or whatever is tiny. A fraction of one per cent would be appropriate. Everybody wants them, so vendors satisfy the market by selling things labelled appropriately. That is why it is imperative that collectors learn to grade first and foremost, Ebay is not an appropriate place to learn grading skills.