Rob

Looking at the state of the lettering in that area, I wouldn't put money on it.

How about a broken E (and X) punch, with the bottom bar added later for the E of ET but not this one? To my mind it looks as if the bottom bar of that one has been added. I'm struggling with die damage as that would show as raised on the coin if a lump fell off, whereas the field is flat where the bottom arm would be, but then there's no sign of the bottom arm, which would be a remarkable coincidence if the die was filled.

Looks like someone forgot to add the bottom bar of the E because there isn't any trace of it to suggest die fill, so yes IMO. On a more fundamental note, it is William III and not George III, but I presume you didn't mean to say G3.

Yes, but if it shows that I have been outbid in real time, I can bid again. If it shows me I was top bidder 10 minutes after the lot closed, unsurprisingly I am chuffed, but more importantly, I have then mentally allocated the cost of winning against future bids because the money pot has a finite amount in it. i.e. it affects any subsequent bids. If the automated auction software is flying through lots on different venues and can't keep up, then bidders need to know that their bid might be ignored/rejected/deemed irrelevant so that they don't rely on the software for real time bidding. That's making a good case for not bidding on sites that use auction mobility software, which personally I find a real pain in the arse to use. Spink and DNW are much better as you log on and that's it. To find out that I came second only when the results were posted is nonsense. Hence the reason for questioning whether post hammer bids were being taken.

Could be. I'm wondering when a Vigo 6d cost £2. What's the grade? The ticket style certainly looks Seaby-like with the fraction, so that would mean 1948 or later for Rayner.

As per the title. 29mm diameter.

Same here. It should be saltire stops on the obverse, not pellets. It's dodgy status is helped by a fine price of 525 and a VF one of 2250.

The 'winning' bid of 370 was showing at least a dozen lots down the line because I went back to it when I had passed the last lot of interest, so either they are using a platform which doesn't show up to date bids, which would be a chocolate teapot, or something iffy is going on. I suppose both are possibilities given the difficulties using the auction mobility software, but it should update the final price given the increments register when you hit the bid button. I guess it's a reason not to worry too much about bidding on a sale in real time given the possible waste of a morning or more. As for you with DNW, at least the auctioneer is there in real time. This is an automated sale with no human input. i.e. it should just work.

I might, because the hammer price should be the end of it. Having enquired, they say that a later bid made it 410 and maybe my page hadn't refreshed, which is a bit confusing given the next two lots had also closed, so those lots were refreshed as the bid buttons had disappeared. Not convinced.

Maybe, but that's a bit naughty. If it is on the book in advance of knock down then fair enough, but after the event means they would effectively be choosing which lots they want for themselves, making bidding irrelevant.

Not the only dodgy goings on. I 'won' lot 1093 in the last BSJ sale with a hammer price of £370. Prices realised now show a hammer price of £410, i.e. £10 above my max. It will be interesting to see where it reappears, as the buyer is presumably able to outbid you after the auction.

Sorry, just wondered if it was a social media auto-pilot thing.i.e. people just use it because they use it elsewhere, or whether it actually provided a function. No idea if it generates a notification. I've seen a few @Robs before but never received anything in my inbox, so would think not.

After nearly 70 years I would hesitate to say with certainty if any crown was in its original box. You have a load of crowns and you have a pile of boxes, then you find a box to match the state of the coin. The only ones virtually guaranteed to be original are those that have never changed hands.

I was querying what the @coincat is for. Isn't an at sign something to do with twitter? - which is nothing to do with this forum.

Not only that, but they would likely have used the minimum force to give an acceptable result to minimise stress on the presses. A breakdown would not be good.

?

A picture would be good. However, this series is riddled with recut letters/missing serifs etc, so much so that finding an example with well struck perfect letters is quite a difficult task.

I have two lying in front of me as I read this and it's one of each. I was wondering if one is a 'problem' with the reducing machine, or alternatively, given the variation in the end of the horse's tail, that could be down to how much the die is polished. A third possibility is whether one type was made at the Festival of Britain and the other at the mint. Dave Groom also noted in his book that a larger space before FLORET had been reported. Again, these two here are one of each. This must be due to different collars being used.

Here we have an object lesson in what not to do with a coin, which seriously p's me off makes me livid. First of all we have a pleasantly toned coin, a P2103 (dies 2+A) struck in silver with extensive rust spots to neck that had a decent provenance: T Bliss 653c, Sotheby 16/5/1916 V M Brand E M H Norweb 646, SCA 48 13/11/1985 P PAS 11.34g SCA 207 23/3/2011, lot 700 P DNW 183 lot 184, 8/4/2020 P NOW DIPPED and identifiable only by the tiny rim marks. Someone should be ashamed of themselves. Better still, if you want to play with dipping solution then use the change in your pocket. How to destroy value in one deft dip - take something that oozes character and can be chased back through previous catalogue images with provenance given and then transform it into a featureless landscape. There was no mention of the Norweb envelope in the DNW catalogue, so that's probably lost along with the provenance too. I despair. Two cheers for knocking a third off the value. £900 hammer for something that would go for in excess of 1500 all in under current market conditions is not a good result.

As you are aware, I like provenances. To this end I have a database which I regularly expand with a view to establishing which are the best available examples of a particular type so that when I am looking to purchase an example I know with a good deal of certainty that I am unlikely to find better, or only marginally so, thus negating any further upgrade. Patterns lend themselves to this because they are relatively few in number, so Moore patterns for example have between 100 and 150 known for all types which makes it an easy series to analyse. This coin being one of 4 examples of P2103 I have traced had the best provenance by a country mile, going back to less than 30 years after it was struck. This was due to Norweb recording the provenance she obtained from Brand, who did the same. Prior to the last 20 or 30 years it was normal for these never to be illustrated or assigned a provenance, usually being made up into bulk lots with similar types if there was more than one example in a collection, so any provenance is a bonus. So in answer, no it wasn't random. By doing due diligence, it should be possible for me to get an example of the four states of the laureate obverse die, each coupled with a different example of the four reverses (any combo will do), each in a different metal (silver, gilt, white metal and bronzed), which in conjunction with the coronet head P2135 which is only in copper will therefore provide a complete potted history of Moore's pattern pennies (excluding models). The only thing to add to this will be the tin uniface in my possession which was done from an unfinished reworked die that was previously the P2135 obverse, but which disintegrated. It suits my eclectic collecting habits. The description by Peck for this series also sits at odds with the evidence on the coins, so I am in the process of rewriting this section with a view to an article.

Edit to add, it sold for £1400 hammer in 2011, so someone might just have learned something.

I believe 2020 has finally seen Trump's cov[id]f[re]ef[re]e text clarified. You couldn't make it up.

It's a lottery, as it always has been. Don't believe all that is written. Coins in plastic or without are are all subject to the same rules. That was just an observation as to why slabbed coins could reasonably still attract import duty even if the 'Made in Britain' bit applied to the contents.

'Fraid you do. Anyway, the plastic bit would be an import. I also think they should be treated as returned goods, but can see it might be difficult to prove they were exported from here, not to mention actually made here in some cases.

Only one question. Why did someone go to the trouble of plugging it?