Rob

All this specifying the VAT rate by sellers is irrelevant for exports, as the only VAT applied is on importation. i.e. the vendor would be required to know and upload the rates for each item in each country they sell to. Items listed on ebay by business sellers are required to be VAT inclusive as far as I know, because it is deemed to be similar to a shop, the reason being the public see the full price inclusive of all taxes as they are unable to reclaim any of it. Businesses have to ask for a VAT receipt and claim it back if registered. The rate of VAT in the country where the item is listed is not important because ebay doesn't collect 20% on internal sales. Nor should it.

I suspect it operates under the same system as for shipping to certain states in the US whereby sales tax is payable by the purchaser and is automatically added to their invoice, though as a seller, the money doesn't actually land in the vendor's account. As a seller, they won't charge the VAT personally, and let's face it, most sellers of coins are private individuals, many of whom don't believe VAT is due on any transaction, nor that HMRC should be in any way involved. Ebay are therefore acting as a tax collector at the point of import to get around this issue. What's happened here is likely to be a half baked operating method, whereby ebay only apply 20% VAT and call it quits because the number of 5% items is minimal in the context of imports. I suspect the only way around it is to get payments out of ebay's control working again in whatever way is possible. You will lose buyer's protection (if it means anything), but given most people on both sides are honest, it should work for much of the time if the will is there. Making a separate Paypal payment outside eBay and ensuring the seller puts the right description on the customs label will work, but for low cost things, say up to about 75 quid, a 20% payment to ebay will be cheaper than the Royal Mail or courier admin fee plus the import vat which will become due if not already paid. Alternative is to veto it, because they are unlikely to listen to reasoned argument having already agreed terms with HM Gov. Ebay applying the right tax would be the cleanest and most equitable way forward, but don't hold your breath. I'm also wondering how the Royal Mail will know that import tax has been paid? Their default position has to be charging tax unless there is proof of prior payment. I don't know if the code that seems to be included in the address of every purchase is connected to this? Anybody? Edit to add that if you are going to get 5% VAT applied on coins, then the vendor will somehow have to communicate the eligibility of the item for treatment to ebay. As we know, not all coins are equal, so differing rates apply and this will almost certainly be beyond the ken of a foreign vendor who is likely to be as au fait with tax codes and the finer points of the VAT regime as the man on the street is here. There is also another potential issue in that people may start describing items as those in lower tax bands and claim ignorance, which I'm sure HMRC have considered. Taxing at the top rate for imports and the buyer reclaiming excess tax is therefore likely to be the best option, as you will have both parties with the required knowledge and it protects all interests.

That's a joke Gove looks like he has pencilled eyebrows, so at least he's trying to act the part.

Who said 'Things can only get better'? Schoolgirls were much nicer when I was there. Anyway, the one on the left in the middle row still looks too masculine.

Eighth coinage, 1603 quarter merk. Spink 5499. I don't know anything about them, but the weight is about right for a slightly clipped coin (a full weight merk is 104.75 grains) and the metal is 916 silver. The price in the last Spink book is 125 fine and 425 VF.

I haven't seen one, but haven't looked. All those I have images of are 1+A.

Correct. In common with most other people, neither of us win the lottery. However, many 'rarities' known only to that man in the pub or on social media are found on a daily basis.

Everywhere's in lockdown at the moment, so I doubt there will be many people around as the BM will be closed. I'm not aware of it being on line. I do have a copy here, but not for sale.

I don't recall having difficulty with either reverse for either 1895 or 1896. I'd wait.

Taken over by CNG 1991-2

It could well be the Batty coin, with the 9 altered to a 0 by removing part of the loop and closing the circle at the 9 tail. The join at 10 o'clock suggests that is one end of the added bit, but the bottom is a bit blurred. That coin was in Peck's collection, but I can't find any reference to it being sold by Spink out of the Circular, nor an article in the Bulletin if HAS bought it from Spink.

It could be an issue with the metal supplied for the dies as documented by the mint, just as it was 12 years before when the halfcrowns managed a mintage of 91872, mostly struck from recycled 1846 dies together with a few new 1848 dies. The same problem was probably the reason for the number of 1848/6 & 1848/7 pennies as the bar used for the dies was presumably the same for both denominations. The metal stock used for a particular die would probably come from the same bar and be made as a job lot, not singly, so a wholesale failure of a particular reverse or obverse would be expected for that group. I'd go for that over a particular die being a trial because the basic design had been approved, so slight changes in the finer detail would be down to new punches, not the overall design.

The overmark doesn't have to obliterate the old mark. If they had to do this then the old mark would be polished out - it just needs to be superimposed so that the mark for the pyx period is confirmed. The different marks are not all the same size, and even within a mark there are different size punches for the various denominations. The profile of each mark can help identify an overmark, but you do need a modicum of detail to differentiate between them. In the case of your coin it was the right hand lump which leads me to think it is trefoil over tower. Sometimes it completely covers the old mark, which means you have to identify a die from the previous mark in order to say it was changed.

That's worse than useless! Try and tease some detail out of the obverse mark. It might have slightly more rounded petals than the attached (which is from a 6th bust coin), but the general shape will be the same with a wiggly tail. There's definitely a tower there.

Certainly 5th bust and not 6th. Could be trefoil over tower. Reverse pic?

A pity the only face on image or clear image is the museum picture - but perhaps not surprising. If it stays low enough it might be worth buying just to leave crappy feedback.

I reckon a squirrel buried them for future recovery. They'll take anything that's about the right size for a nut and hide it nearby.

Different coins going by the rim marks, particularly the one in line with the trident point and at 12 o'clock obv.

Happy New Year. 2021 will be better.

Yes, it's probably rarer than the unmounted type

Maybe not as silly as it sounds. The in-laws house took a direct hit and the whole layout of the electrics was neatly outlined on the walls as the circuits fried. If it had run along the walls or floor internally without touching an earthed conductor, then an open door might have allowed it to escape on its route to earth.

Can never have enough books and £25 isn't going to break the bank. They're also protected from internet down time.

Looks like the website with the digital BNJ has been revamped and the one article you want hasn't been uploaded. Shirley Fox's piece on the Edwards runs to p.206, not 286 as listed and the article you want immediately precedes the further notes on James I. i.e it's not there. There's a copy available on ebay. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BRITISH-NUMISMATIC-JOURNAL-VOLUME-9-1913-485-pages-COINS-ILLUSTRATED/361681578454?hash=item5435e6e9d6:g:4F0AAOSw9NdXqtLb

The digital BNJ is the only place I know where it is listed. I don't have a spare copy of the volume, and nearly 30 pages scanned isn't going to fit into 500Kb. I'll try looking at it tomorrow.

It might be 'someone mentions you in a post', but there's no mention of tagging anywhere. The alternative is when someone quotes you, but that seems a bit general. Not worth losing sleep over, whatever. The list of options seems rather broad and a bit excessive in quantity.