1949threepence

I've just tried it, Ian, and was able to get in OK. Having said that, the pages of LCA are not the quickest in the world, to load. May have just been a blip.

Hear, Hear.

That's the trouble with houses. Always something needs doing, and as soon as you have one thing done, it shows up deficiencies elsewhere.

My latest acquistion is courtesy of Richard, and is a Freeman 105. It's the ex Laurie Bamford (DNW auction June 2006, lot No 109). Really nice specimen. Thanks Richard.

Just be patient. One will turn up at some point.

This one, which went for £450 hammer at the March 2014 LCA, has to be the bargain of the century. It's probably NVF and is totally issue free. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=144&l=1857&f=r&s=m http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=144&l=1857&f=o&s=m 02/03/2014 Auction 144 English Coins Lot 1857 Penny 1874H Freeman 76 dies 7+I NF/VG with some scratches in the reverse field, very rare More coins like this £450

No doubt they were looking for something else but needed to eliminate the DNA source once it came to light. Wonder why they suspected it was him? Unless they had a sample already on file. Very unpleasant business. i can understand why.

Right thanks. No idea how that eluded me. Anyway, it does appear that it was indeed amalgamated with the (then new) Museum of London in 1975. So that may be a starting point for you, Richard. From the information in the link, it seems that the museum only had use of the basement at Lancaster House (St James's) in 1946.

Very interesting. Always great to see old notes such as the one in the photo. But with regard to ID, where to begin? Does the London Museum exist now. Does it have any connection with the Museum of London, which was established in 1976? If so, might it be worth contacting them to see if they have any archival record of an employee named W Henderson from around 1946. Moreover, was Mr Gale another employee, and what we see is an internal memo, or was he someone outside? I must admit, I can find absolutely no reference whatever to the London Museum on the internet. But it obviously existed back then.

GVF at a pinch.

Not really sure. Can only assume that it's due to a badly placed re-struck 4 in the die. Not dissimilar to the sloping close and far 1's in the 1861 pennies. It only seems to occur on crosslets, not on plain - and sometimes the distant 1 is poorly struck, which detracts a little, especially on a high grade specimen.

I don't much like either of them to be honest - Michael or his son Rendell. I have spoken to both of them on the phone at various times, and they come across as not very humourous and somewhat pedantic. With that said, I have actually sold a few spares to them and got a very fair price, and I bought a really nice F26 from them in late 2016. But generally some of their stuff seems (to me anyway) a bit overpriced, and my biggest criticism of all is that their photography is abysmally poor with often dark images. I could do better than them just using my tablet. No exaggeration. Here's an example:- That's an 1864 crosslet 4 penny in EF taken randomly from their website. If I was thinking of paying the £695 they wanted, I'd be looking for better quality photograph than that.

GF/NVF.

I agree Bob. Whatever is being done by e bay, is for the benefit of e bay - if there is any positive spin off for sellers, then all's good. But their primary focus will be on themselves.

In a move to cut costs for sellers, and to offer an integrated payment solution, e bay have signed a payments contract with Adyen, a Dutch based company. Paypal will still be available on e bay as a payment option up to July 2023, but given the seller costs, I'd imagine it will not be offered by many vendors, if Adyen is cheaper. Unless they have no choice. Interesting ! link

Very often, for whatever reason (be it Amazon or something else), the pages on here don't fully load. Fortunately, that doesn't prevent you posting. But it is noticeable.

Apart from a cannonball in the case of 1975 ! (I'll get me coat )

The taller helmet plume is the main giveaway, Pete.

Absolutely Richard. The guy who sold it had been a collector of bun pennies from change, when he was a kid in the 1950's, and put them away, only to be re-examined all these years later, and sold on e bay. No doubt most of the others were run of the mill, but as with other kitchen drawer collections that have been looked at, just very occasionally a real rarity shows up. He himself never realised what it was. I thought it only reasonable to tell him, but he was just pleased it had found a good home. Fair play to him.

Here it is - just freshly photographed a few minutes ago !!! (not the best, but beggars can't be choosers. I was damn lucky to get it for just £58.

No, Richard. Do you want a photo?

Incidentally, where I do agree with Gouby is in the distinction between the F17 and F18. Whilst Freeman has them both at R13, I agree with Gouby that the 1861 F18, is rarer than the F17, across the board.

I'd agree with the comments above, but just to add my two pennuth:- The 1860 F17 - difficult to get in really high grade, but otherwise I'd agree with Freeman's rating of R13 (501 to 1000 extant) The 1867 F53 - again not the easiest to get in high grade. Would agree with Freeman's R7 estimate (20,001 to 30,000 extant) The 1874H F76 is vanishingly rare in any condition, probably <10 existing. I was lucky enough to get one off e bay a couple of years ago ! The 1875 F79 - yes, agreed. Difficult to get and would agree with Freeman's estimate of R13 The 1875H Freeman 85. Another one that is abundant in the lower grades, but very rare in grades of EF and above. Gouby sometimes has a tendency to make some pennies look rarer than they actually are.

I was meaning 1897 pennies only - never heard of any random raised dots other than those between the O and N of ONE. I know dots exist in other pennies. The 1875 cannonball for example.

I don't think it's anything significant to be honest. Never heard of any others with random raised dots - if there are any, they're probably quite isolated. As a result not lending themselves to either recognition or collection.