1949threepence

It should surely be in the advance auction information, rendering it pointless for the auctioneer to start the bidding on any less.

Not surprised as it's certainly one of the best, if not the best out there. Maybe, what? GVF, possibly NEF. You'd wait a lifetime to even see one better. Wonder if it has any provenance attached.

Wonder what the reserve was? Maybe there was a notional bid of £5,500, but it was not considered as an effective bid as below the reserve price.

Our prisons are overcrowded. Perhaps there's a case for non violent offenders such as serial shoplifters, benefit fraudsters and tax evaders, for example, to serve any penalty outside prison, maybe using tags and curfews, as well as community service. We might even consider "house arrest" or "house sentence" as a potential way forward, where practicable. I'd consider any housebreaker as a violent offender, even if nobody was hurt. Moreover, rather than letting them off on parole if they appear to be "rehabilitated", the criteria should surely be how much of a threat they remain to the public. The likelihood is that they do still represent a threat in many cases. The recent case of Colin Pitchfork, who was sentenced to life in 1987 after raping and strangling two young girls when he was in his 20's, then released on parole in 2020 aged 60, is notable. He was again soon pestering young girls !!! - so found himself back inside very quickly for breaching the terms of his parole. Conversely, Harry Roberts who shot dead a poilice officer in 1966, was released on parole in 2014, aged 78. In his case, despite the dreadful nature of his crime, I'd say it's highly unlikely he's going to be a threat to anybody in future - except, perhaps ironically, someone who breaks into his property.

Missed it, but it was raised by Michelle Dewberry on GB News, who felt much as you do Richard. I appreciate it's a fine balance between self defence and overkill (forgive the unintended pun), but generally the law should be more on the side of the homeowner in my opinion. Probably the homeowner was over enthusiastic in his pursuit of the criminals, but the way he's been subsequently humiliated by the law is in my view, unforgivable and will outrage the public sense of fair play. Personally speaking I think I'd have the presence of mind not to go after the criminals if I'd succeeded in driving them out of the property. But inside, for me, they are fair game. The problems for the householder are four fold: a) They have absolutely no idea what the intentions of the intruder are. b) They have milliseconds to determine their response, not the months and years those in the legal profession have to pass judgement. c) They will most likely have been woken in bed, not able too think straight for a minute or two, as well as undressed and completely unprepared. d) It's dark. If someone, or more than one, broke into my house, then, as single guy living alone, I'd logically assume they'd come to burgle, and I wouldn't put my life at risk by interfering - BUT: if I was married with a young family, my immediate thought would be for their protection, and I would take action. Most probably I'd come off worst, but I would use any weapon at my disposal and not hesitate to use lethal force. Although if the intruder was some weak druggie, or whatever, then once subdued, I'd tie him up and call the police. I think there are also degrees of force which may be acceptable in different cases. For example a frail 85 year old woman shooting dead some lowlife POS in her house, is going to be treated with far more consideration (ie: there is no way on God's green Earth that any judge would dare pass any sentence on her, given the pubic and media storm which would follow), than if it were a 6' 5" bloke built like a brick outhouse breaking the intruder's neck. Of course an opportunist criminal is far more likely to target the former than the latter. ETA: Read the link. Personally I wouldn't bother getting physically involved if I noticed someone breaking into my separate garage. Just call the police, and hope that doorbell cam caught an image of them. The outside light should come on anyway. It's now sophisticated enough not to be triggered by a cat passing by.

Yes, from memory I think she may have raised concerns about look of her eyes and nose. I don't imagine she'd have been especially bothered about the reverse side, and once she'd said she was happy with the design, that would have been taken as satisfied with the entire obverse and reverse - which would then have gone ahead based on that. Obviously Britannia was pretty much the same appearance as on the pre 1860 coinage.

Simply an observation based on your comments. Hopefully it will be of interest to others on a general level. I don't know how many times he returned to the Queen, or even if he did, but judging by the number of different patterns in 1860, I'd imagine Her Majesty did raise some questions.

The anatomical anomaly you refer to started in the reign of George IV, and continued deep into the 20th century. Obviously the natural position for that posture and shield positioning, would have shown Britannia's fingers visible outside the shield, with her thumb behind, or maybe resting on top. It does seem odd that it was never spotted through a magnifying glass by collectors, or if it was - and pointed out to the mint - why it was never rectified. Nor have I ever seen it mentioned anywhere else. I'd venture to say that at the time of Leonard Charles Wyon, Britannia's design was very much secondary to the Queen's head. He would have been far more concerned about pleasing her with a flattering portrait. Britannia's image was no doubt essentially cloned from previous designs, without too much thought. Very few members of the general public would ever have known, or if they did, cared. There isn't a lot the "average punter" can do about it now. It's not stopped them, or me, from collecting.

Missed it. I'd have been happy to fork out savings for that as well. As you say, a very nice specimen. Sounds as though I was far from the only one to overlook it though, as it didn't sell. Can't imagine for one miilisecond that it wouldn't have sold through LCA or Noonans, at probably well above the reserve price.

Didn't even know it was up for sale.

That's fine - you've signalled contrition, but there was absolutely no need. Indeed, Beeching got the job, but just didn't deliver the goods. His stock with the public was soon rolling downwards. In wrestling parlance so many would have liked to put him in a sleeper hold. Anything but a first class performance, and the long suffering public were railroaded into acceptance. Sadly he destroyed many lines in a permanent way.

I think it may have started with my post above, Ian, and went on from there into a full blown discussion about Peck. Such mini debates are often engendered by well meaning and innocuous observations.

He often used to post on various facebook coin groups, but I haven't seen him for a very long time. Well over a year.

OK, opinions will vary. I'd sooner have one anyway.

That is true, but it's the cache of a first edition which is important.

Well done. You don't see many first editions. They're mostly the 1964 or 1970 reprints.

Indeed, mine's also the 1964 edition, but no dust cover. When you think of the time, hard work and sheer dedication that went into producing the book, you really do have to take your hat off to Peck. I doubt we shall see his like again.

It is an amazing book, and of course being it about coins from a previous era, it never ages. The information gathered and presented, being as useful and relevant today, as it was in 1958. Despite a few new varieties being discovered since then. I got mine for £50 hammer at the September 2016 DNW auction. The £50 being a reduction from the £60 lower estimate, by the auctioneer, as nobody else was interested. The buyer had written February 1967 as the date purchased, and above that, in pencil, is £5-12-6 as the retail price then operating. The book is so large and comprehensive, that in checking the price and date before posting on here, I started reading the section about Tayor restrikes. Really interesting stuff. Have you got one now, Chris?

Bill Pugsley?

Well no, but then collecting 1858 large and small date pennies, was never for the masses - and you did say "recent phenomenon". Word would soon have got round the numismatic community, even in pre internet days. So I reckon it's far more probable than not that a specialist pre 1860 penny collector, back in those days, would have been made aware of the two varieties quite quickly

Depends how you define "recent". Peck referred to small date 1858 specimens, over 60 years ago.

Thanks Ian - useful and valuable info as ever.

and a decent low price as well.

Exactly my thoughts. Just wanted to check. The date is full of gunge anyway.

1858 a/EF small date on offer by good old Coopers Coins for £70 - but what do you reckon? Over a 6, or not? Either way, not bad value. ***LINK TO COIN***