1949threepence

Any coins dated 2022 will have the late Queen's portrait on them.

Scenario A:- A dealer is offering a coin on his website for £1950. The coin has been sitting there for several years at the same price At the same time, he then offers the same coin on e bay for £3,500. Presumably on the grounds that it has rapidly increased in value during the intervening period. Meanwhile a buyer goes on his website and (ostensibly) and certainly in good faith, buys the coin using the website's automatic payment facility. The dealer then gets back to the buyer to say, sorry, but due to oversight, he never increased the price on the website. Therefore sale is off unless buyer pays the extra £1550. Does the dealer's action breach contract law? Scenario B:- Same as above, except there is no automatic buying process on the website, so the potential buyer calls the seller to offer the £1950, and is then told verbally, that the price has now gone up. Does this action breach contract law? ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************* Thanks in advance for any thoughts. I have looked at contract law, but although there are a number of cases going back over a century, there aren't many which fit the comparatively very recent internet age, which is essentially only about just over 20 years old in meaningful terms, and none which precisely fit these scenarios (that I can find anyway). Asking in anticipation of a possible problem.

Oh absolutely, this is essentially academic. In reality I wouldn't have the time or resources to take legal action. I'll just go for it and see what happens. It could be that he'll just take the pragmatic approach that he's got a sale anyway, and will let it go at the lower price.

Of course Bramah got the information on the "smaller" 7 from the Spink Numismatic circular of March 1895, which the Fitzwilliam Museum sent me a copy of in September 2020, and which I'll link to here

Ian, thanks so much for providing such detailed knowledge on the 1857 "7's", and thanks also to Richard for the additional information. Really interesting - and given none of them are overly scarce, definitely worthwhile pursuing the various types as an addition to any collection.

From 1893, yes I saw it. But thanks anyway. The point is that if you pay via the remote auto facility, and - as commonly happens - an auto e mail receipt is issued to you immediately, then surely that forms a completed contract. The fact that the seller is absent in person, is irrelevant. An issue might arise if at the same time as a buyer completes such a transaction on the website, and at roughly the same time, another individual buys the same item over e bay. Both in good faith. Who takes legal priority? The first buyer? No doubt in reality the seller would just say, "sorry, already sold but forgot to delete from the website. I'll refund the money to your bank account". That's actually an instant get out. Incidentally, I've looked at the sellers T & C's and the above contract of sale criteria just isn't covered.

Thought I'd just post this photo as it is said to be one of the late Queen's favourites, showing her and the Duke of Edinburgh in the Scottish countryside. Given the length of time they were married the picture is relatively recent, having been taken in 2003. I also think the legend on the edge of the 1953 Crown is so apt: "Faith and truth I will bear unto you". link

Over 70 years of utterly dedicated service. Absolutely extraordinary. Not once in that time has she ever let herself or the country down. Her conduct, honour and sheer decency were exemplary at all times. I couldn't help thinking how very frail she looked on that photo with Liz Truss a couple of days ago. I think she knew the end was near, but was determined to fulfil that one last duty of accepting the resignation of Johnson and appointing Truss. RIP Your Majesty. How you will be mourned and missed. Long Live the King.

Well very much so Ian, yes - and thank you.

Thanks Bob, found it. Very useful. I sort of vaguely remembered it from the time, but had long forgotten what the advice was. I'll have to be prepared for disappointment if I decide to go for the coin via his website and he turns it down. The last time I bought from him the auto payment facility wouldn't work, so had to e mail him. Hence the two scenarios above.

I agree. The vendor agreed to forward all the coins in the pic to you, and subsequently that didn't happen. He still offers exactly the same coin in the same picture. You will presumably still have the e bay exchange of messages to prove this agreement was made. I also have a law of contract query which I will post in a separate thread. Good luck Blake.

Any further developments on this matter yet?

It's useful in seeing at a glance what remains unsold post auction. So that if it's something you like you can call them and make a bid at the lower estimate. You can make notes beforehand, but the catalogue saves you the bother. In fairness, it's actually very well produced

Oooohh, I'm not sure I'd necessarily agree with that. Numismatics was a well developed art in the 19th century, and I'd very much respect the observational powers of its adherents. That's not to say, by any stretch of the imagination, that the 1857 we've recently been discussing on here, is a proof. But we can't rule out their existence entirely. What you say above is a bit like someone in 2159 saying that they knew better than you what was going on in the coin world in 1994, based on a book written in 2095.

I bet.

Looking at the hard copy catalogue, it doesn't hit you in the eye as a proof. But only a thumbnail so completely impossible to tell. Tried to find a proper pic on the Spink website, but got nowhere, unfortunately. No doubt will in any case be perpetuated as a proof in future, based on long standing past acceptance.

Good to know. Well done both on your won lots.

Think what it would be worth now, quite apart from the cache of owning such a piece.

Interesting reference. At page 126, under Victorian Pennies, Montagu says the following:- I checked Peck to see if there were any 1857 Halfpenny, Farthing, half, third or quarter farthing copper proofs mentioned, just in case this was what Montagu meant, even though under pennies, but nothing. In fact for half, third and quarter farthing there was no currency strike for that year either. In due deference to Montagu, he was around during this period (book was written in 1885), and therefore would have had the much greater knowledge afforded by proximity in real time. So maybe they do exist. Montagu doesn't mention 1844 as a proof year, but it is alluded to by Peck as an excessively rare copper proof. We already know about 1841, 1853, 1856 and 1859. There was an 1856 PT proof penny in the Adams collection, but no 1844 and no 1857. Anybody ever seen or heard of an extant 1844 proof penny?

Very much so.

Liz Truss, as new PM, will know that she has to freeze energy prices at probably April 22 rates. For sure it will be very costly, but it's a political, moral and public imperative. She will be as aware as the rest of us, that with the exception of those who are reasonably well off, with good income, own their own mortgageless house etc, people are going to struggle massively to pay the kind of bills projected going forward to October and January. A huge cohort will simply not manage at all. That's blindingly obvious. Ignoring this or watering it down, will, with almost 100% certainty, lead to civil unrest and disobedience, as energy bills deliberately go unpaid, direct debits are cancelled en masse, and many seek to re-wire their electric intake by by-passing their meters - causing a fire risk. But that's desperation. If enough consumers do this, it will become impossible to police and we risk partial societal breakdown. Also, I don't think there's time to faff about trying to determine who's a higher earner etc, and should pay more. It's too long winded and complicated. Has to be a freeze across the board.

Baldwin's probably erroneous description for lot No 683 at their auction No 52: 25th September 2007:- Was this just a matter of automatically accepting a description of many decades long standing, on the assumption it must be right? There does seem to be a marked absence of critical thinking in saying, "this is undoubtedly a proof", although in fairness they also had many hundreds of other coins to consider, and wouldn't have had the time to delve deeply into every little thing.

There's nothing which marks it out as such. That's quite apart from the fact that 1857 is not a known proof year. The strike doesn't look sharp enough either, especially the hair and the worn right breast. Hardly proof standard. Would obviously need to be seen in hand, but personally, I'd say very probably not a proof. Be interesting to know what the original thinking was in accepting as a proof. Could have been bronzed post mint - BM 1513 recorded as such by Peck. He also says on page 405:- Also, just noticed, there's that familiar tell tale die clash mark between the bottom of the hair riband and the pony tail. Again quoting Peck from page 405:-

I see those XR morons have now superglued themselves to the Speaker's chair in the Commons. So much for security. No doubt the police will be asking them how they are, that nobody has said anything which might hurt their feelings, and have offered tea and biscuits.

Along with slow poisoning, shoving dissidents out of high storey windows seems to be a method favoured by the Russian authorities, as a way of bumping someone off.