1949threepence

Lot 1176, from March this year - the 1918H "once cleaned, now retoned". Looks absolutely awful.

Was dreadful - sickening actually. They lost as a team. Pointing the finger at different players in such a situation is not only spiteful (and racist in this case), but also extremely stupid. If anyone was to blame it was Southgate for making tactical errors in the final. Rashford should have been brought on for Kane or Sterling in the second half. Then, had he been needed in a shoot out, he'd have at least been warmed up. As it was the penalty was the only action he'd seen for the entire tournament. Even then, he only just missed. A fraction to the right and it would have gone in, as Donnarumma had gone the wrong way. The racism even more moronic because without Sterling, I doubt we'd have progressed beyond the group stage.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, but what's it got to do with my comment which you quoted?

Rather lose to the Italians than the Germans or French.

I thought the same. They've probably had one or two shouts of "cleaned" by winners trying to get some cashback. So now, where there's the slightest doubt, they're employing the term as a caveat.

The operative words are "sometime cleaned". If a coin has been obviously cleaned, we don't have the remotest clue when it was cleaned. It could have been in 1900, and still re-toning 121 years later. Is there any evidence that a cleaned coin (other than with warm water and a soft damp cloth, perhaps) ever fully recovers?

Interesting optical illusion. If you move your eyes around whilst looking at it, there is apparent movement. If you stare straight ahead unblinking, it stays as it does in reality - static.

Thanks for the link. I went for it because although you see many part lustred Victorian copper pennies, it's not often you see a full lustred one of any date, let alone an 1856. It's a shame about the mark, but I'm looking past that to the overall condition.

Very pleased with lot No 543 won at the DNW auction earlier this week. It's an 1856 small date PT penny in virtually BU, with extensive lustre. There is unfortunately a detracting mark on the reverse, without which I think it would have fetched a bit more. But still a really nice coin.

It is ambiguous, not to mention meaningless. I'd be amazed if it's come from the vendor, so it almost certainly has to be a made up term by DNW staff. Precisely what's caused them to suggest that the 1869 was "wiped" and what it means anyway, is open to debate. Looked a very nice specimen to me. Certainly no obvious attempt at cleaning.

Oh dear - I think at this point I'll retire for the evening. That was a real mistake not a typo. My F82 was the Alderley, Ian. I did get my F79 in Feb 2017, but it was from "The Coinery" when he was posting on here, No I didn't see it in person, but the pic looked superb. Given the number of coins that DNW have said "sometime cleaned" or "wiped" this time, I get the feeling they are just covering their backsides. Not necessarily because they are certain.

I've been working from home since February, and deliberately logged out for a break near the time my bids were due, so I couldn't be disturbed. I'd had the auction on since the start, something which would not have been possible in the office.

Exactly that Richard. I meant the F1. The F7 was a bargain at £500, given that it looks virtually flawless with magnificent lustrous toning. Yes, the 1864 was a great buy. As was the 1869 (lot No 553) which went for £1300. That too was a peach, which if I'd had some leftover cash, I'd have gone for. Interestingly, the F82 (lot 556) went for £480. It's about on a par with the same coin from the Alderley collection, which I got for £250 in 2014 off e bay, without juice.

Anybody been following the DNW auction today? It's been a tad disappointing price wise. Many of the coins, some really nice I thought, have gone unsold, including a superb Freeman 7, and predominantly the lots were going for inside their estimates. The auctioneer had to tempt the room (yes, back in the room now) and the internet with a sub estimate starting price, on a number of occasions. I won my two lots easily, well inside the bids, and seemingly unopposed. Although there may have been a couple or so pre auction bids. That said, the Alan Palmer collection sold much better than the coins that followed.

Might be one of these two Jerry, depending on whether or not the item comes in via Royal Mail/Parcelforce, or another courier. You can use form BOR 286 to reclaim import VAT and customs duties if your items were delivered by Royal Mail or Parcelforce. For other couriers you can use form C285. SOURCE: click/tap here

So with regard to whether the coin is over 100 years old or not, presumably they establish that when they bust the packet open? Or do they? As usual the entire process seems shrouded in a weird mystery, without explicit facts and figures.

Thinking about it, you could just put your cat in the loft for a couple of hours.

Thanks. I'll post a pic when (and if) I get it.

Thanks. It's not in the top grade league, but it's about VF and problem free. £78 hammer + 9% buyer's premium = £85.02. Not bad in my book.

Well I can't say this coin is definitively "lost" and I'm hoping it does get returned, but just unfortunate that it's gone wrong. Will the real Mr Hopkins please stand up !!! Mistakes happen. It's an 1831 .w.w penny in not bad condition for a very reasonable price, which I won at the June Kleeford coin auction.

It would have to be extremely rare for me to do so. Ironically enough I have noticed more times than co-incidence would accommodate, that a very rare coin on offer has indeed been cleaned at some point. Although you often read "sometime cleaned, now retoning", surely the tell tale signs would still be there 100 years later.

That rings a bell. I don't recall us ever having such an issue in Chelmsford, but someone I knew lived in Bishops Stortford (which is smack on the Herts/Essex border) and I'm sure she mentioned something about not being able to get rid of a protected species causing problems. I remember thinking it was odd that mice were protected but didn't continue the conversation. She might well have been referring to the edible dormouse.

It's interesting isn't it, that the Royal Mint's view of the overdate being 8/2, predates this article by about 4 years. Given Bamford's scepticism about the 8 being over any figures other than a 3 or a 6, it either suggests complete dismissal of the RM conclusion on his part, or an unawareness of it. My money's on the latter, as surely he would have referred to it in the article, had he known. He does indicate that the 3 used in the 1853 dies was the wrong type of 3 for the redundant 1853 dies to have been used for overdating in 1858. So maybe he thought that the 1853 dies would have been already disposed of in 1858, and therefore not available for use anyway. As a footnote, since the 1858/6 is always over a small date, the RM must surely have used the 1856 small date die. They obviously kept that.

Indeed so - take a quick look at the post I made on 22.1.21, shown above. There was a letter from the Royal Mint in about April 1970 to a Mr Shirley of Manchester, confirming that in their view, the queried overdate coin was over a 2. Gouby also agrees with this. Unfortunately they didn't show the letter, but it presumably still exists as your info above strongly suggests.

Managed to get hold of a March 1974 Coin Monthly, which was one I suddenly realised was missing. Lo and behold there is an article in there about the 1858/3 penny, by one L.J.Bamford, who I assume is actually the late Laurie Bamford. Excellent article which I've photographed so it can be read by those possibly interested in it. He also mentioned the 1854/3.