1949threepence

Mine too - and therein lies the problem. A reluctance to go for a re-print because of that. Probably explains why it's not happened. However, as long as there are some in existence, albeit expensive and very hard to get, it's not too much of a problem. I'm not sure about that. You may be right of course, but I can't say I've seen any decline in interest. If there is it may perhaps reflect a lack of technical knowledge amongst the newer collectors, who will no doubt catch up in time. Any rate, as you say, it'll be interesting to see.

That one drives me up the wall. Another annoying one "your" instead of "you're". Oh and "sort after area" (which I've seen in an estate agent's ad) instead of "sought after area". I've never said it this way myself, but in the part of Essex I come from, the common speech parlance for "university" is "univers IT E", as in "I've got a place at univers IT E".

Can't be 100% certain, but from the appearance I'd say more probable than not, that it hasn't been cleaned. Need a better pic.

If anyone wants to look up an old Spink Numismatic circular, you can get a copy of any one (or part of one) you want for a small fee, from the Fitzwilliam Museum library. That's where I got my 1895 scan about the small date 1857 last year. The link to the Spink circulars list, which start on page 101 is here Just e mail this address and ask for the one you want. They'll let you know the nominal charge:-> licensing@fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk As far as Spink themselves, you'd get more sense from the cat. @Mr T - you might find the above useful info.

Thanks for the above Ian. Once again, fantastically useful information. Interesting you say that not many were collecting Bramah variations at that time. Do you think that Bramah has had something of a renaissance since then? I must admit, I don't see him referred to very often - only by the more experienced sellers. It's a pity his book has only one edition and is so rare. Many, probably most, must have been lost or destroyed since the original publication in 1929, over 90 years ago, and we are left with mainly high priced ex library copies. Maybe there should be a re-print of his book. Copyright expires 70 years after the author's death, and as Bramah died in 1942, that 70 years was reached in 2012. I wonder if Rotographic would entertain this idea. Or maybe those who own a copy of the original book would prefer to keep things the way they are. But of course, whatever the reason, you are spot on, as it's clear that very few DFF's of even 1844 are available nowadays. Between 2007 and 2012, it would not have been too difficult to get one. So the figures are conclusive, then and now.

Thanks Richard. I would say that is is, without doubt, the most difficult of the circulated Victoria copper penny series to obtain. Even more so than the 1854/3 and the 1854 no colon variety. Thanks to Ian I've now bought one, but there were none on the open market. Obviously the 1843 is a rare penny in and of itself. Ian's figures showed that maybe just over 11 in every 100 1843 pennies extant, is a DFF type, which considerably amplifies that already existing rarity.

Thanks a lot Ian, much appreciated. Will now be saving exclusively for the last piece in the jigsaw. Ah, the scarcer no stop before first W. Yes indeed. Although only seen two, the one I bought, and another one currently on offer with Coopers Coins. So they're also few and far between.

Yeah, but not everybody will. Just those who might be interested. I would if it was me. But fair point, I hadn't looked at it in that way.

Very pleased to obtain one of the last pieces of the jigsaw in the Victorian copper penny series I've been collecting for the last year. It's an 1843 DFF Bramah 3b type, in perhaps near VF. Private buy agreed with Ian a day or two ago, and just received today. Despite a careful lookout and a daily dedicated search of e bay 1843's since last April, I haven't previously seen one. Nor any at auction. Over the last 17 years, 4 have been sold at LCA, in 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2018, but they were all of very low grade, sub fine. This specific variety is a rarity within a rarity, as 1843 is scarce to begin with. If I'd spurned this opportunity I might have been waiting a long time for another. So many thanks to Ian.

You're probably right. Maybe the best way is to wait for a few months, buy another, and see if you can spot the difference.

Chatting to a friend in the town center parking lot recently, and we both said how much we disliked so many Americanisms creeping in. Not to mention how badly some of the automobiles were parked. We were having a good chat, but then a call came in on my cellphone so had to stop.

Another thought comes to mind. Would the intention be to issue a completely new set on receipt of the old one? If so, what would happen to the old sets? Moreover, why not just issue a new package, and ask buyers to destroy the old packages? I'm afraid I'd be asking all these awkward questions merely to inconvenience them in the same way they intend to inconvenience you. Then when you get the usual generic response (as you assuredly will do), you can contact them again to say they still haven't answered your questions, and until they do you won't consider returning the package. It's really good when they want something of you, and you've got the whip hand for once.

No, but the fact that RM have asked you to return it, means you should definitely keep it. What sort of company would ask you to return the entire thing - with the time and inconvenience that entails, plus the cost - merely for a "minor printing/spelling mistake"? Might be interesting to see if you get a reply that makes logical sense (I know that's stretching it a bit in the 21st century) if you contact them and ask what the minor error is.

Sadly the BBC is no longer the bastion of impartial reporting either. Moreover, whilst they would insist they were a wholly inclusive organisation, when was the last time you heard, for example, an Essex, Scouse, Birmingham, Newcastle or West Country accent among its national newsreaders? No shortage of received pronunciation or Scottish accents, but not much else.

We can all learn from it, Martin. In scrupulous fairness to you, I have seen similar heads up posts in the non private part of the forum, go unremarked upon. The problem is the very large amount of non member traffic through the forum, as can be seen if you ever click on the online users link. Even at 3am our time, as it reaches a global audience. Maybe @TomGoodheart could delete the post. Although he's not on here that frequently, and apart from Chris Perkins, we never see the others at all. Or once in a blue Moon. Although if you PM'd one, an e mail is sent out, which they might well see.

I always thought that "data" was one of those words, like "sheep", which acted both as singular and plural. Just looked it up and it appears that "data" is, as you say, the plural, and "datum" the singular - who knew? Well obviously you did, but I must plead ignorance as I have never once heard the word "datum" before. Now I know.

Say what?

Yes it's a beauty isn't it, and the apostrophe is well pronounced. That's well above average in terms of condition.

Knowing the type's history, as just alluded to, I actually did look at both BRITT AND IMP, several times at each as it happens. Concluded that it was far more probable than not that it wasn't a Gouby X, but still decided to go for it out of curiosity, plus the fact that it was cheap and better than my current ordinary 1911, so had nothing to lose - as stated in an earlier post.

I agree, it's completely wrong. As you say, two totally different meanings which could potentially cause confusion. "Distinctly unusual" might be a better way to put it.

Both I's are to a gap. It's interesting you say that Pete, as all the references to the hollow neck variety, pre Gouby, are of the I of IMP to a border tooth, not the I of BRITT. The earliest reference I can find is Court in September 1972, but no doubt it was discovered prior to that. Gouby doesn't even mention the type in his 1986 book, which covers pennies from 1860 to 1970. But he now says the I of BRITT pointing to a tooth is the determining factor. Although both I's point to a tooth on the variety, so the net effect is the same either way. . Freeman just refers to hollow necks in 1911 and 1912. I've never seen one from 1912. Peck makes no reference.

Plus the ones further round look thicker. I bought it anyway because it was a reasonable price and it's better than my current 1911, so I knew I had nothing to lose. Didn't think it was, but was worth a look if only for comparison purposes. But this is my pic of the same obverse. You can immediately see the difference. The moral being, when it comes to border teeth and things pointing to them, pics can be extremely deceptive.

What is the proportion of incorrect English usage, to correct. You do the math (sorry couldn't resist) [pedant mode] shouldn't that be ensure? [/pedant mode]

Why did you decide to give up on collecting, out of interest?

Gouby X or optical illusion? link