1949threepence

Or unsold lot 232? The 1854 he is supposedly selling is a PT, and 232 is an unsold, also a PT. Whereas the unsold lot 229 is an OT.

I've got a reply - see screenshot. It's self explanatory, but is factually incorrect as the coin in the pic is owned by, and resides with Richard. Judging by the aggressive tone in the replies you received, Jerry, he's very much on the defensive, having been well and truly caught out.

Yes, not having a freetext box, or having one that cuts you off before you've finished, is truly irritating. Maybe it's because their agents are too thick to understand what's written, or more likely, English isn't their first language in many cases, or possibly it's due to many illiterate offerings from the public, or a combination of both. Either way it means that much of the time you can't get your message across, and/or that "none of the above" applies to the preset options. I did have the misfortune to speak to one of their agents in a rare successfully made call a few years back. I couldn't work out whether the individual was frighteningly stupid, or deliberately taking the wotsit.

Just out of interest what's your association with the coin? Seems a bit of a random thing to suddenly pick up on and recognise the previous provenance from such relatively hidden clues. DNW gave no indication in the write up to Lot No 184. But yes, an act of vandalism by a complete idiot is no exaggeration.

Thanks Jerry.

Very pleased with this 1857 small date penny which has just arrived from the US. Worked out to about £276 which I reckon is a pretty good deal for such a nice item. Not easy to get so good. NGC MS 63, now busted out of its slab.

@blakeyboy sent you a PM.

The number of times I've just missed out on getting a decent F148 is getting ridiculous. I've also got an 1856 OT, but only in fine. £975, which for an UNC with 70% lustre isn't at all bad. You won't find anything on line for Dave Craddock. He's a bit old school and doesn't have a website - e mails out his lists about once every 4 or so months. I'm at work at the moment, but when I get home I will send you his e mail address and phone No so you can get added on. Unless somebody does it in the meantime.

Scroll up the thread, Richard. It's further up. Posted by @mick1271

Consistently over £3k. Shame about the verd as otherwise not in bad shape. Be good to see the obverse.

Looks distinctly like a F192A, 1922, reverse of 1927.

The ones I wanted (although I was about to cash in my £2k's worth of premium bonds to get them) were the 1856 OT in A UNC/GEF, and the 1897 F148 high tide UNC with 70% lustre.

The irony being that in that condition...what, GVF, maybe NEF? it would be by far the best known if it were really a die No 3 under date, and worth probably about £6k, I'd say. On a different note you have to be lightning quick off the mark these days to get what you want. Dave Craddock's new list was e mailed out on Wednesday evening, but I never noticed it until Friday evening. There were two coins on it that I was seriously interested in. But when I rang Dave on Saturday morning, they'd both already gone. An object lesson in keeping a very close eye on your e mails.

So that may explain why I've been stung twice for customs duty on successive slabbed coins from the USA. Whereas the raw coins I've received from there (co-incidentally or otherwise) have arrived free of duty. Although how they would know whether the coin was slabbed or not, without opening the envelope, I don't know. The packages have simply said "numismatic item".

If so, the buyer will be in for a severe disappointment. Always best to compare with a verified example of the real thing before you commit yourself to buy anything with a degree of uncertainty attached to it.

Can't see one, unfortunately. Incidentally, the one above says its designed for the i pad, but it works just as well on an android device. Just installed it on my phone.

Even more interesting is that my latest order from the United States will be diverted to Royal Mail once it arrives. I've been following the item on USPS tracker, which yesterday showed the item at Los Angeles airport (presumably ready for a flight to the UK - although given LA is the West Coast of America, would be a long haul flight) - link I'm not sure whether the time given on the USPS website (6:32am) is local time, or whether corrected to GMT. I'd think it more probable than not, that it's local time. But anyway, that was 19th November, today's the 20th, so I decided to put the number in the parcelforce track and trace, and got the message that the item was being dealt with by Royal Mail (see screenshot). I look on the RM track and trace, and see this So essentially, still not fully clear as to why one is dealt with by Parcelforce and the other by Royal Mail - UNLESS it has to do with the type of USPS service opted for. This was the cheaper one, although the approximate arrival dates were virtually the same. The last parcelforce one, was the more expensive (didn't get an option), and last year's RM one was also the cheaper tracked USPS version. Anyway, whichever, my advice is to check progress every single day, as you just can't rely on people to do their jobs properly.

Although the price is a bit of a giveaway. If it were truly an 1863 die no 3 under date in that higher grade condition, it would already be a lot higher as more experienced collectors realised what it was. In auction it would almost certainly go for probably > £6k, as it would easily be the best of the very small cohort.

Here's an original:-

Hmmm, that's an interesting one, since the 1853 plain and italic dates do attract dealer attention, but apart from Gouby's website there is no reference detailing variants of that date. As far as I know anyway. So the conclusion has to be that the difference in 1853 date style is sufficiently eye catching to a critical mass of dealers and collectors, such that it's become widely recognised. ***NERD AND PROUD OF IT***

The moment they open the packet, and then frantically look through a magnifier to know for sure they've been shafted. Even then some would be in denial.

I've noticed many dealers note some date styles in their sales. The obvious ones being 1857, 1858 & 1859 small and large date. Also the 1853 plain and italic 5. But little else, and not date widths. Surprising that the 1856 PT date size variances aren't taken into consideration. Maybe because they're scarce so don't need a further selling point. I believe I'm correct in saying that the 1856 OT only has the small date.

If that's a three, I'm Mother Teresa.