1949threepence

Theories as to the precise reason why die numbers were placed on a very few pennies of 1863 have been aired on many occasions over the years, both by independent authors and on here. The favourite two being a) to test the die, and b) to identify the individual die operator. But in truth no-one knows for certain, and I hasten to add, are still very much in the dark. Testing the die strength/quality does sound the most plausible option to me, as we know from very well highlighted documentation made at the time, that die strength was a major issue. Although one would have thought that by 1863, many of the problems surrounding dies breaking had been resolved. Nevertheless, die cracks were still frequent at this time, as was die slippage. If it was to ID an individual operator, I'm not sure quite how effective that would be (or the point of it), as staff tend to either leave or move to a different area of the business. I'm sure that was just as much the case in 1863 as it is now. So clearly the initial operator assigned to say, die No 4, might have left a few weeks later, then it would be someone else. Although of course, the new man could easily have been assigned a different number. Nevertheless, we only have 4 numbers to go on, and a vanishingly small number of them. So that suggests - and I don't think there would be any dispute over this - it was a very short lived experiment. Started for no clearly defined reason, and ended again, for no reason apparent to us. As a result of the uncertainty I decided to send an e mail to the Royal Mint enquiring as to whether or not they might know of a possible reason. I knew this was a very, very long shot, as I've absolutely no doubt the same question, or variants of it, have been sent to them on many previous occasions. Also, I knew that to get anywhere, the person dealing with my enquiry would have to extensively interrogate old records from 160 odd years ago, potentially reading a lot of pages, and I wasn't sure how much enthusiasm they'd have for that, or whether in fact they'd just rely on previous stock replies to answer my current enquiry. Obviously one's level of success will vary depending on the skill, intelligence and motivation of that person. Nevertheless, I don't recall ever reading what the Royal Mint's view was of this, hence why I pressed ahead with my enquiry. Here is my enquiry and their reply, which I very much appreciate:- So there we have it - not much. Kudos to them for replying though. I honestly thought it might be forgotten with the pandemic having caused so much disruption. So many thanks to Chris Barker. I did wonder whether to put this in the "More Pennies" thread, but decided to create a new thread, as it might be easier to locate on a google or site search if anyone else makes a similar enquiry. It might well help them. I did wonder whether to just add to the "More Pennies" thread, rather than create a new one. But thought

Court estimated that something like 77% had been reclaimed by 31st March 1972, and although that was specifically in relation to pennies, one would assume by logical extension that similar percentages applied to all other immediately withdrawn denominations. Although people would probably have been in more of a hurry to exchange (or spend pre 15.2.71) halfcrowns, than pennies. My own view is that probably something like 85% to 90% of pre decimal currency was eventually reclaimed and melted down by the Royal Mint. But that's purely an inspired guess. It may be +/- 8 of say 86%. Probably a much higher percentage of some than others went for melt. Many will have been held in collections. Many more would have been shoved away in drawers, old clothes, jam jars etc, and forgotten about. Any other opinions on this question? I think it's an important one as it may provide some clue as to how many of certain dates/varieties remain extant in the present day.

That's odd. I thought I answered this post an hour or so ago, yet it seems to have vanished. Actually said that I never collected halfcrowns and florins. Yes, you're right about the 1920 and 1921 pennies. Many of them have very streaky lustre.

The only post 1920 I had the slightest difficulty obtaining in UNC, was the 1924. All the rest, no problem. Although every 1920 I saw, including the one I have, seemed to have a greyish tinge to it. So I do wonder if that story about used shell casings from WW1 being used as part of the mix, is apocryphal or whether actually true.

Both superb photos Blake. Your garden looks great, as you say a riot of colour. I do like those well stocked gardens. Then the robin pic is just so rural. For such a small bird they're remarkably confident around humans. It was crappy job time for me today. Noticed the number of windows caked in dried on bird muck, and also the drain needed cleaning out. Put it off all day until 7:30pm, and then went out armed with bowl of hot soapy water, sponge and brillo pads. Not the pleasantest of tasks but had to be done, and didn't take too long. Also a bit cooler then with a refreshing breeze. The drain was a lot easier than it normally is, as the detritus was so dry. Managed to remove it all in a few seconds and just rinse the grating. Mostly leaves.

Hmmm, not sure about that to be honest. When I collected 20th century shillings about 10 or 11 years ago, I didn't notice a great deal of difference in difficulty obtaining high grades of George V both pre and post 1920. The really difficult ones were Edward VII, apart from 1902 and 1910.

Interestingly, gold coins are exempt from VAT - link The rest are covered by HMRC notice 362 which basically says that items of numismatic interest over 100 years old, come under the umbrella definition of "antiques" and as such are entitled to a reduced rate of VAT, presumably 5%, although no actual figure is quoted. Unused postage stamps over 100 years old are VAT free, whereas (conversely and by definition, one would assume) franked postage stamps and coins over 100 years old are not, providing they are not a collectors piece or part of a collection - if nothing else, it might be worth getting this latter point clarified with HMRC, as they could all be described as collector's pieces or part of a collection. So on the face of it Ian, unfortunately I think it is VAT at 20% for your banknote.

The fact that the US economy was doing well. But the covid 19 pandemic has really found him out for what he is - a madman. Plus his deliberately incendiary remarks following the cold blooded police murder of George Floyd (and let's be frank, that's exactly what it was) has put the cap on it. Quoting the words of a known Miami racist police chief from 1967, "when the looting starts the shooting starts", was not the most positive and harmonious way forward. Quite the reverse in fact.

I've recently come to the conclusion that Trump is not a full deck of cards mentally.

Good luck Ian.

It's like a maze, Ian, but I did find this bit:- The above is from the government's website here Obviously no idea if your item is over 100 years old, and quite how they draw any meaningful conclusion about whether it's part of a collection or a collector's piece, I've no idea. All items of numismatic interest are potentially part of a collection, so I've no idea what they mean. Nor do they state what the reduced rate of VAT actually is.

Looking at this government advice it appears that any VAT charge is made in advance and applied before you can receive the item. In this case Ian has already taken receipt of the item. However,. despite the government advice, it seems that Fedex routinely bill recipients, post delivery - link to that interestingly the £12 "advancement fee" is generally considered to be a rip off, and should be disputed - this link is very informative on that score Was there any reference to VAT on your original SB invoice, Ian?

OK, so from the list of figures above, which is the actual one which now needs to be paid? If I received that, I'd just assume it was a "for information only" notification, because nowhere does it say "pay this", or words to that effect.

Also the seller could either give their personal phone number out in a message or ask the potential buyer to - or maybe the buyer has already supplied their number in the first personal e bay message to the seller.

I'm no expert on these things, and the invoice above doesn't exactly look simple to work out. In fact looking at it, I wouldn't even know what amount was actually payable. But what strikes me is that the shipping company have come back at you for an additional fee several weeks post delivery. Why wasn't the correct total charged with delivery at the time, and were you advance warned that another sum might be chargeable at a later date? Maybe that's a naive question, I don't know. But I'd be damned annoyed if I got something like that when I thought I'd already paid the due amount in good faith. It's never happened to date for me, and I've had several items delivered by Fedex. Personally, Ian, I'd ask Fedex for chapter and verse before paying. Good luck with receiving a response that's intelligible to a normal person who speaks normal English, if you do decide to go down that route, though.

It does now, but it's obviously been re-set to zero. There were quite a few.

Anyone else notice how often this happens when a really choice piece is on offer:- In this case it was an 1871 penny. A very nice coin. I didn't actually want it myself, but was keeping an eye on what it would fetch, out of interest. It had reached £82 with 5 days to go. I wonder if an offer is made privately to the vendor, that's then dealt with outside e bay? link to item

Cheap rubbish. They should be able to withstand a bit of Sun without falling to pieces.

Thanks - useful info, but although that was obviously going to be the case, I'm just surprised it wasn't actively mentioned anywhere. Maybe she thinks it's so obvious it doesn't need referring to. She may be right. Of course, no in room competition and no real time internet bidding does alter the dynamics somewhat.

Very good

About 10 days to go, and the auction is still (apparently) going ahead as normal at the Grange Hotel, with the public in attendance - link Extraordinary that not one word has been said about the lockdown, and what other arrangements are in place, so close to the event.

They may be short staffed due to the pandemic and lockdown, but if they can't even be arsed to leave a recorded message for callers, with further signposting, they really aren't worth bothering with. That is strongly suggestive of contempt for customers. A message saying the inbox is full is meaningless.

Nothing new there. By the way "think"? that's almost as bad as "could" lol

Couldn't agree more (no reverse pun intended). All guidance, especially any with legal ramifications, needs to be crystal clear and set out in terms which normal people can comprehend. That means not using odd terminology, at variance with conventional use of the English language, which can be open to misinterpretation. erm, what do you mean by "could"? - dunno really, might do, if we feel like it on the day, depends what mood the agent's in, if we can be arsed to bother, if the agent is properly trained. Depends on a range of options which we won't worry your little heads with by bothering to list here, etc etc (along with the words "might" and "may") "Will" - it happens regardless. You know where you stand.

But then you dig a little deeper and you find this which explains the real position. Although no date is given (unless it's in invisible ink), so logically, one must assume it's current policy, not one prospective to an unknown (precise) date in 2021. Although the bit I've emboldened doesn't make sense (to me anyway) if it applies to photos of coins in e bay approved company slabs.