Peckris

Yes, it's a modern Mint-produced fantasy piece reproducing an actual obverse of Geo III and a pattern penny reverse closely resembling that in Peck 1084. However, I think it's one of the better ones, and the 'darkened proof' appearance is attractive. I got one from eBay for £10 which I considered was worth the outlay.

Don't you mean Royal Mail plc (sold-to-the-highest-bidder)? Last I heard, the Mint had nothing to do with the postal service! There again, both services produce tacky commemoratives for profit, make frequent errors, and ain't wot they used to be, so an understandable mistake.

"Consignment" is total submission per auction. Presumably your two coins would have been fine with others making weight? Yes, I would say so...but that's a remarkably privileged position they find themselves in, that they can turn their nose up at a grand's worth of coins or, putting it a different way, around £300 of profit (buyers & sellers prem.) from handling 2 coins! I was genuinely surprised! Yes, I agree. Unless their clientele is mainly oil sheikhs and Russian oligarchs with $$$ to burn, I can't see how their position is strengthened by refusing perfectly good lots.

Im confused now. The reason i use capsules is because they give more protection than 2x2 flips. In 2x2s coins are protected only by very thin plastic layer. My main concern is coin rubbing capsule walls. Even if capsule is only 1mm bigger, coin still have some play inside. Will plasctic rub/wear/mark a coin? Flips aren't "very thin plastic" - they are robust enough to protect a coin's surface from anything except sharp sudden violent attacks with a metal implement. iHowever,f you insist on capsules, don't get ones you have to force the coin into - that will cause more damage. As for 'looseness' damage, that won't occur if 1) you don't shake the capsule and 2) you put some protection such as felt into the bottom of the capsule.

I order one as well, perhap it will be possible to defuse the leds somehow. Well Gary there may well be a couple of these being sold on the Suffolk car boot scene in the near future. I think with other peoples input these could be a winner. Diffusers,background,lighting position etc Copper coins maybe suitable,especially light chocolate coloured beauties. Unfortunately the software is only written for Windoze

"Consignment" is total submission per auction. Presumably your two coins would have been fine with others making weight?

It was a fascinating item. Moreover, for those who have it, there is a great article on the subject in the 2014 coin yearbook at page 17. Gorgeous design for the 50p reverse, which in my opinion would have been better than the one they did use. It was - I'm glad we got the link. Thanks ski. And for once, we get a decent 50p design in place of recent commem abominations. Faraway is close at hand in images of elsewhere......

You'll be train spotting next.

Obviously your coin as you have added to the description. Its maybe better to get the correct Info first before assuming its a Major error On the other hand, kudos to the seller for coming to the leading experts , getting some facts, and then promptly updating the listing. Would that all sellers were so enterprising!

absolutely sand where you thrown out black, in something infinity. I am as you say. not that is, not there in something. up the down sea.

Hmm. It's less than Fine but from what I can see of it, it looks like a contemporary forgery. The position of Britannia's olive branch in relation to the legend is wrong and so are the ribbons behind George's bust. If you're interested in N American "evasion" issues, this may be one of them, with the error legend being deliberate. By the way, contemporary forgeries and evasions are amongst the most common 18th Century coppers. They were mass produced.

I'd agree 100% with what Declan said. Doubling is extremely common on the Victorian copper series. But if it was double STRUCK, you'd see it also on Victoria's portrait. It's a handsome series, so your interest in it will be well rewarded I'm sure. If you haven't already, try and get a GEF example or better, with lustre. 1853/54/55/58 are the most affordable.

I've got the LMS Stanier 4-0-2 'Duke' series number 0397 - I believe 0398 was as high as they went? I must get up to Crewe sometime and check it out. It would be good to get the full series.

That's the one David! Though I just checked, and mine doesn't have that rainbow AT on the reverse These must be from the same series : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Dads-Army-Novelty-Bank-Notes-/281191985982?pt=UK_Coins_Banknotes_GL&hash=item417859333e Mine also comprise a £5 'Bank of Fulham' Arthur Daley, a £10 'Bank of Torquay' Basil Fawlty, and a £50 'Bank of Wales' Charles and Di.

Only £30 markup on a £20 item - a veritable bargain - not. I wonder if they would take a George Best Fiver for it? I can outbid you - a Basil Fawlty tenner "Si"-plus one Siberian Hamster. Strangely, nothing comes up on Google Images, nor the Arthur Daley variant, nor the Charles & Di, nor the "Nine Bob Note" ... yet I have an example of each, sold to me by Windsor Coins at a fair about 12 years ago. I know I'm not imagining it because I sold several of them at my antiques centre display!

Gosh! You have to admire how they've got the coin to match the holographic label on the slab! Been removed!I'm still seeing it! Me too. The seller obviously belongs to the "If You've Already Put Up A Picture Of The Slab, Put Up Another Upside-down" school of eBayers.

I think the problems arise when it's a specialist field with little general encyclopedic source material - which is certainly true of coins: while positively bursting at the seams with tomes on this or that area of numismatics, it lacks a decent general reference source. The Wikipedia editors are therefore a bit stuffed when leaning on contributors for citations, if there aren't any readily to hand. Rob, is this the brockage mistake? "In coin collecting, brockage refers to a type of error coin in which one side of the coin has both the normal image and a mirror image of the opposite side impressed upon it." That is a really stupid mistake - how can one side of the coin feature both conditions? And what's on the other side? You are free to edit that yourself Rob, or I could. (Edited: in fact, I just did!) Yes, but isnt that true of Predecimal.com too. Who would guess that that had anything to do with lsd. That's a good point, though marginally less generic.

Yes, good comparison. I've changed my mind now - it definitely looks suspect.

Go for it Scott! I don't agree that Wikipedia is rubbish at all! Anyone know of a better (free) on-line encyclopedia? It has some errors yes, but much of what we thought was true 10 years ago is now incorrect. My feelings exactly. It's very difficult indeed to get errors past the Wikipedia editors as they require everything to be "cited" and will flag up all instances where "citation needed". It seems a lot more stringent than your average published 'pedia.

Only £30 markup on a £20 item - a veritable bargain - not. I wonder if they would take a George Best Fiver for it? I can outbid you - a Basil Fawlty tenner

The trouble is, it's too generic. It says nothing about the owner's name and/or business or what particular aspect of coins the website is about. IMO it would be like someone specialising (either as collector or dealer) in vintage BMWs, having a domain name of "automobiles.com". It would be good for a general educational site about coins, their history, etc .. if Wikipedia didn't already exist

I'm not so sure? It could equally be a circulated specimen that's later been cleaned. Also, the photo doesn't inspire confidence - there appears (as so often) to be a colour cast. It could also be a 'touch piece' that's been carried around in a wallet - which would explain the knocks and wear - and occasionally taken out and rubbed - which would explain the cleaned look. I think a modern forgery would do a much better job than that.

LOL - you didn't read, VS!! That halfcrown is a proof, and one of the finest coins I own! Remember that 1911 proof florin of Dave's you all cooed over a while back? Well, it's the equal of that, if not even better. Just a pity that a scan can't show its true beauty.

If it's a stinker of an AT specimen, then it's not a "must have" for me, by definition. I do have ugly pieces in my collection, but only because either 1) I got them long long ago or 2) they were so cheap I couldn't resist. AFAIK, I don't have any obvious AT examples.