Accumulator

F.165 I make it. Streets ahead of mine though. yes, mistyping on my part F164A in any condition is still on my want list, as is F169 David I make it F165 too. Have been looking for a decent one and missed it. Well done!

I accept that there are different views on this, but what I find difficult to swallow are the two Edwards, Millibandwagon and Balls (a short description as much as a name), saying that they would have done 'better for Britain' than DC on Thursday night. Though never actually offering a single alternative strategy. It's much the same with Nick 'have you got a job for me Dave' Clegg. Over the last few months the ardent Europhiles have discovered that their pan-European dream is about as workable as a beachwear business at the north pole and frankly have nowhere to hide their embarrassment.

Ah, yes... I see it now. Was originally looking with my iPhone but pics much clearer on the iMAC. Thanks for pointing this out! P.s. not my coin Peter, but a good idea next time I have one for sale

Not so much a laugh, but how on earth has this 1860 penny 3+D (as far as I can see from the rather low res pics) reached £550 with 15 hours to go? Am I missing something?

Through the political ideology of a bunch of European ex-domestic politicians looking to extend their career and legacy, rather than for any pragmatic reason, the EC was morphing from a free trade zone into the United States of Europe. None of us ever voted for that and most of us didn't want it. DC had no choice but to stand up against the EU federalist bandwagon and represent the will of his own people. That's his job and on Thursday night it's what he did. In this, he has my full support.

I'm sure a few of you saw the A/UNC 1897 O'NE penny which sold on eBay last night. I'm not really keen on these die fault varieties but it has a Freeman number so wanted it for the collection. I was going out so left a max bid of 700 and thought I stood a reasonable chance, only to find it went for 1220 after 18 bids! There's still plenty of money out there for bronze coins then! Off to London Coins Bracknell today.

It's one thing spotting a mis-attribution. It's quite another getting it rectified after pointing it out. As with other areas of life, people seem unwilling to take it on board when their errors are pointed out, even if supported by hard evidence. I have dropped CGS an email pointing out the error and will be interested to see if I get a reply. I don't really mind as I didn't buy the coin but am still curious to hear their response.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can see, it doesn't have a Freeman number, not, at any rate in the 1985 edition. On page 51, all he says is:- "Some specimens of 1897 with reverse B are found with a small circular dot between the 'O' and 'N' of 'ONE'. This feature occura as a result of damage to the die - a specimen showing only a small crack on this area has been found. It's beyond me why anybody would pay over £1200 for a die error. It's F147. On page 51 there's a note saying 'See below", leading to the description you have just quoted. I agree it's not that obvious. The Freeman number makes it collectible, rightly or wrongly. It's also in Spink.

Rob, Peter, I agree with you to a point. Mis-attributions by others are one of the ways we expand our collections at a reasonable cost. Certainly I'm not complaining over what I did pick up! Of more concern is the significant error made by CGS on the slabbed 1908. If they are selling the ultimate authentification and grading service but they can't even make a fairly simple attribution (which as I understand is checked by at least two graders) then that' has to be a worry.

I didn't win lot 1170 which was a CGS slabbed 1908 penny described as F165 with dies 2 + C, so intended to go for one of the two unslabbed coins on the Sunday. Once at the auction I inspected the two pennies and found they were incorrectly attributed and were actually 2 + D. Today I checked the photos of the slabbed 1908 and found that was incorrectly attributed too! That's a pretty fundamental mistake for CGS to make. Interestingly, despite pointing out the error prior to auction of the two unslabbed coins and having their expert agree with me, they still went under the hammer without comment so someone is going to be disappointed! Apart from the peck 1132, which was actually 1133, mentioned in another thread I discovered today that another purchase had been given the wrong Freeman reference. All a bit shoddy, despite my positive comments about the sale in general above.

Again, no immediate help to you Dave but I've registered a domain name and taken a cheap web hosting package. I've created a basic website so I have instant access to my pics on line from anywhere and also have an off-site backup (on the hosting company's server). The whole package costs only a few tens of pounds a year.

I think F/GF is a fair assessment. I don't have an 1849 either, so it's going to be a big spend when the time comes to fill that particular gap. I'm honestly not sure I could live with this coin, though some others may just be happy to have something in the tray for a difficult year.

Looks like the 11 leaves to me not least because it has 11 leaves. Also the tie points straight out and the dot below the bust is present. My thoughts exactly. Amazed they got this wrong, but rather pleased to obtain an UNC Peck 1133 with a fair amount of lustre at a reasonable price. I now have an EF spare which will probably go to eBay unless anyone is interested? Is it 1133 or 1133A - i.e are the dots on the rock incuse or raised? The latter is easily missed too and given the indifference to accurate attribution of the obvious bits, with a bit of luck you could get an added bonus. I picked up an example of the latter (Adams 36) at London Coins in Sept. 2007 for just over 40% of what it sold for four years earlier, simply because it was now in a CGS 78 slab which displeased the number brigade rather than the description in Spink's catalogue which stated it was the best example the cataloguer had seen of the variety. Whether it's the best or not, I'll live with someone else's opinion every day for bargains like that. I could have missed that Rob! Unfortunately, though, the three dots are incuse (see below). Well done on finding yours.

Imperial is at number 14 in the 2012 table... whereas Durham is at number 3 followed by LSE and Bath. Not that it generally matters as these league tables differ vastly from one to another across the publishers and each one takes into account different things. Best of luck with your daughter's interview! It just shows how much these tables vary (even between The Times and Sunday Times). The Times Higher Education rankings for 2011/12 have Imperial at 3rd in UK/Europe and 8th in the world: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/aboutimperial/league_rankings As you say, it doesn't really matter when you're talking about the top 20 or so universities. It matters a lot when you are comparing with much lower down the list.

Looks like the 11 leaves to me not least because it has 11 leaves. Also the tie points straight out and the dot below the bust is present. My thoughts exactly. Amazed they got this wrong, but rather pleased to obtain an UNC Peck 1133 with a fair amount of lustre at a reasonable price. I now have an EF spare which will probably go to eBay unless anyone is interested?

Picked this up at London Coins auction today, attributed as Peck 1132 with 10 leaves. I bought because I was sure it was the rarer Peck 1133 with 11 leaves. What do others think? Apologies, I only have the catalogue photo at the moment.

Picked up one or two nice pennies today. Also pointed out a couple of attribution errors which was a little frustrating as I was looking for one of the coins in particular. All in all, a well run sale with incredibly helpful and knowledgeable assistants conducting the viewings.

What do you think about Durham? The Sunday Times league table ranks it at #3 and catching up quick to Oxbridge! Umm... no. Imperial, London (my alma mater) was at no.3 and third in Europe in the 2011/12 tables. A few years ago it split Oxbridge by coming in at number 2. Durham is very good though.

Didn't actually see that, whats the number or link? It's this one Dave: 170735096854 I've been wishing all day I got it! Never mind.

Interestingly, if the find is declared as treasure trove and the Crown pay a cash reward there are no tax implications. If it is not deemed as treasure trove then CGT must be paid by whoever keeps the find (if it's value is over £6,000). In the case of gold or silver, presumably hidden for later retrieval by persons unknown (thus meeting the required tests for treasure trove) then it would almost certainly be best to report it unless the aim was to avoid sharing the proceeds with the landowner. In the case of bronze though...

Welcome Debbie... (and, as Dave said, welcome back Peckris!) For some strange reason the collecting of coins (or stamps for that matter) seems to appeal primarily to the male mind. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing more ladies would join us in this fascinating hobby and very much hope you maintain your interest and post here again.

As John says, way too dire. here's a comparison (F42) if it helps you:

Applicants can pick five universities to apply to. I think each of her choices has a good reputation and offers positives. Oxford has the advantage of being known worldwide, handy as she's doing languages and wants to travel. Plus accomodation is cheap(er)! Personally, I liked Nottingham as they seem to have thought more about how to arrange the year abroad and charge less for it. But in the end it has to be somewhere she feels comfortable, I guess and the few days spent at interview will give her a chance to find out a bit more from current students. My daughter finished at Nottingham last year and I know a few others who also went there - all spoke enthusiastically of their time there, but all were into medicine or sciences. I don't know any of her former schoolfriends who did languages, so wouldn't like to offer an opinion, but as long as they are red brick universities she'll be ok. I have a nephew who recently studied linguistics at Oxford (Hertford). Whilst It comes down to college and course, Oxbridge (live Harvard, Yale etc.) still have the name and reputation which carries so much weight, particularly overseas

I'm sure that we can all believe that this sort of fraud occurs, but proving it is another matter. Ghost bids from the floor are risky for an auction house as it's possible for a sharp-eyed spectator to see that there was no actual bidder. I suspect that auction houses wishing to maximise their profits would prefer to invent absentee underbidders or to employ shill bidders in the audience. I know the only time I even bought a coin from Torex I happened to get it for my maximum bid to the penny, lucky what. The time I lost a coin again at Torex I was the under bidder to someone on the floor who got the coin for the same bid as me. That's almost exactly what happened to me with another auction house. I left proxy bids on two lots. The first won, but at my maximum (funny that, I thought) the second lost to a bidder in the room, also at my maximum. Apparently room bidders take precedence despite my bid being the first (having been submitted several days before). Room bids don't always take precedence. You can win or lose at the same maximum bid. It's pure luck and depends where the bidding starts and on the bid increment. Imagine that the bid increment is £10 and your maximum proxy bid is £100. Scenario 1: Starts at £80, room bid £90, your bid £100 => you win assuming nobody wishes to bid higher Scenario 2: Starts at £70, room bid £80, your bid £90, room bid £100 => you lose as £100 is your maximum I take your point Nick, but when I questioned the result the auction house referred me to their terms of sale which stated categorically that if two equal bids were received then the one in the room always took precedence, not the earliest received, which would have seemed fair.

Welcome back John!