Accumulator

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).

I would probably be viewed as a capitalist ‘insider’ and would instinctively share Rob or Peter’s view on business and society, but rather than argue that case further I’d like to throw in something else. Our beloved media (The Mirror, The Sun, The Daily Star, ‘True-Life’ chat magazines and a few hundred crappy free tv channels) have managed to promote a new and deep-rooted culture where fame, celebrity and get-rich-quick are elevated way above genuine hard work and success. Any city banker or corporate CEO, whether you despise them or not, has worked his or her way up through a tough education and incredible competition over many years to reach their current precarious position. These are the bad guys apparently. On the other hand, lottery winners, X-Factor wannabes, soap star characters, footballers wives, Paris Hilton and the rest of their ilk are held up as role models for the masses. I believe that this hollow celebrity culture has far more to answer for than any city banker or Footsie 100 CEO in creating a society where unless instant gratification is available, nothing (work included) is worth doing.

Very good! Thank you for 'pointing' it out

I've found one or two items but not enough to make it worth attending so will probably just submit a few e-mail bids, as previously.

.

And here is another that looks very similar: scratch on neck, scatch in front of top lip and even has the same obverse rim nick at around 7 o'clock. Baldwins, DNW, that's frightening.... We're not talking eBay here!

Apparently.... One of a late 20th century series of Italian tokens depicting facsimile obverses of coins of each Roman emperor and other Roman rulers and relations. The reverse of the token gives the name of the emperor/ruler in modern Italian (in this case CARACALLA IMPERATORE = "Caracalla, Emperor") and dates: dC = "dopo Christo" ("after Christ") and aC = "avanti Christo" ("before Christ"). The dates given on the token in question are for Caracalla's full lifetime.

I honestly don't see how publicising a collection during its creation could reduce the subsequent sale potential? If anything I would have expected it to enhance provenance, particularly where the collection had been used to support the writing of a reference work or been owned by a recognised authority. I can't imagine that ex Freeman or Peck coins would not realise full value. For those of us with lesser collections I think that the internet still provides an opportunity to contribute to the body of knowledge which exists about our hobby. Sites like Tony Clayton's and others, I'm sure, are regularly referred to by many of us. How often have we Googled a coin to find other examples with which to compare one of our own? Over time I imagine that several first and second tier collections will be permanently exhibited on line and become references, like the auction catalogues of the past. When these collections are broken up and sold it, such provenance surely can't reduce their saleability. Its a long term project for me to display my coins on-line (pennies to start with). I just need a few spare sunny days to get the photography done and a few dozen spare winter's evenings to build the site! Spare time being at a premium, it could take quite a while!

That's about it!

Thing is, whoever is ultimately responsible for all this spam, really can't have a lot of intelligence. As a form of advertising it is 100% useless. The only effect it has on nearly all sites, is to irritate both the owners and users, who, by definition, will have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what s being offered ~ and even that pre-supposes they can understand the garbage that forms the advert. There must be a tiny % of idiots who respond to whatever it is. And maybe the profits wrung from that moronity make it all worth it? Moronity would indeed be the collective noun to describe anyone willing to send money to Russia/Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan, or wherever this cyber rubbish emanates, on the vague hope that the junk they were ordering might actually turn up.

Thank you. I'm always on the look out for an unc example so will keep you in mind for the day I do manage to find an upgrade!

A rather red penny, definitely from the KN mint!

I would agree... a lot scarcer! Freeman has '1 + B' as rarity 'N' and '2 + A' as rarity 'R' and VR Court quotes them as 2.6% and 1.4%, respectively, of all 1913s. I'm still looking for both in UNC (anyone selling?).

But I thought the change from A to B reverse in 1913 represents a micro variety, the very mention of which sends you soporific Peckris? :D

I've recently purchased this 1858/3 (?) penny and wonder whether anyone has a similar penny to compare? Michael Gouby's website concludes that the existence of an 8 over 3, as listed by Spink is unlikely. Any thoughts welcome. Obverse

I'm not a hammered man, but I echo your thoughts on how it is that dedicated collectors can see their sold collections become the basis of a standard reference. The other way is to "do a Peck" or "do a Freeman' and publish a reference work. That piece is very handsome by the way - I love the way that realistic portraits appear from later Henry VII onwards as the Renaissance bites, and the kings on coins no longer look like Worzel Gummidge. Hi, maybe on a forum I should be more general as a hobby, we all collect different numismatic material. I also used to collect British pennies and Peck and Michael Freeman and other reference works were my daily assistant. I never did get an 1869 penny. I think I was the first to spot the 1865/3 penny. Silly me never kept it. You have some of the most stunning coins I have ever seen... thank you for sharing them! I don't collect hammered at the moment, but can see the attraction and may well get there one day. I do have an 1869 but it's not the best specimen (unfortunately, someones had a go at cleaning it in the past):

Detail

Reverse

Whilst I agree it would be impossible to better the best of the museum held collections in overall scope, it's still possible to improve on them in the area of varieties. I'm not aware of a museum that has anything like a full collection of, say, 20th century bronze listed by Freeman, let alone that listed by Gouby. I think that's part of the attraction of collecting varieties. Over several years, it's still possible to put together a leading collection of this type without necessarily breaking the bank. For the moment, that's where I am, though I admit to straying into other areas from time to time.

I'm not sure? One's a striking error, the other is a design error. In my eyes, the two things are worlds apart (from a personal 'desirability' point of view). Possibly ~ that one could be up for debate. I'm honestly not sure. I'm only speaking personally. To me a misstrike is a unique curio, no more interesting or valuable than that. Whereas a design error (or die error) is to me very desirable, such as the 1923 florin with the early portrait, or 1946 mint dot penny, or 1944 penny with lustre, or any lettering error, that kind of thing, as there are going to be several examples in various states of preservation, a collectors market for them, plus they feature in numismatic publications and folklore. Surely the 1946 ONE' flaw and an untoned 1944 cannot be considered design errors, or have I misunderstood you? They are striking errors, as the error occurred through faulty production rather than the (intentional) alteration of the die by a 'designer'. I would suggest that the 1903 'open 3' is a design 'error' and collectible, whereas the 1946 ONE' flaw is a striking error and no more than a curio. A more satisfactory categorisation might be: 1) A one off striking error (as with the coin originally posted here) 2) A repeated striking error (as with the 1946 ONE' flaw) and any die crack or disintegration 3) A design 'error' (as with the the undated 20p or 1903 'open 3') Personally I shouldn't generally collect 1) or 2) other than for a sense of completeness when they are listed in reference works. So yes, ok, I admit to collecting the main 2) varieties

Here's the whole reverse. I do love this design, but the slightest wear causes huge damage to the detail.

It's definitely filled with something - the hatching beneath the letters is still very clear. I don't know if it's an I though, but I've never actually seen one. Here's mine for comparison:

I have nothing but admiration for any survivors of WW2 (though let's not be so black and white - even among surviving soldiers some will be genuine heroes, others may have a sorrier or more mundane tale to tell.) They all deserve their pension, and the care of the State. However, despite his no doubt creditable war service, no-one can sanely or reasonably compare the Duke of Edinburgh to any other war survivor. Has he ever had to worry about his financial situation? No. If he is ever ill, does he have to worry that he won't get the best private medicine that money can buy? No. Is he renowned as a man of moderate, sensitive and tolerant views, especially of certain foreign races? No. So, if anyone takes the piss, it's not because of his war service but because of who he has been for the past 60 years. Even so, our remarks (above) were hardly on the level of Hogarth and Rawlinson, were they? No. Not wishing to become embroiled, but my views on the DofE changed dramatically on seeing the BBC's Duke at 90 documentary earlier this year. A man with a great sense of humour, no discernible pomp or arrogance and very dismissive about his own role in any achievement that bears his name. A very tough childhood too. Well worth a watch.

At the risk of a repeat posting

What would we do without you Rob! I think you're right, doing a simple google image search and being careful not to confuse photos of half and full sovereigns produces numerous examples, all without the initials so Spink is misleading.