secret santa

Did you not read what I wrote 9 hours ago ? " I have now found the tracking number and interrogation of the Royal Mail system shows that it was delivered on 31/12/20 together with a photograph of the signature of the neighbour who received it." Is that not PROOF ? Together with his photograph of the coin on his website, that seems reasonable proof to me.

I totally agree and always put everything in writing. I've taken screen shots of the RM tracking result as shown above and kept all email correspondence with the buyer and will endeavour to communicate with the RM in print.

My first reply from a solicitor colleague: You had a contract with the buyer and as matters now stand you have supplied the coin and the buyer has failed to pay for it and prima facie to complete the contract he must do so or return the coin The contract you had with Royal Mail is a separate issue and whilst I am not familiar with the specific terms it seems clear that you should return the compensation to them and not to do so may be a criminal offence. Pretty much as Jerry said.

That was what I did yesterday but he wants proof of compensation repayment before he will "act" (with no promise of return/repayment). As you say, I'm in an uncomfortable position.

I have now found the tracking number and interrogation of the Royal Mail system shows that it was delivered on 31/12/21 together with a photograph of the signature of the neighbour who received it. So, I wonder whether the Royal Mail will now join the dots ?

read my post above ! To save you doing that, I'll copy it here: I have just found the correspondence from the Royal Mail that accompanied their payment of compensation. The claim form that I completed confirms that "I undertake to advise Royal Mail Group Ltd immediately if any lost letters or parcels are subsequently traced, and to refund Royal Mail Group Ltd any monies paid in compensation for these items." That's pretty clear - I have a liability to pay back the compensation.

No, he has not. He said that when I provide proof of repayment, he will "act on it" - you can't get much vaguer than that. I'm very loathe to open communications with the RM when the buyer is so vague and non-committal. I'm going to wait until I get the legal position before any further action.

If they tell me to repay the £2.5K and I don't get the coin or the money from the buyer - that ain't peace of mind, Pete !!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm not about to end up £2.5K out of pocket when the buyer is currently £2.5K in profit.

It wasn't the RM - it was the buyer, although there was some undocumented and undetailed discussion regarding the compensation when it was picked up by the buyer's neighbour. It's very important to read this thread carefully and get the facts absolutely straight. But the RM have been clever in their use of words - "I undertake to advise Royal Mail Group Ltd immediately if any lost letters or parcels are subsequently traced" puts the onus firmly on me once I'm made aware that a parcel has been traced. But I do wonder how much of an offence it is to conceal the fact that I've been made aware ?

Can I ask members not to voice personal opinions of the buyer in this thread - I don't want this transaction to be carried out in the media. I will continue to brief progress as it is of interest and importance to anyone who collects/buys/sells coins.

He wants me to repay the RM and provide proof before he will act. I'm not inclined to do that.

I have just found the correspondence from the Royal Mail that accompanied their payment of compensation. The claim form that I completed confirms that "I undertake to advise Royal Mail Group Ltd immediately if any lost letters or parcels are subsequently traced, and to refund Royal Mail Group Ltd any monies paid in compensation for these items." That's pretty clear - I have a liability to pay back the compensation. Let's hope the buyer understands my position.

I have not yet formally requested anything of the buyer. I am waiting until I understand the legal position(s).

Pete, I received the Royal Mail compensation and I'm paranoid that I would be liable to repay it if they pursue that course of action. That would leave me nearly £2.5K out of pocket with no recourse to the buyer.

I've written to a solicitor colleague of mine to establish the exact legal position before I contact the buyer, in order to make sure all the facts are clear. I certainly don't want to start a dialogue with the buyer based on assumption and hearsay. He was honest enough to tell me that he'd received the coin so I hope that it can all be resolved amicably.

I wonder if he sees it like that !

It was more complicated than that. It was eventually found in the bottom of a sack at Swindon and the next steps are vague but the buyer's neighbour then went to a local post office to pick it up (in Scotland) when there was some discussion around the issue of the compensation. So, the RM are aware of the issue but I don't know what, if anything, happens next. I've lost details of the tracking.

That's an interesting one - the Royal Mail compensated me because I had refunded the buyer but I hope they won't pursue me for a refund as I would be completely out of pocket then. They may pursue the buyer but if they don't he may end up with a very rare coin free of charge.

Surprise, surprise - the 1862 over 1 has finally turned up at the buyer's house, over four and a half months late !

Different coins for me, too. I've also compared the Colin Cooke pictures of yours and I think they are different.

Michael now agrees that this 1889 wide date with the raised numeral 9 appears to be paired with obverse R (12) and should thus be reclassified as 1889Ad. There is nothing to preclude this reverse from being paired with obverse S but there don't seem to be any confirmed examples.

A wood louse is called a "cheeselog" in my neck of the woods. It seems to be quite local to South Oxfordshire, unless you know better.

The website says £70 but I wrote £35 into the catalogue at the time - spooky !

I have just sent Pete's and Ian's pictures to Michael for his comments.

I called it Cd straight from Michael's book (without noticing that he had it as S+r) and obverse R because it was sold as obv 12 (R) in Colin Cooke's catalogue (lot 107) for the Tony Crocker sale. I probably never bothered to check the obverse but, as you say, it is so worn as to make it unidentifiable. I will now change it on the basis of the above information - many thanks.