secret santa

Could you put the reverse up please Pete - I'd like to include this on my varieties website as illustration.

It definitely appears more human

And this one went to Wales.

The customer base for these sorts of coins must be incredibly small ???

That's a great price and it's interesting that 2 bidders bid it up that high. Wonder who bought it ? (KB ?)

I can't make up my mind whether the pennies with missing waves are truly rare and merit an entry on my Rare Penny site. Example occur for 1934, 1937, 1966 and 1967 (these are the dates that I know about) and I have pictures of fewer than 5 for each date. Although I don't regard them as a truly recordable man-made "variety", they are genuinely collectable and appear to be scarce. At first I created a web page for each year but now I have summarised them on a single page, although I am continuing to update the individual year pages and they can be reinstated at any time if collectors show the interest. I'd be grateful to know of any other years which exhibit this feature.

I've just seen a better example of the 1921 missing waves:

Content deleted

Interesting but not to the tune of £100 !

How long before forged "vaccination passports" are available on Ebay ?

He has now removed the listing. I think it was an honest mistake but it's a pity he didn't check after our first polite interventions. All's well that ends well, though it leaves a few questions about Lockdale's declared results....... And I've just received this message from him: You were correct the item has been took down the correct one relisted later tonight. I am sorry for the confusion.

I do believe that he has mixed his photos up unintentionally but has been unwilling to even consider that it might be his fault.

When you look at Lockdale's catalogue for the auction, every item seems to have a "hammer price" suggesting that everything was sold, which is seemingly not the case. Presumably many of the "hammer prices" are actually the reserve, which was not met ? But it makes Lockdale's look like a very successful auction house. Is there anything we can believe nowadays ???

He has now sent me a message admitting that he might have posted the wrong picture and will check it when he gets back into work on Monday. If so, I'll post details on here but it's no excuse for the foul-mouthed denials that he sent before checking his own work. Apparently, he's getting a lot of abuse so can I ask everyone to hang fire until we hear that he's made a genuine mistake.

His response to me saying that he doesn't own it: "I do own it. Will you people please stop threatening me!" and he's blocked me. Time to bid £1000 on it I think and get him excited.

I, too, have now sent him a message and look forward to an articulate and entertaining response.

I've just done this although it didn't allow me to put in a narrative reason for reporting. I could only pick from lists of preset phrases.

Beware this seller. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1854-Victoria-Penny-PT-AU-Lustre/254791108305?hash=item3b52bbc6d1:g:~aQAAOSwSAtfwMgr The penny he's selling is sitting at home with me as we speak. He's taken the photo from Lockdale's site and is offering it as his own.

Looks a bit like yours, Pete.

I have recently been talking with John Jerrams about his census of rare pennies and my rare penny site. He has asked me to let interested collectors know of some corrections to his 2003 edition. For anyone who owns this - "The Early British Bronze 'Bun' Pennies and their Varieties" (With Updated Valuations) 2003 edition, the following corrections apply: In the valuations section in the middle of the book, the valuations for Satin 8 and 9 (Freeman 8 and 9) should be switched - F8 is more valuable than F9 On page 31, bottom section - the sentence "Namely, an 1862 specimen, as for Number 38, except that the '2' is struck over a '1'." should read "as for Number 40" (i.e. F39 and not F38). On page 37, nearly halfway down, on the right hand side is a comment "See Note 'q' " with "Page 26" under it. This should read "Page 36" - my own copy already had a corrective sticker over it with Page 36 on it, so other copies may have this sticker. On page 41, the top left diagram, the description "Mis-aligned Colon Dots...Type 1" should read "The line of dashes shows the normal alignment of Colon Dots". Actually, to me the 2 top diagrams look identical to me, so I'll query that with John.

For the 1999 edition, only the 4th point (about misaligned colon dots) applies. For the 2001 edition, the 2nd point (1862/1) and 4th point both apply.

Right, I have to correct what I wrote in the 3rd bullet above. On page 41, the top left diagram, the description "Mis-aligned Colon Dots...Type 1" should be followed by the words "(20). The line of dashes shows the normal alignment of Colon Dots". The misaligned colon dots are the ones nearest the edge of the cape and there is the most subtle of differences between 20 and 20A with 20A being slightly nearer the cape. Hope this is clear.

As there was no provenance listed in the DNW sale, it's possible that the vendor did not supply any. He/she may not have had any. It's possible that they came by it by accident, by inheritance, by dishonest means, etc etc. If it were in the state pictured above, a non-numismatist would probably be pleased to clean it up to the shiny state and get over a thousand pounds for it. So, not necessarily an idiot per se but who knows ?

Yes, so why lie about its attributes ? I think we know why.

He's found another one...........https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Victoria-1859-Penny-Unrecorded-Small-Date-Over-Large-AUNC/233412320431?hash=item3658755caf:g:u0MAAOSwNhNd2SZv