jelida

Yes, I saw that, does look right, well done. Jerry

I only really started looking at them with lockdown, so early days. Between us we should ramp up the prices! Jerry

It may be rare in top condition, though I doubt it would reach your criteria overall. Here are my two, though the second might already feature in your records having once been sold by LCA I think. Jerry

Eeek! I think that one is beyond me! But that is a shame. Large date I presume? Thankfully I do have a reasonable example, that came from a forum member. Jerry

No, that was not noted. It is still a variety that can creep under the radar, though it looks like a number of us had spotted it. Jerry

I dropped out at about 700 dollars, bit strapped at the moment unless a nice BRONZE penny comes along. But a good coin, I think the purchaser did alright.🙂 Jerry

I have bought a couple of coins from overseas (Holland, Canada) since January 1st and on both occasions EBay have added import VAT at 20% and this cannot be avoided if you go through their system. Luckily the vendors thus far have been amenable to direct payment. However this has driven me to check whether the 5% VAT on numismatic items still applies. It seems that it does, looking at HM Government’s Trade Tariff website. However as usual, there is some bureaucracy; if you follow the channel for section XXI, Works of Art, Collectors Pieces and Antiques https://www.trade-tariff.service.gov.uk/headings/9706 you will see that the import VAT is indeed 5% , or 20% without clarification as to when the latter might apply. This further breaks down into commodity code 9705000000 which includes collections or collectors pieces of numismatic interest, and further to commodity code 9705000020 for collectors pieces of silver or gold. Has any-one found a way to get around this apparently incorrect demand for 20% import VAT in the EBay system? I know it is now up to overseas sellers to charge the VAT up front, but surely at the correct level? Perhaps the seller should be putting the correct level of VAT into the system when he compiles his ad? Anybody here have a perspective or experience regarding this matter, which could affect all of us buying coins from overseas in that we may end up having to make frequent refund claims from the revenue. Jerry

Ian was very lucky with this coin in that there was a remarkably good surface preserved under the verdigris (green areas) and under the oxide (brown areas). Held to the light, the field almost prooflike, and had I stripped the whole coin to a reactive surface and then evenly toned , this sheen would have been lost so I decided to tone through the existing, which could be taken further over time. When I first saw the coin the verd looked almost waxy, and I wondered whether there was an organic element, so I tried a couple of organic solvents - acetone, DMSO, petrol- which had no effect on the verd but did at least remove any contaminants that might have blocked the verdicare. Under the microscope it was clear that all the discoloured areas of the coin has experienced corrosion, being both very hard and adherent. Working each side sequentially, reverse first, it took about a day of Verdicare to start to soften the corrosion and enable a gentle picking off with the needle, in tiny plaques; I had to take this very slowly in sessions of an hour or so, microscope work is hard on the eyes and neck. I suspect it took 15 to 20 hours of microscope time. The fields were mostly done with the polished tip steel needle, he detail particularly the denticles with an orange needle on insulin syringe (courtesy of our late diabetic cat). I was always working through a thin layer of Verdicare. A very steady hand is needed, and pressure on the verd rather than the coin. There was a good cleavage plane of reddish oxide on the surface of the coin, which helped a lot. My feeling is that the coin, while not perfect of course, has come out better than I expected Jerry

I would say the fact it came from Seabys for £20 in 1992 confirms it not to be genuine, even then a unique coin would have fetched hundreds. Jerry

Well, if genuine, somebody has a bargain. But the ‘0’ looks a little asymmetric to me. Did you buy it? Jerry

It is highly likely they will have an audit system in place, especially for higher value claims, though it might take some time to be processed . You really don’t want them to have to chase you up, especially with your legal obligation to be proactive. The last thing you need is to face an insurance fraud claim just because the purchaser (who claims on his website to have “probably the best penny collection in the world“ ) won’t pay up.....though he will eventually be obliged to do so, one way or another. Sorry to be negative here, but is it really worth the risk? Jerry

He is certainly honest enough to have declared that the coin had re-surfaced, but as he presumably wanted to put it on his website -which he has done- and may want to sell it on in the future, it’s not really that remarkable, just normal behaviour. What is strange is that he is trying to impose on Richard conditions to be fulfilled before he will complete his side of the contract, which he has no right to do. He is not in any way a beneficiary of the insurance, and carries no liability in its legal settlement. The RM makes it clear that only one party can benefit from the claim, and Richard has done that. The responsibility to repay the compensation is Richards alone, and of no interest to the purchaser. I am really amazed that what should be a good news story has become an issue causing stress to the party who has behaved entirely openly and correctly in his management of this transaction. It is so disheartening. Jerry

Please don’t even think of it Richard, it is not for you to carry the legal risk here. The onus is clearly with the purchaser to pay or return the coin. I would make the request again, and give him some time to see sense. A solicitors letter may then help, but I would look at the small claims court as an inexpensive option, though I don’t offhand know what the cut off level is in terms of claim value. As a matter of principle it would not be right to let him have the coin for nothing, especially given his expressed attitude. Jerry

I think that’s a very good analogy. It does seem so far that the survival of high grade coins in both instances is disproportionate; I wonder if as possibly experimental issues whether many were held back from release at the time? Jerry

Fair enough. It is perfectly reasonable not to get involved. Sadly I do not know the man, but I would certainly be prepared to try and arbitrate in a dispute between friends, as I have in the past elsewhere, including professionally. After all, we’re all friends here. Jerry

He has no right to do that. You made the claim, he had been reimbursed. The disposition of the compensation has nothing to do with him. Does he really expect the coin for nothing? His honour is slipping. Pete knows him well, perhaps he has some influence. Basically he is accusing you of intent to criminally defraud the Royal Mail. Jerry

I am sure he will pay, he already has the coin on his website stating the price he paid you....he would have to alter that to ‘got it for free due to a mix-up with the post’ or something similar. I am sure he is an honourable man. Jerry

I can’t believe it, Marleybob is trying it again, now with some extra corrosion and a modified storyline. See much previous discussion on this thread. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Unauthenticated-1933-george-v-bronze-type-penny-gap-filler-dirty-bent-read-all/124513709632?hash=item1cfd986e40:g:I4cAAOSwYBRf8Z6b Jerry

And there is further and more ‘in depth’ discussion of the rules regarding loss and compensation elsewhere on their site. The problem is that the coin is now known not to be lost, and as far as I can see the compensation is only an entitlement where the object is lost, as at one stage it was. The provision may no longer stand. However there is no mention of subsequently recovered objects in the published rules, though in general terms insurance compensation paid is taken to be in lieu of the object ownership in the event of recovery. If the purchaser is intent on getting the coin for free, then Richard is wise to be seeking legal advice, if indeed this is the case, and I look forward to hearing the outcome. I would not feel comfortable selling/posting coins to any individual who declined to pay under these circumstances, on moral grounds irrespective of the law, and I hope it is not the case here. Jerry

I suspect the metal detector will answer your questions. Not convinced by the magpie theory- they collect shiny objects to decorate the nest to attract a mate, and its the wrong time of year for that. Unless you’re my wife, who seems to do it all year round, and especially at Christmas .......perhaps I should take the hint? Jerry

I think the RM has a legal obligation to deliver the mail (unless to do so would in itself break the law) irrespective of ownership of the contents. The matter of compensation previously paid is dealt with independently. I suspect they would rather have the money back, than assume ownership of the temporarily lost item, which could of itself be subject to legal ownership dispute. Jerry

Pete, you are wrong in the way you are looking at this. The reason the purchaser has the coin for nothing is that Richard gave him his money back quite correctly under consumer protection and sale of goods laws, but the item subsequently arrived. That is the essence of the situation, as I explained before the compensation has nothing to do with the purchaser whether paid by RM or an insurance underwriter acting for RM. I suspect that Richard is under a legal obligation to return the compensation, if the small print is examined, whether or not the RM or underwriters pursue it. You really cannot expect Richard to carry legal and financial liability of a four figure sum just so the purchaser gets a free coin. He has not paid for the coin, as Richard gave him his money back, and until he does pay he has no right to the coin. The law really is pretty straightforward in this case, and I am sure if he is honourable he will make the payment or return the coin. If he refuses - which I doubt is likely- then he would be doing something wrong and word should get about, for the protection of us all! Jerry

Hi Pete, I did say that the other potential claimant over the coin was the Royal Mail, but they would almost certainly want the compensation back, rather than the coin. At the moment the buyer has had the coin for nothing - that is certainly not right- nor can the two parties split the compensation as a potential windfall, as if it is eventually re-claimed, that liability falls upon Richard. So any other course than the one I outlined is fraught with risk for Richard. I hope that the purchaser plays fair and pays for his purchase, and is happy with it, I think that outcome is most likely; penny collecting is a small world, and word gets about. Reputation is important. Jerry

Hi Pete, It is covered by the laws relating to the sale of goods, and the transfer of title. Although other terms can be agreed between purchaser and vendor (for example the commitment at auction is made at the fall of the hammer ) it is usual that goods are paid for in full, and received by the purchaser for title to transfer. This is why the seller is responsible for ensuring delivery, and re-imbursement or replacement in the event of non delivery. Return of the payment if accepted effectively cancels the transaction, just as if you return goods to a shop and get your money back. Even if one party chooses not to abide by this, just as no seller is allowed to accept money and not provide the goods, a purchaser has no right to expect something for nothing and either party has recourse to the courts. Obviously what I write is my interpretation of the law, but I think the gist is correct. In terms of the Royal Mail compensation, the contract is between the RM and the individual who actually purchases the postage and insurance- the seller. It is after all the seller who needs the compensation, he is already committed in law to reimbursing the purchaser under the sale of goods act. Jerry