Martinminerva

I see this 1881H F103 sold recently on eBay for an astonishing sum, albeit a very rare coin, and no doubt a real surprise and pleasure for the seller who can't have known. Anyone here buy it?? If we go by Richard's rare penny website, it would appear to be the eighth known? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1881-H-Great-Britain-One-1-Penny-1881H-Mark-H-for-Heaton-Mint-1d-/114312844580?hash=item1a9d939524%3Ag%3Ah7MAAOSwOKpfFLWg&nma=true&si=HsvO6lNGBPRb%2BAmvjfay%2BxU5S9A%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 Just shows that the rarities are still out there!

Yes. Freeman 21, die pairing 3+D. On Richard's rare penny website as example 17. Looks like the verd has been removed a bit...

One more image just to show reverse die is the same, rather than duplicated die number as occasionally happens elsewhere in the series. All die and date digits identically positioned and spaced.

Well, blow me. After years of searching I have finally got hold of another 1867 die 23 shilling which IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE 5+A mule ! Pictures below, alongside the normal 4+A pairing (mule on the right). Yes, a bit battered and worn, but presumably only the second known example? The original specimen sold at London Coins auction 122 in Sept 2008 Lot no 1791 for £320 in NEF. Are there any more out there?

Very interesting to learn therefore that at least 2 dies must have been used for these "bisects"! It prompted me to check mine... Like you, Jerry, I have found that I have 3 of the original BP1898B variety (one near ef, the other two only fair) but pleasingly my other one (sadly only fair again) turns out to be a BP1898Ba type. I know this is a very small sample size, but 3 to 1 might just about be representative?? Any other members got one/more than one to push the sample group bigger? Indeed, any guesses as to how many of either type are now known?

I'd like to echo what has been said both by yourselves and other members here today and hope that now we can all move forward, united in our love of things numismatic. It is good that you acknowledge shortcomings in your photography; it would also be nice to see some sort of progress in customer relationships. My own bad two experiences with you a few years ago were not so much that you made errors in your identifications (although in one order I did specifically ask you to check the die variety of a shilling and gave you specific identifiers to help you do so, which the resulting wrong coin being sent suggests you didn't bother to do so), it was the total lack of apology when I returned them , and specifically your failing twice to reimburse my postage costs for your mistakes that really upset me. For the sake of a few pounds, you have lost my custom, and have done so to others too, including 1949's . A simple sorry would go a long way... As the old axiom goes...courtesy of Google Studies show that a satisfied customer will tell 2-3 people about his experience with your company. A dissatisfied consumer will share their lament with 8-10 people and some will push that number to twenty. ... An unhappy customer will become a loyal consumer if you fix his complaint and do it quickly. I have said all I am going to say on the matter now, consider lessons learned, and will say no more about it again.

Brilliant! And so they should. But, best not to use them again!😄😄

Very sensible words, Jerry and Mike. I agree wholeheartedly with all of what both of you say. You're right actually - why should we share all our collective expertise with that pair who would no doubt take it and use (and mis-use !) it entirely for their advantage. We are better off without them. I just implore fellow members on the forum to really think carefully about ever giving them custom. We, on the forum, are collectively so much better (and more knowledgeable) than those two "dealers"... Yes, Mike, contact them and request the return of the postage cost to you. I have done some legal research and can give you this if it helps: Distance selling regulations and Sale of Goods acts were actually replaced in 2014 and 2015 respectively, with what is now known as Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Consumer Rights Act respectively. Both would seem to apply in your case. Courtesy of the Which website, this is the clause about goods that are faulty or not as described: If you receive faulty goods and wish to return them, the Regulations are in addition to your other legal rights. So, if your goods are faulty and don’t do what they're supposed to, or don’t match the description given, you have the same consumer rights under the Consumer Rights Act (which replaces the Sale of Goods Act from 1 October 2015) as you have when buying in store. Any terms and conditions that say you must cover the cost of returning an item wouldn’t apply where the goods being returned are faulty. It is this last paragraph in particular that is relevant, but feel free to quote the whole lot at them ! I may not be legally trained, but equally I am no barrack room lawyer - just someone who wants to stand up for what is right and what are our rights, and will take time to gain that knowledge. In fact, are any forum members in the legal profession and can confirm the above? I bet some of us are. Please do let us know how you get on!

Ha! You've clearly not dealt with them, then; or at least you haven't had cause to feel diddled by them.

Seriously outrageous. I rest my case. This is absolutely unacceptable (and, I am led to believe, illegal under the distance selling regulations and sale of goods acts) and I really don't think you should even begin to accept a £6.50 loss for their mistake/incompetence/deliberacy. This is clearly their "policy", and as I said in my earlier post, they are clearly doing this so as not to lose money themselves but let customers take the hit. If every mistake was actually paid for by them, then they might actually sharpen their act up, but, no, they don't give a sh-one-t, and until we customers act, it'll go on. i would politely suggest the following actions: You get back in touch with them and demand your £6.50, referencing distance selling regulations. As Craigy is happy, contact Chris P to see if he is too, and then refer Ingrams to this site/thread. We on the forum boycott them and further spread the news of their appalling service among the coin fraternity. Do members agree, or am I being the unreasonable one??!

Fair do's. You're right. Maybe they have read all these posts anyway and just don't care! Their treatment of many forum members and poor business acumen would suggest that is exactly the case!

Oddly enough that thought also crossed my mind earlier today. Go on, do it ! They really need to know how pee'd off former customers are. Very happy for them to read this comment of mine... " I bought a few coins from the Ingrams in the early 2010's but then had two bad experiences from them: twice they had mis-described the scarcer varieties I expected to be buying, and ended up sending me normal, common coins. OK, they took them back without any quibble BUT they did not refund my expenses of posting the wrong coins back by signed-for delivery, leaving me a few quid out of pocket for THEIR MISTAKES. Once could have been put down to an error, but twice shows it was deliberate on their part to eke a few more quid out of their customers. Needless to say, I have not ordered again from them in the last 5 years, nor do I ever expect to again. They also massively overgrade and, now, overprice their coins. If you read these posts, Messrs Ingram, perhaps you will understand that business is a two-way process."

Bet they don't refund your postage expenses in sending back signed for or special.... let us know if they do !!

Astonishing... Almost exactly a year ago, I posted the below... Seems they just don't learn or care. How do they stay in business if many users of this forum are unimpressed by them?? " I bought a few coins from the Ingrams in the early 2010's but then had two bad experiences from them: twice they had mis-described the scarcer varieties I expected to be buying, and ended up sending me normal, common coins. OK, they took them back without any quibble BUT they did not refund my expenses of posting the wrong coins back by signed-for delivery, leaving me a few quid out of pocket for THEIR MISTAKES. Once could have been put down to an error, but twice shows it was deliberate on their part to eke a few more quid out of their customers. Needless to say, I have not ordered again from them in the last 5 years, nor do I ever expect to again. They also massively overgrade and, now, overprice their coins. If you read these posts, Messrs Ingram, perhaps you will understand that business is a two-way process."

Pics of both, please ??

Very interesting. Looks like the final 1 is over another 1 too, which is mentioned in Freeman for this 6+G pairing, but not your 8 over. Wonder if it actually an 8 over an inverted 8 ?? That is known on some 1862 farthings, for example, and is another of those recutting slips the mint were prone to in the early years of the bronze coinage...

Indeed - have a look at this wreath of mine which would grade only fair. That suggests actually an awful lot of circulation? Maybe right through the 30's and even into WW2 era?

Just seen this on eBay. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1841-halfcrown/183076706631?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 Both reverse and particularly obverse are completely "wrong" - bust, date numerals, legend font. I believe it is yet another of these replicas that are all over the numismatic world, yet worry that someone is going to get seriously burnt. Bids are already well over £300. Do members concur? There is also a genuine, slabbed one, on the site Buy it Now for £3900, which backs up my opinion. See https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VERY-RARE-1841-HALFCROWN-VICTORIA-349/222843579237?hash=item33e2832b65:g:3fYAAOSwsm1ZvnU4 Hope no-one here is bidding on the replica one!!

Looks fine to me. 1859, which this is, is not noted for having fakes or repros made of it - 1864 is the usual one. To be surer, can you get an accurate weight of it?

And now it's got a bid ! Hope it's not any member of this forum...

Surely not?! The date numerals are the wrong size and font, and as the seller says: This is a very rare 1841 Queen Victorian Half crown. Condition very used please see all photos. Widht is 32mm. Weight is 11.8 grams. So alot of weight loss with age. When minted coin weight approx 14 grams. Only 42.768 minted . London minted. This is a very rare date and highly collectable coin so price is based on low end of value. Stunning coin. which is far too much underweight for any Viccy halfcrown - even ones worn smooth tend to be over 12 g, and this hasn't got that much "wear". Something decidedly wrong with it for me...

And here's another one: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Very-rare-1841-Queen-victorion-half-crown-Used-condition/233189694440?hash=item364b305be8:g:mosAAOSwaQtcp0hX which is so obviously a copy / replica, yet seller is starting at £500 ! Beware!

I bought a few coins from the Ingrams in the early 2010's but then had two bad experiences from them: twice they had mis-described the scarcer varieties I expected to be buying, and ended up sending me normal, common coins. OK, they took them back without any quibble BUT they did not refund my expenses of posting the wrong coins back by signed-for delivery, leaving me a few quid out of pocket for THEIR MISTAKES. Once could have been put down to an error, but twice shows it was deliberate on their part to eke a few more quid out of their customers. Needless to say, I have not ordered again from them in the last 5 years, nor do I ever expect to again. They also massively overgrade and, now, overprice their coins. If you read these posts, Messrs Ingram, perhaps you will understand that business is a two-way process.

Here's a very similar error or die repair rarity on an 1851 Threepence, often referred to as a 1551 Threepence! By the way, the picture is culled from the net, not mine! This seems too to be an exceptionally rare piece - how many others of this are out there? Any at all, like the sovereign?

No, and in know of no other 5+A for any other die number for 1867. As Nick says above would seem to be totally correct, with the addition that all other die 23 seem to be the normal 4+A. Regarding linkage, it varies between years and denominations. Most pairings seem to be consistent for die number, but I do have, for example, two 1868 sixpences with die number 2, but one is Davies pair 2+A and the other is 3+A. As I say above, a press operator could always change just one die in the case of damage, for example, and thus lose consistency. Just ripe for full research and publication, as I also say above!