Martinminerva

I have found one of these too! It's an 1861 6+G, and can confirm it's actually an E over the B. On my specimen below, there is a bit of a die crack to the left of the E/B and some damage to the beads above. Wonder if that's connected to the repair? Worth recording on your Viccy halfpennies obverses page, Richard? @secret santa Feel free to use the pictures!

As the saying goes, philately gets you nowhere... 😉

Apparently not. It completed and "sold" for £450, and the seller has left feedback as mentioned above. None of that could have happened if it was removed - unless something can be removed after the event, but I don't believe it can. A sale can be cancelled, of course... Here's the link again: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/315165500518?itmmeta=01HQ4BZS9A4NM7ZVFA9MG6MAZ0&hash=item496153e466:g:y9gAAOSwvNFl04mN&itmprp=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4N7kipPiTz0BCXQMgWC6iSMHj%2F5zvSQuQxWjY2cu6yNpjIZ%2F525P%2FMzwhnjKHRdVzwKOh6%2FxD6k4m96TMefoC3i%2FZ2un8azd78R6UEDf2IuGAYr0HhlODfACMlsManI4g1BRVpGQ5Sq39AMYB3bjQ5wmJK2xzvaT1gCcKIVsvA3uVJ8yJrk51DdWtXHwbQQI8xiym02pABGTJhbO165Zxo9HC4Zs5OB9xVhJ%2FunFcmFvno8bmwJUwd9jETHNc%2Bywt3%2Bkx7mF%2BLRWFiUYuLO2T%2FUNKhZ%2F9BZwQh8JWTUektfo|tkp%3ABk9SR96U_4u5Yw

Feedback of 90% says it all really. The plot thickens slightly... Still no feedback received from the "happy" buyer, but the dodgy seller has left this positive comment below for the buyer... But of course, they could have left feedback for the shill, but wouldn't the shill then "reciprocate"?? Maybe someone has really bought it, and they're either ignorant, in for a major disappointment, or currently pursuing for a refund for item not as listed?! FEEDBACK FEEDBACK LEFT FOR WHEN Payed promptly .polite and easy to contact. Rare 1922 Penny Rev 1927 (#315165500518) Buyer: 0***6 Verified purchase Past month

I agree, and ironically even rarer in the lower Fair - Fine grades. Most that exist seem to be quite high grade, maybe EF to A.Unc - I think the theory is they were a notable difference to the usual LCW under shield even in the 1860's and were largely wheedled out at the time, leaving even fewer to circulate more heavily. It took me years to find one too!

Just had a look back at that penny to see if any feedback left - no, of course, but noticed this for one of his previous recent "sales": Surprise, surprise!! If someone did "buy" the penny, rather than a shill bid, I would imagine we will be seeing a similar report soon... 😉 FEEDBACK FEEDBACK FROM BUYER/PRICE WHEN I wouldn’t trust this seller. Never have sent, provided wrong tracking number. Was trying to sell the same ring 2 times. Saphire Solitaire Stunning Stone And 18k White Rhodium Plated For Modern White L (#315130910855) s***t (491) £176.99

Which is nothing like enough for a genuine coin/sale. The "bidder" with 1 feedback "won" it. What chance we see it again at some point in the future with similar cock and bull accompanying...? 😀

There used to be a way of reporting an item to ebay for plagiarised pictures, I think. The illiteracy of both his listing and his email to you reminds me of a certain marleybob and her numerous 1933 pennies!! Current high (and repeat) bidder has a feedback of just 1. Shill bidding going on??

Although in the seller's blurb he says: "Perfect specimens sell for 3000 pounds this is not perfect it's a circulated 102 Yr coin not cleaned not kept in a case a find in a large sack of coins." Maybe a sack of coins fell off the back of LCA's lorry... 😉 The rat smells ever more pungent!

I smell a huge rat too. He changed the rev. picture on 19th Feb according to the listing revisions - previously it was a normal early rev penny. But neither rev goes with his given obverse - that's a modified effigy, if I am not mistaken. Methinks he has been "borrowing" pictures from anywhere he can get them. And with a feedback only of 8 (and all in the last month), any bidder must surely be a fool to go with it. But already 13 bids and price of £310 with a few hours left to go. But as we saw with that other seller recently selling "worn" Viccy copper pennies including an "1839 proof" and an "1860 over 59", and subsequent positive feedback from satisfied (but of course, utterly ignorant) buyers, there are an awful lot of fools out there. Worth reporting this one??

The date digits are not quite in the correct font. Here's a close up of another COPY 1849 in un-doctored condition. The digits are just not "quite right" - hard to explain, but clear if compared to a genuine specimen. Also, I've noticed the small WW on the truncation are also the wrong font (and a bit too big).

I take it that it wasn't then... ☹️

The date digits are not quite in the correct font. True for all of these copies (probably to do with how the dies have been CAD generated, I guess, as these are not pressure casts from genuine coins, thus the discrepancies with border beads and bust details). Worth adding that info to your page, Richard??

I had the error screen for over two weeks (on three different PC desktops, in two different locations and on three different browsers), but today for the first time it all works again. I even tried to follow links from the Predecimal.com shopfront and links from Google searches, all to no avail. God knows what happened. I do hope it doesn't happen again. Can @TomGoodheart confirm all is now ok?

Members beware! Just spotted this and already got multiple watchers... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/196199224387?mkevt=1&mkpid=0&emsid=e11021.m43.l1120&mkcid=7&ch=osgood&euid=3bb9025c48274b559c9bab40504eb161&bu=43098541495&ut=RU&osub=-1~1&crd=20240120030846&segname=11021 Clearly one of those recent Chinese copies but which has been doctored to appear "circulated". More worrying still is if you search seller's other items he has several other Victorian copper "pennies", all copies, but all doctored to one degree or another to masquerade as something more genuine. ... and just looked at his completed listings and feedback and numerous similar doctored copies of various dates have sold for good money and buyers have left positive feedback. A fool and his money... a little knowledge... and other suitable aphorisms spring to mind. Caveat emptor!

Just a bog standard 6+G, I'm afraid. The B of Brit is supposed to be close to her head on obv.6.

Now you've gone way beyond my level of understanding!! I hope the latter, but have no actual idea! Hope someone on here can provide professional clarity!

A very good point. As far as I understand, a turnover or gross sale of £1000 could generate a tax return obligation on you (if HMRC choose to send you one), but within which you would then declare your profits and pay tax as appropriate, so if you have made less than £1000 profit, you would not be liable for any tax. But I am not an accountant, so I may well be completely wrong! Any members on here suitably qualified to comment?!

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2024/01/online-platforms-etsy-vinted-airbnb-report-hmrc/ Have a read of this, and should answer most questions. The key seems to be whether you are trading (buying to sell on) or selling your own stuff - but god only knows how HMRC can determine that. As ever, the establishment would appear to be going after the little people for every penny of tax and ignore the rich and the multi-billion conglomerates who allegedly have clever accountants to avoid/evade tax left, right and centre! 😉

Had this back from Joe via his ebay presence: Hello Martin. I'm afraid it's now gone. Family commitments, lack of time, and other changes in life. Sorry, Martin. Happy collecting. All the best, Joe. A real shame with all his wonderful research and photos etc now vanished for evermore unless he chooses to publish in a more permanent format. Copy and pasting from the net is no option for sites like his - each of his hundreds of photos, enlargements, hyperlinks etc would have had to be individually copied and would have taken hundreds of hours as no doubt building his website did. Thus is the ephemeral nature of the web... Michael Gouby's website is similarly massive and meticulous; how sad it will be if all that research is one day lost from the net. Oh for books!! As Paddy says above: I too don't expect the net to last problem free for that many more years!! Books doing well at 2000 years plus and counting 😉

Also Joe Lee's excellent resource website farthingshalfpennyerrors.com seems to no longer exist. It says the domain has expired. This is one massive downside of online resources compared to printed - the latter will continue to exist and be a resource for decades and more, whilst the former can vanish at the drop of a hat. Pity there doesn't seem to be some form of permanent web archiving... (or is there?)

Just can't tell from a picture that small... Maybe/Possibly...(Fingers crossed) but there is some crud around some of the letters - eg. the A of HALF, and perhaps the "P" is just a bit of crud?? I take it you don't have it in hand yet. Only a bigger picture or it in hand would be decisive.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/235337607041?hash=item36cb36e781:g:NwcAAOSwXdZldX8~&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAAwFSfkSwmQd1lxgOL8dW6twnMTiiW%2FSFQKPD5OhTwr5A1IXBmumkWEr5iDSUmW83wSTsJlm%2BnEfhJI6nLgOXwtfhmNSwkzyD41cmmXT4fBimwAKkTvycGktFTrp3P7NyC4kAekqnvZ3v2AeZhVbLmwD4lR68Zhz4MPLl%2BU3FRAl1O997cTP18WQ2lAEA8A22Uq9dLptqp8YI8zXBaLhNa7YMmu7wC9LxmOrnrKOU394D%2BlThKBPqTIXWlZIQAlKmfYg%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR6bN7p-LYw ...because of course Victoria was famously Queen of Australia in 1931 😉

I agree - the double striking around ANG is most diagnostic (unless the DIE itself could be double entered??) of identical-ness. But both of these, if fakes are blooming good ones compared to the original post coin and its duplicates which are obvious casts with their pitted, porous and bubbly surfaces, not to mention the hole and plugging in exactly the same spots!!

And therein is the entire answer!