Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Rob

Expert Grader
  • Content Count

    11,489
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    209

Posts posted by Rob


  1. When were guineas demonetised? We know they stopped making them in 1813, but as the weight was 5% over the sovereign i.e. pro-rata, there was no need to demonetise them. The sovereign of 20s was more convenient than the 21s guinea. The fact that the new coinage in 1817 was reduced pro-rata, suggests the guinea continued to be legal tender. In fact there was no case for demonetising these other than on account of their odd value.

    • Like 1

  2. 1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

    OK, so from the list of figures above, which is the actual one which now needs to be paid? If I received that, I'd just assume it was a "for information only" notification, because nowhere does it say "pay this", or words to that effect. 

    It's a table that has been compiled by Ian as he indicates. Invoices would be headed either SB or FEDEX, not given as a summary with exchange rates etc.


  3. 1 minute ago, Ivorlot said:

    i recently bought a English 1860 penny, and was amazed when i used my jewelers magnifier (which i recommened) and discovered brittannia had 2 or 3 missing fingers on the trident and you can see the end of the trident, i believe the penny is the ordinary toothed version i paid £39 and it is nearly UNC, is there any others out there ? i cannot upload the photo as it is 501 kb which is unfortunate or is there another way.

    Reduce it in size. It only has to be 1% smaller to be within the 500kb limit.


  4. I was following Lockdales sale today and couldn't believe the prices paid for some of the bulk lots. Blue proof sets working out at £24 a pop delivered, or the early sets at over £13 each. Who is paying this much for them? If for resale, where are they selling them? Who is buying them at an even higher price? And finally, please could I have their address because I can't sell them for £25-30 each, nor much over £10 for the early sets, and that's on a good day. Prices seemed to be at or above retail for everything. e.g. A gVF Cnut PH penny of Stamford at £360 hammer! People have too much money, or maybe someone just wanted to pay extra for the crack.

    • Like 1

  5. 26 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

    I'm no expert on these things, and the invoice above doesn't exactly look simple to work out. In fact looking at it, I wouldn't even know what amount was actually payable. But what strikes me is that the shipping company have come back at you for an additional fee several weeks post delivery. Why wasn't the correct total charged with delivery at the time, and were you advance warned that another sum might be chargeable at a later date? 

    Maybe that's a naive question, I don't know. But I'd be damned annoyed if I got something like that when I thought I'd already paid the due amount in good faith. It's never happened to date for me, and I've had several items delivered by Fedex.   

    Personally, Ian, I'd ask Fedex for chapter and verse before paying. Good luck with receiving a response that's intelligible to a normal person who speaks normal English, if you do decide to go down that route, though.  

    It looks clear to me. There's the sum payable to SB which is £184.55, then there is the FEDEX bit which is VAT on the SB total less the wire costs leaving a net £156.49. Then the import VAT is due plus their handling fee of £12. The only debatable point is the rate of VAT applied, but something extra is payable because the SB bit of the invoice doesn't have an import VAT component.

    If you buy from CNG then you pay the import VAT at the time you settle up leaving nothing else to pay. This might be because they have a London office and UK bank account, so do all the VAT accounting through it. I presume they import a number of lots on the same consignment and settle up the VAT that way. Saves a lot of hassle.

    • Like 1

  6. It depends on what you want. As a general reference North is still ok. If you want specialised books, then you have to look at specifics such as The Coinage of Offa and his Contemporaries by Derek Chick; Coinage in Tenth Century England by Blunt, Stewart and Lyon; for specific mints, The Lincoln Mint by H R Mossop or The Ipswich Mint (3 vols.) by John Sadler; for Scandinavian copies then The Anglo-Scandinavian Coinage c.995-1020 by Brita Malmer is good. There are an increasingly large number of detailed volumes, but any volume encompassing all info for all reigns would be impractically large which is why North is still worthwhile as a good general guide, giving as it does the basics plus variety info. It's a bit dated now due to finds since 1992, but covers most of what is out there.

    If you want to find out how knowledge has developed down the years, then Ruding, Hawkins or Greuber together with papers from the Numismatic Chronicle and BNJ will all form part of the story.

    • Thanks 1

  7. 17 minutes ago, JLS said:

    But AFAIK he's going to have to pay 10% of the current bids as a final value fee ? The cost of withdrawing a listing with a £600 bid on it like the W&M halfpenny he had listed is substantial. 

    I'm not sure what sort of aspirations he had for those pieces, because they seemed to have generated a lot of interest - if he wants the sort of prices a top auction house could generate he should be prepared to pay more than an effective ~12.5% fee !

    Not if it is shilled. I've lost count of the number of second offers I have had on pricier (and cheaper) items. The number of people who it is claimed haven't paid when I have come second seems far in excess of the percentage of buyers who haven't paid me for items won.

    • Like 4

  8. 20 minutes ago, jelida said:

    I was watching four or five of his coins, including the 1860 T over T penny, one of a batch of identical coins sold by Baldwins a couple of years ago- I bought one then and I know Secret Santa did too; his coin, now slabbed, had already reached double the Baldwins hammer price. And the nice 1868 penny was already at a good figure, and his William and Maria halfpenny, stated to be UNC (more like AEF to me and not a particularly good strike) was at £700ish, all were withdrawn together, with three days to go. Altogether rather strange unless he made a bulk sale, or just felt the market wasn’t supporting his aspirations.

    Jerry

    Could also have been withdrawn to relist them under a £1 listing fee offer. A 10% fee on anything listed for hundreds, suddenly becomes quite significant. £1 is not the end of the world.


  9. I think we have all missed out on a withdrawn piece at some time on eBay, as it's something that has always happened and is quite frustrating. Having said that, the near complete absence of competitive bidding with items frequently selling for opening bids is a huge part of the problem. As nice as it might be to let the market find its own level, it is fair to say that the platform is too congested to give widespread exposure and hence generate interest in a particular item. If someone then makes an offer that is acceptable, the only issue is a moral one.

    You might test the water every so often by listing an item with a value higher than a £1 starting price, but if the result is a say £30 coin going for a quid every time, it isn't surprising that people take things down having received an offer. The alternative is to list things at a starting price you are willing to sell at. Then you have a guarantee of no competitive bidding, leading to perpetual re-listings because eventually someone will buy it if the price is within reason.

    If ebay had a facility to make a higher offer on items starting at a quid just as they do a lower one for a BIN, then there could be no complaints.

    The simple truth is that ebay has got too big and is unwieldy, satisfying virtually nobody.

    • Like 1

  10. I don't have anything more at the moment other than to say that Lloyd bought it in Spink 240 on 26th Sept 2016 for £620 hammer. As for prior to 1985, I suggest you might be on a hiding to nothing. York halfcrowns are too common to be extensively illustrated in old catalogues and even in good grade tended to be made up in bulk lots of 2-4 coins of the type until the last 30-40 years. Occasionally you get lucky, but even in this grade it's not a given. The only civil war halfcrowns that were routinely imaged were the W/SA and Chester issues. These two are more hit, whereas the other provincial mints are more miss. Unfortunately Besly's article is too late to be of use as it was written around the time when your provenance starts, so it won't be pushed back using a die pair description.

    It's a good coin and the same die pair as mine (2F) which is one of the scarcer combinations. I have 7 on the list including one with EBOR erased and one in the BM. Yours is an earlier strike than mine and possibly the best available. The flaw which develops below the horse's hoof through EBOR is barely a discolouration on yours. Whatever, for comparison see below.

    2F-RJP - Copy.jpg


  11. On 4/26/2016 at 6:30 PM, terrysoldpennies said:

    Hi .all the dot 1909s I have seen are of the speciman 1 type . I notice that its a different colour, which makes my wonder if like me on one of my pennies, the dot turns out to be a spot of weld on the coin. it would by a strange coincidence for a dot to be so close to the known dot position on the same date of penny.  my one is below .   Terry

    1909 dot after N in ONE [ex rare] terrys.JPG

    I don't know whether it is just a function of my screen, but this one looks to be the top of the right hand upright of an N because I can see a trace of a line in parts and a smaller raised spot corresponding to the bottom tip of the upright at a slightly lower and right position to that of the actual N. As the distance from top to bottom spot is the same length as the upright of the N, is this just coincidental?


  12. Nothing with the wording 'could' is a policy. Rules need to be black and white, not a series of hedged bets at someone's convenience. If in doubt leave it out - just as the person trying to sell me a mortgage for a rental property said 'you don't have to tell them'. Yeh, ok, not.


  13. 15 hours ago, hibernianscribe said:

    I picked this snippet from Cointalk concerning a discussion that was taking place on the ebay community website about 3 months ago...

    https://community.ebay.com/t5/Selli...w-the-sale-or-purchase-of-Coins/td-p/30666292

    Does this spell the end of this thread??

    Frank

    You are allowed to start a new one called XXXX's worst offerings.

    Any banning of coin sales by ebay opens up an opportunity for someone else. If I read it correctly, the problem is with the payment processors. I can't see eBay being willing to give up a cash cow, which it must be given the number of listings, whether free to list or not.

    If an alternative appeared, one option would be a flat rate payment to list items for a given period of time, with money back in part for a sale and the ability to do buyer/seller payments directly which would allow all parties to get on with life. Plus the amount of crap would be seriously reduced. Elimination of this is impossible, but can be restricted by an up front fee. If you had to pay say a flat 5% fee with a minimum value to the platform for hosting the listing, so charged 10% up front with half refunded when sold, it would encourage desirable things to be listed, whilst restricting the rare 1971 pennies. Sure it would reduce the number of dire rarities available, but the quality of life would improve immensely.


  14. It's conceivable that all were responsible. Simon is known to have been employed in 1649 as chief engraver,  so having been promoted to that position I can envisage Simon being required to and producing a new design in fairly quick time to allow the rapid entry of the Commonwealth currency into circulation. What is less likely is that he was regularly employed in engraving currency dies. It's fair to say that the simplicity of the design would mean that any engraver with a few rudimentary skills could produce either die, and the quality of some dies where the legend is left wanting in both alignment and spelling suggests it was a person of relatively lower skill that was responsible. The question therefore is whether documentary evidence occurs to swing the evidence one way or the other. but given his primary role was the production of seals which obviously required a much higher level of skill than the currency dies, I would think that the vast majority of dies were cut by the under-engravers.


  15. 47 minutes ago, JLS said:

    The more I look at this coin the more seems wrong with it ! What's up the with the apparently raised marks to the right of Britannia (and the S shaped mark after BRITAN) - die damage ? 

    There are a few rust spots on the die, which is what I presume you can see to the right of Britannia. The S after BRITAN is ink. The reverse has a number of ink marks, two lines of which read BASING HOUSE which given it is written normally, the best assumption I can make is that it was due to the coin being under a piece of paper which was porous enough to allow the ink to pass through. Other ink marks appear on the obverse. Sam... is above the head and there are parallel lines by GI and something else (C?) by the ties.

    Basing House was a mansion that was besieged by Parliament three times in the Civil War, the final successful attempt at its capture came in the siege of August-October 1645. There's a Wiki page here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basing_House

    If the above is true, it therefore seems likely that this coin was once in the possession of someone doing research or writing an article about the siege, but no numismatic paper springs to mind.


  16. I was thinking both die prep lines and a wipe. e.g. between the date and the crown are a few lines that would be nearly impossible to produce with a wipe, but with the lines on the neck the converse would apply. i.e. it's much easier to produce such a broad section of parallel lines on the coin than to do so on the incuse die detail. Any parallel marks are almost certain to have been done at the same time, so you would somehow have to maintain a constant pressure over a wide area whilst getting into the different angled parts such as the truncation to produce these continuous parallel lines. Not conclusive, but very iffy IMO.

    A good test would be to compare with other examples. After all, you have a coin with a low mintage, most of which are in decent grade, so this should be enough to find others with a similar pattern if on the die. A 66 is not critical as a 65, 64 or even a 63 should be ok to see lines on the die. As long as the surfaces are good, this should be doable.

×