1949threepence

Thanks for the sneak preview, Bernie.

Well, this has been addressed already, but as an aside, I would agree that you're not going to get too many coin collectors in the average football ground. I'm an Ipswich Town supporter by the way ~ cultivated by my upbringing in Essex.

I have used hammersnipe, and still been beaten to the punch. So nowadays, I bid for coins I really want, the old fashioned way, with a radio controlled clock and my finger on the final bid button, ready to click with 3 seconds to go, and a stupidly high price that will overcut the previous highest sniped bid. That way, I've never failed to get the coin I want.

Yes, I think that was my frustration talking! But I do feel that if some youngster (and we've had a few as members here) forks out a decent wodge of pocket money on what they think is a representative example of a coin and then a few months later find out at a coin fair or from a dealer that they have been swindled that is quite likely to discourage them. And for the hobbby to continue we need new collectors to take an interest. And we've seen with slabbing, a proportion of collectors are delegating the identification and authentication of their coins to a third party. It only needs a few replicas to be mis-authenticated and confidence could start to go. As for knowledgable collector, well there's a coin on eBay at present currently listed at £230. If you're not a knowledgable collector that seems to me to be a lot of dosh to be throwing at a coin! And if you are, why are you bidding on something that shouts "replica!"? You're right there, Tom. It's the inexperienced rookies that will be stung ~ and it may take then years to find out they have been.

Lordy Personally, I don't think it's a dot as such. The metal might have a bump in it from the minting process, but it doesn't really look like an error to me. That said, another pic when Az has the coin in hand, wouldn't go amiss.

That's pretty much what I was thinking, too.

That's probably very true. Such action will deflect too much negative attention & allow the scammer to continue largely unhindered. That's an extreme "worst case" scenario you have painted there, Tom. Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I'm not sure I agree. The number of genuine coins still exceeds the fakes by many orders of magnitude, and it's doubtful whether the forgers will make any significant inroads into the realms of the extremely knowledgeable collector community, without becoming seriously unstuck. Just beware of ultra perfect coins. I don't think even the most expert forger will be able to effectively emulate 100+ years of natural "uncirculated" ageing. My two pennuth

OK, thanks gents. Whilst I appreciate that the Sheldon grading system is more generous than ours, I must point out that I posted the link as a useful reference point for those who have encountered MS descriptions, but might be totally unfamiliar with the system. Not as a "bible" for accurate grading as we know it. For information, I recently bought a slabbed 1909 penny graded MS63, direct from the USA, and posted it on "coin acquisition of the week". The definition of MS63 is:- Having looked at the coin in hand in natural light, I tend to agree with the description as described above. You can see it and judge for yourself,here

I really don't think there's a lot we can do, except be very suspicious of old coins that appear too perfect. If they look too good to be true, they very likely are.

Got a 2009 Darwin £2 coin at the local spar shop in my change tonight. Never seen one before, nor indeed any technology £2.00 coins for 2009. No idea of the mintage for either.

Only up to a point. It might try to explain the Sheldon system in terms of US coins, but if you click on the link to the equivalent grades in other countries it gives AU50 as extremely fine or unc whilst EF40 is extremely fine. This is ebay grading standards. You might find someone on ebay willing to accept the comparison, but anyone with any grading ability who has held an EF40 in the hand wouldn't agree. You have usually got to go to a 64 minimum to get an UNC and even then it isn't guaranteed. I thought it would be useful for the occasional slabbed coin from the US, with an MS grading on it. At any rate I wasn't familiar with the different MS definitions. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at to be honest

I thought this one might be quite useful as it gives a definition of the MS grades, eg: MS63, MS70 etc

I've just been caught out. Not seriously, but still caught. I spotted a 1965 sixpence for sale and the photo was the rarer variety with the 'I' of 'REGINA' to a space. Checked with the seller whether this was the actual coin in the photo and was told yes it was. Arrived this morning and it clearly isn't the same coin and is the common old 1965. Only $3 wasted, so no sweat. Not worth sending back, but a good excuse to leave a great big negative feedback. Why these people do it, I really don't know!! In the long run they are the losers. Indeed they are, Dave. It's very difficult to understand such a mindset. For the sake of a minor score on a few coins, they are risking long term isolation as the collecting and dealing community soon come to recognise a seller who is effectively a crook.

To describe such coins, the term "mature lustre" springs to mind for some reason.

No, I said YOU were using the term interchangeably Vick! I've never heard this "Lustre is not a chemical coating but a deformity of the struck metal" thesis before. I had always thought it was a thin coating applied during the minting process, but I'm happy to be corrected on that score. Be that as it may, it is EFFECTIVELY equivalent to such a coating, as it wears away exactly as if it was, revealing the "bare metal" beneath. One might consider it like a very thin coat of paint (even though it isn't) as that's how it behaves : i.e. it wears unevenly where it is most rubbed, and shows the under metal; it reacts to atmospheric conditions; it lingers finally in faint traces where least exposed. It behaves exactly like a coating that has been applied, whatever the actual process to impart it, and for all intents and purposes that's how collectors and dealers over the years (with the honourable exception of yourself, VickyS) have tended to regard it. At least in my experience. I'm no metallurgist, but if you saw an old worn coin in half, the inner part of the coin, revealed by the severing, will appear the same colour as "full mint bloom". Just thought I'd throw that little observation in. It would actually be very interesting to know more about the whole process of lustre.

I agree. Some have definitely been photoshopped. For example the cheaper of the 1881 pennies looks absolutely fantastic, but whether it would look as good in the hand is a different matter. Which one? I could give you my opinion. The one I've screenshotted and uploaded to imageshack in this link ~ it's No 55 in the list. It looks a truly beautiful coin, but I've been had before with enhanced images. Not saying it is, but you can't be too careful. The 1881 F102 is in my opinion a fairly good likeness to the colour of the coin. I attach a scanned image of the coin. Scanned images never flatter a coins appearance. I believe that the images at CCC are as representative as you can get from photography. The one thing that photography does not show very well is the beautiful mirror appearances of some of the proof issue coins. Proof not being a grade as simetimes used in the USA but the polished dies that the coins were struck from. James's coins were mainly chosen for the quality of the strikes and general appearance of even colour where possible. The original mint bloom would be nice, but unfortunately coins with the above attributes and full mint bloom are like hens teeth, especially in the bun series. You're right about scanned images, and the one you have provided does not look the same coin as the one in the auction list. No doubt it doesn't do it justice. I also agree about full mint bloom buns being as rare as hen's teeth. The best I can muster is an 1882H (F 115 12 + N, the common variety) which I bought for about £73 from a collector in Derby who was selling off a lot of his collection. I thought it was a steal, although possesses that typical, somewhat grimy, faded lustre. Pic below:-

You can get some stunning bargains on there, but it's not a place for beginners or the naive. Even experienced campaigners can get stung at times.

On the subject of "BU", what about those coins which would definitely be BU if they had been minted last year. But because they are over 100 years old, have that characteristic slight griminess and vaguely faded lustre ? Can they bstill be classed as "Brilliant Uncirculated" ?

To be honest, almost anything with lustre (e.g. 57, 60, 66, 70). I don't believe it is meant to deceive in any way, but all the lustrous coins look rather like caricatures of themselves and almost as if they have been painted by hand. I don't know whether it's Photoshop or some other package they use, but in the final analysis I would rather see a more realistic result, warts and all. Won't stop me bidding though! No 70 doesn't look too good in the pic, to be honest. Although it's damn good for an 1895 2mm.

I agree. Some have definitely been photoshopped. For example the cheaper of the 1881 pennies looks absolutely fantastic, but whether it would look as good in the hand is a different matter. Which one? I could give you my opinion. The one I've screenshotted and uploaded to imageshack in this link ~ it's No 55 in the list. It looks a truly beautiful coin, but I've been had before with enhanced images. Not saying it is, but you can't be too careful.

I agree. Some have definitely been photoshopped. For example the cheaper of the 1881 pennies looks absolutely fantastic, but whether it would look as good in the hand is a different matter.

Some absurdly low prices there. Is the penny bubble bursting, or were there just too many going at one time? Wish I'd been there to boost my own collection. A couple of nice 1865/3 in reasonable grades (GF and VF) both less than £100. An opportunity missed By the way, did other people get caught out by their eccentric cataloguing? I was scrolling through wondering what the logic was, then I realised they catalogue in alphabetical order of denomination! Couldn't agree more, Peck. I went through almost wincing with the pain of great opportunity not even lost, but never known about in the first place !!! Some amazing bargains there, or, is the bottom beginning to drop out of the market ?

You have to be kidding me !!! Somebody really is having a laugh with this offering.

Wow, just wow

Might have a punt for the 1880 ~ No 53.