|
|
The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com |
|
|
Coinpublications.com
Predecimal.com
1949threepence
-
Content Count
8,081 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
262
Posts posted by 1949threepence
-
-
Because it surely won't be long before they aren't stamped copy
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.
While that's true, I have noticed that there are increasing numbers of (modern) cast copies of very ordinary late hammered coins appearing on eBay. I might be suspicious of a rare variety or a much better than normally found example, particularly being listed by someone with a record of only selling jeans, but an ordinary coin? And if I'm just starting out and want a space filler?
Yes, there is a Henry VIII testoon currently on sale for a relatively low price that looks better than any I've seen before; but without the coin in my hand it's difficult to tell. The main reason to be suspicious in that case is that the seller apparently can't be bothered to visit a dealer to confirm his coin's value but is happy to let it go for quite a bit less on eBay.
But the 'average' duff 'coin' goes for around £30. A decent profit for someone that has perhaps spent a few quid making it. And if you're sensible enough to refund all money and act polite if a buyer questions their purchase, you avoid most negative feedback allowing you to continue scamming many others.
That's probably very true. Such action will deflect too much negative attention & allow the scammer to continue largely unhindered.
No, it's a bad business that harms the hobby far more than the individuals who are unlucky enough to buy one of these things. Eventually any coin of any value to a collector without a photographic provenance going back at least 30 years could become unsellable. What happens then to Joe-average collectors like us? Either we're priced out of the hobby or left with a collection nobody else will want.
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:-
Choice Mint (MS-63)Generally speaking, this can be thought of as a nice example of Mint State coin which does not meet the strict quality requirements of an MS-65. An MS-63 coin will be an attractive and quite typical example of a new coin of its type with a strike that is typical for the series. There will be a number of surface marks, but not too many, too large nor too awkwardly placed so as to be a distraction. And, while the luster is usually attractive, it may be somewhat subdued or there may be some dull areas. Frequently, an MS-63 coin is an MS-65 coin that has a slight "problem" such as "one hit too many". Also very often, one grading factor will be of a high quality not normally seen at this grade and will compensate for a weaker factor, such as superb luster balancing a weak strike, or near flawless surfaces outweighing diminished luster.
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
-
Because it surely won't be long before they aren't stamped copy
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.
-
I thought this one might be quite useful as it gives a definition of the MS grades, eg: MS63, MS70 etc
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
-
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.
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.
-
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" ?
Yes, that's am interesting point. If all the original Mint lustre is present but no longer blazing, that MAY be a case for CCC's term "BU slightly toning" (though I don't think they use it this way, often).
To describe such coins, the term "mature lustre" springs to mind for some reason.
-
I really do not see why a coin may not have lustre in the legends as these are protected areas and the little microwaves that cause lustre are protected from wear there as well. It turns out that the original struck red colour of the coin is also protected in these areas and as it really is a non-point or at best a corollary to what I have been describing, not really worth separate mention.
I have no idea what is in Gouby's head and will defend on crystallographic basis the definition of lustre. Sheen is inexact but I suspect it is being used somewhat interchangeably (ie Peckris) for lustre. Lustre is not a chemical coating but a deformity of the struck metal of the surface of the coin and when undisturbed and of certain pattern yields lustre that is most attractive.
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.
-
Perhaps I'm being a miserable old git but I do find the photographs on both the website and in the catalogue too heavily 'shopped to be overly useful and one more thing, one or two coins are described something like this; 'full lustre, lightly toning'. So that's not full lustre then.
I know Colin Cooke's are a thoroughly professional outfit but I jut felt they could have done better in those areas.
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.
-
Which of course brings up once again just what lustre is. I do not have a problem with a coin losing some of its "red" and still being full lustre as IMO this implies a fresh, minted surface with no abrasions. In fact, I would consider some entirely brown bits to be full lustre when they exhibit that silkiness of surface with no blemishes, scratches or other breaks.
Couldn't disagree more. To me, lustre means "red" otherwise there is no sense in the description, e.g. "50% lustre". Mint lustre is mint lustre is mint lustre. To me, the only area of doubt is where coins have been "Mint toned" using hypo. These coins, when "fully lustred" should have a gorgeous dark purple sheen, and if any brown is showing through, they are not. But at the same time, I can understand some dealers / collectors preferring to avoid BU in relation to those particular issues. Otherwise BU should mean "fully red". That's what I've always understood anyway.
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" ?
-
Which one? I could give you my opinion.
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.
-
Perhaps I'm being a miserable old git but I do find the photographs on both the website and in the catalogue too heavily 'shopped to be overly useful and one more thing, one or two coins are described something like this; 'full lustre, lightly toning'. So that's not full lustre then.
I know Colin Cooke's are a thoroughly professional outfit but I jut felt they could have done better in those areas.
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.
-
Perhaps I'm being a miserable old git but I do find the photographs on both the website and in the catalogue too heavily 'shopped to be overly useful and one more thing, one or two coins are described something like this; 'full lustre, lightly toning'. So that's not full lustre then.
I know Colin Cooke's are a thoroughly professional outfit but I jut felt they could have done better in those areas.
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.
-
By the way what's the general opinion about the results of pennies in the London Coins sale on Sunday? (link here: http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/index.php?page=Pastresults) On the one hand rare stuff went for crazy prices (e.g. £3200 for a 1860 F8A 1*+A) but on the other some more common types went for rather low prices in spite of being UNC with lustre (e.g. only £48 for an 1885).
David
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 ?
-
-
Hello,
Hopefully I have attached a picture of my 1882 withou H,
Not forsale I'm affraid
Wow, just wow
-
Might have a punt for the 1880 ~ No 53.
-
Some very fine quality stock there. I've bid on a couple.
Anybody else made any bids yet ?
Although looking back,it does say bidding starts on the 15th September, so i assume that our bids are of no use?
Ah, didn't notice that. So presumably we must re-bid on or after 15 September one would assume.
-
Some very fine quality stock there. I've bid on a couple.
Anybody else made any bids yet ?
-
Any idea of the split/date for part II ?
I know you're not Colin Cooke's and don't have to do their job for them, but would be useful to know ?
By split, I mean is part I going to be, say, Buns from 1860-1894 for example....
Unfortunately I do not have that info, but will email Bernie.
He did say catalogues will be available soon from Cookes, so
I will email Neil at the same time.
John, will you be able to give us the heads up when the catalogue is available ? Cheers
Bernie has just emailed me
Hello All,
James’s penny collection part 1, now viewable at Colin Cooke website,
Bernie
Cheers John
-
It's an enjoyable way to spend a summers afternoon and you just never know what might turn up.
I live a few miles from Biggin Hill and know of 4 Spitfire crash sites and 2 Dorniers. The most important Roman camp in the South East isn't far away either. Sadly, Kent was a centre of Iron smelting during the Iron age and the damn stuff is everywhere.
People do get lucky, Roger Mintey and his Reigate hoard comes to mind, 6,700 Nobles, Half Nobles and Groats
The Anglo Saxon verb for 'to hide' was Banken from which we get Bank.
There is no knowing what's out there waiting to be found - now if it would stop raining......
It definitely would be an enjoyable way to spend a Summer's afternoon, with the added bonus of Sun and fresh air. As you say you just never know.....Mind you, ever seen those corroded "dug up" green efforts they try to sell on e bay ? Metal detecting failures.
To be honest its been a dream of mine to find a huge chest stuffed full of coins, we can all dream i suppose. I have thought about detecting here, going out at 2am as i don't want to get busted by the Stasi, i still might do it because as i said, there's a lot of farmland around me, but with my luck i will dig up a UXB, but you never know whats around here. I have no experience with detectors, i know there's several types, so whats a good one for ploughed fields etc?
Is that what the Germans call their police these days ? Weren't the real Stasi the old East German secret police ?
People do get lucky
And people do buy lottery tickets. Come to think of it, you probably have a better chamce with the lottery - at least there are winners every week!
You have to be in it to win it, as they say. Although it's true that you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning, than matching 6 on the lottery
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8931000/8931437.stm
Is'nt it just sods law, someone with no interest in coins find a stash. I have no interest in gold, will i find a huge mine, noooooooooooooooooooooooooo
This has been a long cherished pipe dream of mine ~ to find a chest or box somewhere with a number of coins in it, which have lain undisturbed for over a century. Just think what might be found amongst them.......
......In reality probably just common dates, a few in EF and UNC condition. But still, you just never know.
The family in Dronfield were very lucky, but not numismatists
Was anyone watching these Pennies?
in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Posted
That's pretty much what I was thinking, too.