jaggy

In an auction, the operative phrase is 'cave emptor'. This means that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made. Obviously, that is not always possible with online auctions and where the auction house is in another country. So the buyer has to rely on the reputation of the auction house and its responsiveness to their inquiries. A good reputation is hard to develop but very easy to destroy. Catawiki may wish to consider this.

These are probably the most common sixpences George III - 1816 George IV - 1821 William IV - 1834 Victoria - Young head - 1887 Victoria - Jubilee head - 1887 Victoria - Veiled head - 1901 Edward VII - 1902 George V - anything in the 1930s George VI - anything except 1952 Elizabeth - any dates

As per the title for information and for anyone who is interested. https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6274/uk-expedite-february-2018/?utm_source=Mx%20Group&utm_medium=Email%20Blast&utm_campaign=18-NG-2308%20Heritage%20UK%20Expedite%20eBlast&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTm1Oa1ltUTJOekUyTUdKaSIsInQiOiJDVXRzcXVNOXcxSkVDTm1OaUlwTThiUkxpRWVwMXhFdmFGTzVuY0ZYNGQycGljamVpWkZFcFwva2FlVWVIdXhUYzFiOGFtRzRIVEV4c2ZVZVdLaXdWclhVVVlMYnBaaWlMUUVzdUF0VGZnSXg0bVl6QnJNVHBjUXNWbTJ4UjBNQnIifQ%3D%3D

I don't think the coin business is all that different to any other. Over 30 years experience as an auditor taught me that 99% of businesses are above board and try to do the right thing by their customers. Unfortunately, the 1% (in fact, usually a lot less than 1%) tend to get an inordinate amount of publicity, give all the good businesses a bad name and leave a public impression that there is a generalised problem. I make regular acquisitions of coins. I have auction houses that I trust and know how I wish to deal with and I have dealers that I trust and who have never let me down (including Rob from whom I have made several acquisitions). My disappointments have come mainly from one auction house and because of my own mistakes. I still buy from that auction house and I have worked out how to manage my risk there and I am working diligently on not making mistakes going forward.

That was my thought too. Nice looking coin. I also have an example of Briots 1st milled issue - also AU55 - with the flower & B/- mintmark and 'CHRISTO' in the legend.

The concern I have with coins as an investment is the costs associated with buying and selling and the relative lack of liquidity. I can buy and sell shares with either no brokerage fee (my bank gives me 100 free trades a year) or a very low fee. I can also sell them in the market through a simple online transaction and, usually, almost immediately. Not so coins. Mostly they are bought and sold through a dealer or through auctions. Both have their costs. Auctions generally charge a premium on both ends of the transaction and that can be as high as 20%. Dealers have to make a profit so cannot buy coins at retail. They will pay something less than that. Cost wise, it is a much more expensive transaction than buying or selling shares. Then there is liquidity. There is a smaller pool of coin buyers, there are fewer opportunities to buy and sell and, here in the USA, coins pretty much have to be certified and slabbed which adds more cost and risk to the process if you are buying raw coins. Of course, you can make money with coins. But you really need to know what you are doing so that you can spot good coins at reasonable prices or which appear to be underpriced. I have sold relatively few coins because I am a collector and not an investor and, on those coins, my net profit is 32%. However, most of that profit came from just one coin for which I received an unsolicited offer which was too good to refuse. The other angle is to buy coins for their bullion value which is essentially speculating on the price of gold. Money can be made but it can also be lost in that market.

What a shame that the 1848 sixpence (row C, no. 4) is holed. That is a pretty rare coin and, even worn, would have fetched a few quid.

Sophie Welcome to the forum and welcome to the hobby. The only advice I can add to that already given is to always buy the best coin you can afford. Quality always counts.

While I agree with much of your post, I don't think that LCA have as much influence as you think. They are far from the only auction house in the UK - there is also DNW, Baldwin & Spink to name but three - and they are not the only grader - there is also NGC & PCGS both of whom are expanding into the UK and Europe. Neither are they the only seller of coins, there are many others. That means that we have a choice. We can choose to stay with 'raw' coins or we can choose to go with a grader (LCA, NGC or PCGS). We can choose to buy at LCA or at one of the other auction houses or dealers. And, in auction, a coin is only worth what a bidder is willing to pay. Up to us as collectors to determine what we think the coin is worth and bid accordingly.

I just got the prices realised from Baldwins and it says that Lot 74 went for £550.

Bidding has been open for some time. I placed my bid - not on this coin - on Friday. But I also watched the auction just in case.

Honestly, I don't think it looks like a great sixpence and certainly not a lustrous UNC. LCA photos tend to flatter the coin and this one does not which suggests to me that it is not as described. The reverse is better than the obverse. The coin might make EF in my opinion. The estimate is very light. A top quality 1917 would go for anywhere from 90 - 130 pounds. I think the LCA estimate reflects the quality of the coin. They do tend to be weakly struck and the snub nose lion on the reverse is typical. Other years in the George V sixpences, you can find a much nicer nose on the lion.

Sorry to hear the news. Condolences to his family.

ESC 1296

The one on the first V look like a scratch.

1697, third bust later harp, large crowns. ESC 1233. Agree with Rob on the hint of a crossbar on the second V (this is noted for second bust small crowns but not for this one). Reverse is better than the obverse which has some scratches. Probably a VF and quite a nice coin. I had a look at both my own examples and there is no hint of a cross bar as there is on this one. So worth checking out.

Thanks. Not the greatest of photos as it was taken through the slab. As you know, it is not my main area of interest. But sometimes a (affordable) coin comes along that is too nice not to buy.

MS64

I always like the half crown. Perhaps because my pocket money was increased from one shilling to 2/6d in 1964. That was a lot of money for a kid in those days. Anyway, I have five George V half crowns. This is perhaps the nicest:

I had ten coins back from NGC this week. I think they got eight of them right, under-graded one by a couple of points and over-graded one by a couple of points. It isn't an exact science but, in my experience, they get the vast majority of the grading about right. We have a tendency to highlight where they screw up .... and it does happen. But we don't highlight when we agree with the grading.

That is my big criticism of LCGS. The lack of independence.

I have only identified one coin which is of any interest. Very little there for me.

Thanks for responding to the thread and do keep us informed of progress. As a collector, I want to see top quality dealers out there who are easy and fair to work with so I really do hope that you pull Baldwins around.

You misunderstood my comment. I did not submit the coin for "upgrading". I resubmitted it to get it correctly attributed as a sixpence (and not a shilling) and with mention of the R/V error which I got. The difference in grading was one point; a 65 became a 66. That is close enough to be within a fair margin of error from two reasonable graders. But my more general point remains. In my opinion, the grading companies get it right 99% of the time.

I have sent quite a few coins away to NGC for grading and had several come back with a details grade, usually hairline scratches. Sadly, in almost every case, the graders got it right. It was a lesson to me to be far more careful when buying raw coins which constitute the bulk of my purchases. Sometimes, the thoughtful collector can take advantage of slabbing errors, which do happen, or can take advantage of those who buy the grade and not the coin. I bought a 1834 MS64 sixpence at Heritage. Per the photos, it looked like it had horrible scratches to the neck and the price reflected that. I took a chance that the scratches were on the slab and not the coin (otherwise it would/should never have got an MS64). Turned out that I was right! I bought an MS65 1887 sixpence R/V misattributed by PCGS as a shilling with no error. Broke it out of the slab, sent it to NGC from whence it came back properly attributed and MS66. Big win! Despite the above, and much as some of us like to deride the TPGs and their graders on here and to point out their mistakes and errors, when it comes to Details grades, the reality is that they get it right 99% of the time. And, even though the actual grade (for non-Details) is an inexact science, they generally get that more or less right too. Truth is, as collectors, we make buying mistakes and base decisions off of flattering photos too much of the time. And we don't much like it when we get it wrong. Easier to blame the TPG. Having a few coins come back with Details has been for me an object lesson in 'Cave Emptor' and in causing me to tighten up my own grading standards. It has also emphasised the importance of trusted sources (e.g. dealers) when buying coins.