Martinminerva

Deffo J2. Thinness or otherwise of date numerals is misleading except on near-unc coins: as the coin wears, the numbers and letters naturally broaden as the high points flatten.

And herein lies the whole problem, both with today's general populace and with any AI or algorithm. 😀

The seller says in his listing: I am not a coin expert so please any information would be useful. So, I hope a good many of us will give him the useful information that he is trying to pass off a fake!

'Post of the Month' , mate. Cheers! I am sure I am not the only one who laments the rise of TPGs.... God help us if there's a rise in "Coin AI" or similar. Maybe Bitcoin and the like will be collected in the future instead of all these pointless bits of copper, silver and gold? 😏

Yes. It was. I meant my post! Or do I ?? Error 404 resource not found bang crash spark... Highly illogical, captain...

Please not! I prefer to rely on RI (real intelligence) and my human nuance - if I like the look of a coin and want to buy it, I will buy it. If not, I won't. I do not need to be "told" what grade a British coin is by a (frequently) American TPG, and even less so by some future computer algorithm. Or was this post created by ChatGPT? 😏

No indeed. Picture please!

A genuine sovereign weighs 7.98 grams, so I am even more suspicious. Wonder if it is correct diameter, and, more significantly, thickness? Suspect strongly a lead-based core (the silvery stuff showing through) and then gilded. The fact it was with another pewter forgery also makes me very dubious. The only way to be certain is to take it to a reputable jeweller for proper appraisal including chemical testing.

It's a 7+G. The third group of leaves down contains 4 leaves, with the fourth just poking out at the bottom, proving obverse 7. It's a nice overall coin.

Exactly my point! How can sniping, either manually or automatically be relied upon now? Please enlighten us, Jerry!

Just as a matter of interest, how can you do that now if the listing doesn't tell you at what seconds it finishes?! As shown above, it is very rare that a listing ends at 00 seconds, so how do you know when 3 seconds before the end actually is?! Or is it automatic? But then, how does the software know at what seconds it finishes?! I am a bit bamboozled!!

Things are a more than a bit different, I agree, and there is a distinct difference between selling and buying. If you list for, say, 10 days, your item is 10 days to the second from when you submit the listing, unless you schedule a listing to start later when it does default to 00 seconds. As a seller, you are told hours, minutes and seconds when your item will finish. I have been selling on ebay for 20 years and this has always been the case. Indeed, I always make a note of when my items finish to the second so I can follow the last few moments by refreshing the screen (as live updates have not appeared for years when viewing one of your own items). What HAS changed I agree is that they do not now publish the "seconds" finish on a still live listing to prospective buyers - only when a listing has ended do they appear as in the screenshot above. This is a big nuisance, I absolutely agree! Maybe they have done that to try to control sniping?? Or maybe it is just sloppy coding - eminently possible given how ebay has gone over the last few years. If you do get any reply or joy from ebay to your questions, do let us know here as things have certainly gone weird of late!

Not so, Mike. The "bids" list doesn't show the seconds that an item finishes at. For that you have to see the listing itself (screenshot pasted in by using the item number) and you'll see it was 20.16 and 42 seconds, thus the various "snipes". Listings rarely end exactly at 00 seconds unless a seller schedules a listing to go live later rather than in real time. The clock weirdness you describe though I have noticed too in that they are not always in sync. Suspect latency in our broadband connections, and not sure if there is a solution to that. Hope that helps at least a bit...

Just a normal 4+D. As stated above, the remains of the LCW is visible below the shield to prove reverse D, and similarly the remains of LC Wyon seems visible entirely below the bust, albeit either with wear or die fill, which would be obverse 4. (Freeman notation)

And the second one also looks like a replica or copy: there appears to be some silvery metal showing through the "gold" where the coin is damaged above the queen's head. Copies of sovereigns are incredibly prevalent, sadly. If so, it would have basically no value at all. Sorry.

Just seen this on BBC website: Posted at 21:1521:15 BREAKINGNo presenters or pundits will feature on Saturday's MOTD - BBC No presenters or pundits will feature on Saturday's Match of the Day programme, a BBC spokesperson says. Saturday's Match of the Day programme will "focus on match action without studio presentation or punditry", they say. Hope it's a sign of things to come... all those massive salaries out of licence fee payers' pockets that could then be avoided! Maybe the BBC could then fulfil their (not government's) broken promise to have free TV licences for the over 75's which was part of their charter renewal last time around. Wishful thinking perhaps!!

£3,200 hammer - not a surprise as it's a superior specimen. link Anyone on here get it? Hope so!

Good shout - I think you're right. But hopefully Dr Larry can post a better picture in due course. 1874 8+I is much rarer than Freeman lists, I'm convinced!

Yes, this one is definitely 9+I

...and I think this one is an 1874 9+I, but I confess I can't be sure as the colon and leaves are not clear on the picture. On obverse 9, the leaves are even further away from the colon again. Post a better picture when you have it in hand and I'll let you know!

This one is just a "normal" 7+I. Notice the position of the top leaves of Victoria's wreath in relation to the colon after G:

Obverse: @secret santa Richard, if you want to use these for your rare halfpennies website, be my guest!

Talking of 8+I, keep looking out for the very rare 1873 (sic) 8+I too. Unrecorded originally in Freeman, it is now mentioned in Appendix 4 of the reprinted version. Dracott records 3 specimens seen, and here's a fourth: (obverse to follow)

Despite being a regular bidder and buyer for well over a decade, they didn't even send me a printed catalogue this time (they did this for a spell once before); I much prefer to read a paper catalogue thoroughly than browse a ponderous website, so I won't be putting in any bids. Not very good business acumen...

Maybe so! But I'm sure it will reappear at some point in the future, along with some more utter cock and bull.