Ebay's Worst Offerings

[VickySilver 775]

Obverse style especially gives this one away. Looks like a couple of bidders contesting. I might have been in it for 20 quid.......

[Rob 2,996]

Here's one that sold for over £100 this evening, and doesn't even exist as a genuine date for the coin (except in proof, which this isn't):

link

I like the line stating you should avoid 1866 and 1871 halfcrowns, as these are forgeries. OK, thanks for the info..

[azda 973]

Here's one that sold for over £100 this evening, and doesn't even exist as a genuine date for the coin (except in proof, which this isn't):

link

I like the line stating you should avoid 1866 and 1871 halfcrowns, as these are forgeries. OK, thanks for the info..

Quoting his eBay blurb here

"Victoria's Half Crowns were struck from 1839 to 1901, none were struck between 1851 and 1873 because of the striking of the new decimal coin the Florin which was struck in its place. "

Since when did decimalisation come into effect between 1851 and 1873?

[Nick 325]

Here's one that sold for over £100 this evening, and doesn't even exist as a genuine date for the coin (except in proof, which this isn't):

link

I like the line stating you should avoid 1866 and 1871 halfcrowns, as these are forgeries. OK, thanks for the info..

Quoting his eBay blurb here

"Victoria's Half Crowns were struck from 1839 to 1901, none were struck between 1851 and 1873 because of the striking of the new decimal coin the Florin which was struck in its place. "

Since when did decimalisation come into effect between 1851 and 1873?

The florin was so-called a decimal coin, because it was a tenth of a pound.

[davidrj 194]

A bit of skillful alteration here? from the waves I would think one of the earlier years of QEII pennies

[azda 973]

Fake? Check out the border terth on both sides

http://m.ebay.com/itm/121590159653?_mwBanner=1&_trksid=p2054897.l4275

[jelida 1,196]

How about this one? Does it rattle your beads?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/121587221215?_trksid=p2060778.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Jerry

[Paulus 1,942]

How about this one? Does it rattle your beads?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/121587221215?_trksid=p2060778.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Jerry

Whatever it actually is it scores 0/10 for eye appeal to me, I wouldn't give it house room!

[Prax 80]

Here's one that sold for over £100 this evening, and doesn't even exist as a genuine date for the coin (except in proof, which this isn't):

link

Looks like Vicky's hit puberty look at that lovely lump (Adam's Apple in her neck). For someone that does not collect Silver even I can say that is fake The way her neck curves etc

[Prax 80]

How about this one? Does it rattle your beads?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/121587221215?_trksid=p2060778.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Jerry

It is not a mule but it is what Freeman quotes in his footnotes which mention that at times on some 1860 coins some teeth that are not struck properly give the impression of looking like beads due to an improper strike. People do collect this as a variety but £200 is a bit over the moon. The teeth at 6 o clock are not struck well and look like beads and there are others which are not linked to the rim. I have one of these which I posted recently on the "More Pennies" thread

[jelida 1,196]

Yes, certainly not a mule, more of an ass! How can the vendor, being aware of the variety, get it so wrong? I suppose on the positive side, anyone looking to spend £200 in this series would not be caught out...........?

I did note the coin you posted, Prax, but at least yours was in good condition and therefore worthy of collecting as an example of impaired striking at the mint. I must admit that I take Freeman's comment re the weak striking at the teeth (and sometimes the L.C.Wyon below the bust) and the resulting occasional appearance of a section of 'beads' as a warning against the confusion demonstrated by the vendor, rather than a suggestion of varietal merits.

Jerry

[jelida 1,196]

Here's one that sold for over £100 this evening, and doesn't even exist as a genuine date for the coin (except in proof, which this isn't):

link

I remember being told many years ago that Georgian halfpennies were often forged (contemporaneously) using 'impossible' dates, the argument being that ' if a genuine one doesn't exist, how can this be a forgery'? I'm not sure how true that is, but perhaps that was the principle here. Don't suppose the argument held much weight in the courts, though.

Jerry

[DaveG38 385]

Here's one that sold for over £100 this evening, and doesn't even exist as a genuine date for the coin (except in proof, which this isn't):

link

I like the line stating you should avoid 1866 and 1871 halfcrowns, as these are forgeries. OK, thanks for the info..

Quoting his eBay blurb here

"Victoria's Half Crowns were struck from 1839 to 1901, none were struck between 1851 and 1873 because of the striking of the new decimal coin the Florin which was struck in its place. "

Since when did decimalisation come into effect between 1851 and 1873?

Here's another one - 'only' £29.99 on a BIN. Apparently it's now a pattern! Somebody's knocking these out somewhere.

[Coinery 926]

Here's one that sold for over £100 this evening, and doesn't even exist as a genuine date for the coin (except in proof, which this isn't):

link

I like the line stating you should avoid 1866 and 1871 halfcrowns, as these are forgeries. OK, thanks for the info..

Quoting his eBay blurb here

"Victoria's Half Crowns were struck from 1839 to 1901, none were struck between 1851 and 1873 because of the striking of the new decimal coin the Florin which was struck in its place. "

Since when did decimalisation come into effect between 1851 and 1873?

Here's another one - 'only' £29.99 on a BIN. Apparently it's now a pattern! Somebody's knocking these out somewhere.

Strange thing is, they are worn to differing degrees, and the first one really looks as though it's circulated? I wonder if it did?

The milled edge on the BIN one is pretty good isn't it?

[DaveG38 385]

Here's one that sold for over £100 this evening, and doesn't even exist as a genuine date for the coin (except in proof, which this isn't):

link

I like the line stating you should avoid 1866 and 1871 halfcrowns, as these are forgeries. OK, thanks for the info..

Quoting his eBay blurb here

"Victoria's Half Crowns were struck from 1839 to 1901, none were struck between 1851 and 1873 because of the striking of the new decimal coin the Florin which was struck in its place. "

Since when did decimalisation come into effect between 1851 and 1873?

Here's another one - 'only' £29.99 on a BIN. Apparently it's now a pattern! Somebody's knocking these out somewhere.

Strange thing is, they are worn to differing degrees, and the first one really looks as though it's circulated? I wonder if it did?

The milled edge on the BIN one is pretty good isn't it?

It's pretty obvious that the date has been 're-engineered' so I guess it's possible that somebody is using worn specimens of more common dates and is re-working the date. That's probably cost effective if you can sell to mugs at £100, but surely not at £29.99 - most worn Viccy halfcrowns will get close to that without too much trouble without all the extra work.

[Chingford 166]

This seller could become a regular

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-VICTORIA-HALFPENNY-1860-YOUNG-HEAD-/321692650165?

CHP1860 forgery, says he bought in the 60's, but these have only come to market in the last couple of years.

I have reported it to Ebay as fraudelent activity, as the text is intended to mislead

[Paulus 1,942]

Optimistic?

Edited March 11, 2015 by Paulus

[Nick 325]

I have reported it to Ebay as fraudelent activity, as the text is intended to mislead

I'd be very surprised if eBay do anything about it.

[DaveG38 385]

This seller could become a regular

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-VICTORIA-HALFPENNY-1860-YOUNG-HEAD-/321692650165?

CHP1860 forgery, says he bought in the 60's, but these have only come to market in the last couple of years.

I have reported it to Ebay as fraudelent activity, as the text is intended to mislead

The numbers of the date are clearly less worn that the rest of the legend, so almost certainly a forgery. But then it's my old mate of 1882 no H penny fame. Given his attempts at fraud on both me and ebay I'm not surprised he's at it again.

[Peter 615]

This is the seller that wouldn't send a 1882 no H 1d to another forum member because it went too cheap.

He has sold some nice coins.

[Peter 615]

Almost stole your thunder Dave.

[Paulus 1,942]

Optimistic?

Re-post - surely these boxes don't even go for a tenth of that (I haven't checked!)?

[Charlie 8]

Optimistic?

Not this tit again

[scott 129]

to be fair, he did purchase the 1860 halfpenny of a scouser

[DaveG38 385]

Optimistic?

Re-post - surely these boxes don't even go for a tenth of that (I haven't checked!)?

Made in the 1950s I believe by Hearne. Certainly not a 1893 Proof set case (are they all black, does anybody know?) and maybe worth 100th of the asking price i.e. £11.75.

Edited March 11, 2015 by DaveG38