Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

kuhli

Ebay's Worst Offerings

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Thats just it Rob its crap and wrongly attributed ,he does list a lot wrong and wonder if he just has a guess or does it on purpose.

Yeah, it's a Freeman 71, 7 + G.

The lighthouse is wrong, and the helmet plume not tall enough for it to be reverse I. Maybe he's genuinely made a mistake due to the amount of wear. Possibly it was touted as reverse I when he bought it. Be interesting to see how many fall for it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

did you report it ? I have sent a message asking him to relist it as a modern fake 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Hidden away in the small print, at the bottom, under "item specifics" is the phrase "modern copy".

Is that his get out clause?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes well it must be but still it is a prohibited item it must state that in the listing title .....I feel sorry for anyone starting out it would take a few months of getting to know coins before realising.  And then there are those who will set out to deceive with craft and some skill 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had a very interesting on line chat with a member of e bay's staff regarding fakes listed as souvenirs etc, and copied and pasted the transcript into a post on the Modern Replica coins thread.

 

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to have a laugh at this one! I know many dealers who love to use "Near" and "About" to justify Fine, Very Fine and even Extra Fine grades, but I have never seen anyone use "Near Fair/Poor+" before! :D

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rare-1672-Charles-II-Silver-925-Shilling-Near-Fair-Poor/292656589612?hash=item4423b12b2c:g:mogAAOSweqxbWiKQ

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is an example of a security mark showing on a worn coin, and worth every penny? Or it might just be a fingerprint. What a pratt.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/One-Penny-1862-Key-Date-Rare-unusual-fingerprint/123276200683?hash=item1cb3d58aeb:g:Ur4AAOSwDu5bW2p4

Jerry

Edited by jelida
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jelida said:

Perhaps this is an example of a security mark showing on a worn coin, and worth every penny? Or it might just be a fingerprint. What a pratt.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/One-Penny-1862-Key-Date-Rare-unusual-fingerprint/123276200683?hash=item1cb3d58aeb:g:Ur4AAOSwDu5bW2p4

Jerry

thank you for that contribution Jerry.  I am sure many who are not so skilled as you or have the experience you and other forum members have might be surprised to find marks on coins that look like (or are) fingerprints.  Why would your average person on finding an old coin 160 years + be aware that coins may or may not get marked by many things including fingerprints.  When I first started collecting I found it a little surprising the average person would assume a fingerprint is rubbed off after such a time.  Did this information come to you by osmosis ? 

I see the only worst offering of this example is that the Pratt .......  felt that such a strange thing might be a rare thing and hence price it as such.  Please tell me also which references refer to the "finger print" phenomena , is it a widely written about occurrence or do we all just accept that is what it must be because it is the simplest explanation .....!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

thank you for that contribution Jerry.  I am sure many who are not so skilled as you or have the experience you and other forum members have might be surprised to find marks on coins that look like (or are) fingerprints.  Why would your average person on finding an old coin 160 years + be aware that coins may or may not get marked by many things including fingerprints.  When I first started collecting I found it a little surprising the average person would assume a fingerprint is rubbed off after such a time.  Did this information come to you by osmosis ? 

I see the only worst offering of this example is that the Pratt .......  felt that such a strange thing might be a rare thing and hence price it as such.  Please tell me also which references refer to the "finger print" phenomena , is it a widely written about occurrence or do we all just accept that is what it must be because it is the simplest explanation .....!

We all have fingers and we all produce visible fingerprints on a variety of surfaces and there is no excuse (assuming other senses are functional) for not being able to recognise the highly distinctive pattern as such, whatever the surface. To then attach a £3000 price tag is quite clearly not a logical step whether one is a coin expert or not, and like the fantastically overpriced common decimals on EBay is most likely a cynical attempt to fleece an idiot. Please don’t tell me Larry that you think there is a hidden purpose in fingerprinted coins too! 

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fingerprints are, of course, common on lustred coins. I've got a couple myself and have often mused that whoever put the fingerprint there, will now be long dead. Or was it somebody in more recent times just handling the coin carelessly? 

Interesting article on coin fingerprinting

Edited by 1949threepence
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jelida said:

We all have fingers and we all produce visible fingerprints on a variety of surfaces and there is no excuse (assuming other senses are functional) for not being able to recognise the highly distinctive pattern as such, whatever the surface. To then attach a £3000 price tag is quite clearly not a logical step whether one is a coin expert or not, and like the fantastically overpriced common decimals on EBay is most likely a cynical attempt to fleece an idiot. Please don’t tell me Larry that you think there is a hidden purpose in fingerprinted coins too! 

Jerry

That was not really my question Jerry I asked you where it is stated that handling a coin would impose a "fingerprint" that would then last for 160 + years the idea would seem silly to many considering that it is hard to get a good fingerprint on many surfaces that would last long enough for the police to pop up 160 later and tell you you stole that penny...

I believe that the coins that get "fingerprinted" which I assume must happen pretty soon after they begin circulation when perhaps the metal is at one of its most reactive that they do have characteristics that are not always common to your average fingerprint I mentioned this just recently before your most recent comment.  The marks cut across the line of the fingerprint and it enhances the pattern form.  I prefer to try to understand how a fingerprint gets on a coin by reflecting on the chemicals that might alter the coins surface, the physical circumstances that might make it happen I have a bag here of bright uncirculated pennies for the life of me I could not impose a fingerprint on one for a long enough time so that it would remain if the coin was in circulation.  It would simply be rubbed off would it not, if not why not.  I would just rather understand a reaction than just adopt the easy answer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Fingerprints are, of course, common on lustred coins. I've got a couple myself and have often mused that whoever put the fingerprint there, will now be long dead. Or was it somebody in more recent times just handling the coin carelessly? 

Interesting article on coin fingerprinting

it is an interesting article but apart from the rare event that the fingerprint belongs to a collector and hence this is how the fingerprint get preserved for 160 + years because it sits in a cabinet it does not deal with the obvious problem that fingerprints in a wider sense once a piece of metal is in circulation would have the prints rubbed off or at least smudged 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DrLarry said:

That was not really my question Jerry I asked you where it is stated that handling a coin would impose a "fingerprint" that would then last for 160 + years the idea would seem silly to many considering that it is hard to get a good fingerprint on many surfaces that would last long enough for the police to pop up 160 later and tell you you stole that penny...

I believe that the coins that get "fingerprinted" which I assume must happen pretty soon after they begin circulation when perhaps the metal is at one of its most reactive that they do have characteristics that are not always common to your average fingerprint I mentioned this just recently before your most recent comment.  The marks cut across the line of the fingerprint and it enhances the pattern form.  I prefer to try to understand how a fingerprint gets on a coin by reflecting on the chemicals that might alter the coins surface, the physical circumstances that might make it happen I have a bag here of bright uncirculated pennies for the life of me I could not impose a fingerprint on one for a long enough time so that it would remain if the coin was in circulation.  It would simply be rubbed off would it not, if not why not.  I would just rather understand a reaction than just adopt the easy answer.  

The coin has clearly been cleaned, exposing fresh metal, hence the fingerprint through the chemical action of sweat acids or other chemicals on the hand. Certainly they do not generally form afresh on patinated or oxidised coins. And I suspect the average hand is too clean or dry to lead to a visible fingerprint in most cases and most of the time , and there does seem to be a considerable delay for the chemical processes to form a visible print, during which time presumably the coin must not be cleaned, washed, or handled removing the ongoing process.  Either way this coin is certainly an EBay worst offering!

I clearly misunderstood your question....as usual, the most likely answer is the most obvious!

 

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a useful article.

Jerry

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jelida said:

The coin has clearly been cleaned, exposing fresh metal, hence the fingerprint through the chemical action of sweat acids or other chemicals on the hand. Certainly they do not generally form afresh on patinated or oxidised coins. And I suspect the average hand is too clean or dry to lead to a visible fingerprint in most cases and most of the time , and there does seem to be a considerable delay for the chemical processes to form a visible print, during which time presumably the coin must not be cleaned, washed, or handled removing the ongoing process.  Either way this coin is certainly an EBay worst offering!

I clearly misunderstood your question....as usual, the most likely answer is the most obvious!

 

Jerry

The rules of serendipity, and ockham's Razor  play such an important place in collecting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jelida said:

Perhaps this is an example of a security mark showing on a worn coin, and worth every penny? Or it might just be a fingerprint. What a pratt.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/One-Penny-1862-Key-Date-Rare-unusual-fingerprint/123276200683?hash=item1cb3d58aeb:g:Ur4AAOSwDu5bW2p4

Jerry

I think it's an example of someone trying to make a fool out of a naive buyer.

But even allowing for naivety, surely no-one would fall for this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jelida said:

Yes, a useful article.

Jerry

but many examples I have seen have the fingerprints on fully lustred coins and are they just as common on copper (which I think most likely less stable than bronze?) can you see them in silver.  The other thing this points out is that fingerprinting was not used officially in the UK until late 1800's early 1900's.  It illustrates that if it is so obvious and seen on a coin floating around for many years why no smart cookie didn't consider the implications.  Considering I am sure that Mr Hurquart Major's silver candlesticks were the most likely target of Mr Smith's nibble fingers. Lateral thinking aye .....they should have let numismatists develop forensic science in 1892  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I think it's an example of someone trying to make a fool out of a naive buyer.

But even allowing for naivety, surely no-one would fall for this.

 

probably not but it shows how irrational it might appear to anyone other than "experts"  to think that a coin 160 + years old would retain a fingerprint.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're 'avin a larf my son :lol:

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 11:21 AM, PWA 1967 said:

Winning bid £1.00 Pete....'nuff said ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes £1.00 to much :) although atleast the buyer cant loose much when he finds out what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Yes £1.00 to much :) although atleast the buyer cant loose much when he finds out what it is.

He’ll be bragging on about his EBay bargain for years. He presumably thinks it’s as advertised, why else bid twice! 

But as you say Pete no great loss.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jelida said:

He’ll be bragging on about his EBay bargain for years. He presumably thinks it’s as advertised, why else bid twice!

Pete said I should. :ph34r:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

You're 'avin a larf my son :lol:

link

"Clash error"? There'll be a white riot down Hammersmith Palais if that sells, for sure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×