Ebay's Worst Offerings

[Gary D 76]

Why would anyone pay that much for a 1 in a billion chance of getting the real one - then have to give it back because its stolen property! I picked my '33' penny (along with '54 penny, and '45 silver 3d) from Gary Phelps for £15 each!

What do we reckon... adjusted 5 or transplanted 3?

It's a Gary Phelps £15 copy

[azda 973]

This one is from the Colin Cooke site quote as "Pattern by Andre Laurillier. Freeman 786. R19. BMC 2284. As struck with underlying lustre. 1 of only 4 in existence" Don't know how much it sold for though

[scott 129]

yea thats one of the patterns for 15 quid

i dont like the Laurillier portrait though or the massive teeth on the pattern. they look odd

[Peckris 579]

Not really a laugh but it will be intereting to see what people will pay for a fake coin.

1933 Penny

Not a fake - a replica, and unsurprisingly poor, at that.

[Peckris 579]

yea thats one of the patterns for 15 quid

i dont like the Laurillier portrait though or the massive teeth on the pattern. they look odd

No, that's the genuine Lavrillier scott. The bad replica is the one in the original post that started this discussion off.

[The Future 11]

Not really a laugh but it will be intereting to see what people will pay for a fake coin.

1933 Penny

Not a fake - a replica, and unsurprisingly poor, at that.

Well, the poor replica went for £63. Clever description by the seller, no comment on the bidders.

[Peckris 579]

Not really a laugh but it will be intereting to see what people will pay for a fake coin.

1933 Penny

Not a fake - a replica, and unsurprisingly poor, at that.

Well, the poor replica went for £63. Clever description by the seller, no comment on the bidders.

That's appalling. You can pick those up new for £25 or less. (The reason they are poor is probably deliberate - designed that way to prevent fraudulent selling on as either the real thing or a convincing forgery).

[Accumulator 52]

Then there's this"oldest on e-Bay" and "worth a fair bit as seen on Antiques Road Show" 1940 penny (which it clearly isn't) that would set you back precisely seventy nine pounds and fifty four pence!

Check out his feedback including the gem: "Lights didnt work panel had lots missing screws and was filthy but Fast delivery". So that's ok then!

My friendly note to him:

Dear jsp69jsp,

I suppose you've noticed that the picture you've supplied is not a 1940 penny, but one of 1900?!

Also, the 'penny' has been in circulation since the mid-900's AD, so 1940 isn't exactly old!

- cerbera100

His reply...

Dear cerbera100,

so this isnt a question about the penny at all, just you telling me pointless information

thanks

- jsp69jsp

So apparently informing someone that their title, image and description are utterly wrong is 'pointless information'... Do wonders never cease?!

Question is, do I reply, and if so how?!

Why am I not surprised.

You could turn it into a 'question about the penny' though. How about, "Why is this nice penny owned by an idiot who believes it to be from 1940 when a poorly trained monkey could tell him that it's dated 1900? Moreover, why does the same brainless moron advertise it as the 'oldest on eBay' when the most basic grasp of numeracy would indicate otherwise?" Or something along those lines.

Anyway, hopefully he will get his comeuppance when it sells at auction for 99p rather than the £75.54 BIN price!

So he has no "sarky get out" I've messaged him asking simply "Is it 1940 as in the description or 1900 as in the photo?" Let's see how he gets out of a straight question.

Wonder whether he replied Peckris? Anyway, he's updated the listing and it now reads "the picture says different but the penny is a 1940"! Still the oldest on eBay and "as seen on Antiques Roadshow" though. Twat!

[argentumandcoins 70]

Then there's this"oldest on e-Bay" and "worth a fair bit as seen on Antiques Road Show" 1940 penny (which it clearly isn't) that would set you back precisely seventy nine pounds and fifty four pence!

Check out his feedback including the gem: "Lights didnt work panel had lots missing screws and was filthy but Fast delivery". So that's ok then!

My friendly note to him:

Dear jsp69jsp,

I suppose you've noticed that the picture you've supplied is not a 1940 penny, but one of 1900?!

Also, the 'penny' has been in circulation since the mid-900's AD, so 1940 isn't exactly old!

- cerbera100

His reply...

Dear cerbera100,

so this isnt a question about the penny at all, just you telling me pointless information

thanks

- jsp69jsp

So apparently informing someone that their title, image and description are utterly wrong is 'pointless information'... Do wonders never cease?!

Question is, do I reply, and if so how?!

Why am I not surprised.

You could turn it into a 'question about the penny' though. How about, "Why is this nice penny owned by an idiot who believes it to be from 1940 when a poorly trained monkey could tell him that it's dated 1900? Moreover, why does the same brainless moron advertise it as the 'oldest on eBay' when the most basic grasp of numeracy would indicate otherwise?" Or something along those lines.

Anyway, hopefully he will get his comeuppance when it sells at auction for 99p rather than the £75.54 BIN price!

So he has no "sarky get out" I've messaged him asking simply "Is it 1940 as in the description or 1900 as in the photo?" Let's see how he gets out of a straight question.

Wonder whether he replied Peckris? Anyway, he's updated the listing and it now reads "the picture says different but the penny is a 1940"! Still the oldest on eBay and "as seen on Antiques Roadshow" though. Twat!

The chappie has the brains of a peanut methinks!

[Peckris 579]

Then there's this"oldest on e-Bay" and "worth a fair bit as seen on Antiques Road Show" 1940 penny (which it clearly isn't) that would set you back precisely seventy nine pounds and fifty four pence!

Check out his feedback including the gem: "Lights didnt work panel had lots missing screws and was filthy but Fast delivery". So that's ok then!

My friendly note to him:

Dear jsp69jsp,

I suppose you've noticed that the picture you've supplied is not a 1940 penny, but one of 1900?!

Also, the 'penny' has been in circulation since the mid-900's AD, so 1940 isn't exactly old!

- cerbera100

His reply...

Dear cerbera100,

so this isnt a question about the penny at all, just you telling me pointless information

thanks

- jsp69jsp

So apparently informing someone that their title, image and description are utterly wrong is 'pointless information'... Do wonders never cease?!

Question is, do I reply, and if so how?!

Why am I not surprised.

You could turn it into a 'question about the penny' though. How about, "Why is this nice penny owned by an idiot who believes it to be from 1940 when a poorly trained monkey could tell him that it's dated 1900? Moreover, why does the same brainless moron advertise it as the 'oldest on eBay' when the most basic grasp of numeracy would indicate otherwise?" Or something along those lines.

Anyway, hopefully he will get his comeuppance when it sells at auction for 99p rather than the £75.54 BIN price!

So he has no "sarky get out" I've messaged him asking simply "Is it 1940 as in the description or 1900 as in the photo?" Let's see how he gets out of a straight question.

Wonder whether he replied Peckris? Anyway, he's updated the listing and it now reads "the picture says different but the penny is a 1940"! Still the oldest on eBay and "as seen on Antiques Roadshow" though. Twat!

Yes he did - simply said it was a 1940 not what it showed in the picture (made some excuse about his camera). So maybe that's what drove him to change the description?

[VickySilver 775]

I think that Lavrillier is a joke of a look for a coin, and just can not accept it as a "true" 1933 penny. I too had a shot at the C. Adams specimen in a day when I could afford such and high-stepped right on over it. Maybe on hindsight could have bought it to "flip" it though...

[Rob 3,002]

I think that Lavrillier is a joke of a look for a coin, and just can not accept it as a "true" 1933 penny. I too had a shot at the C. Adams specimen in a day when I could afford such and high-stepped right on over it. Maybe on hindsight could have bought it to "flip" it though...

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection.

[Peckris 579]

I think that Lavrillier is a joke of a look for a coin, and just can not accept it as a "true" 1933 penny. I too had a shot at the C. Adams specimen in a day when I could afford such and high-stepped right on over it. Maybe on hindsight could have bought it to "flip" it though...

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection.

Strictly speaking it's a pattern, so not a real gap as such.

[Rob 3,002]

I think that Lavrillier is a joke of a look for a coin, and just can not accept it as a "true" 1933 penny. I too had a shot at the C. Adams specimen in a day when I could afford such and high-stepped right on over it. Maybe on hindsight could have bought it to "flip" it though...

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection.

Strictly speaking it's a pattern, so not a real gap as such.

Nonsense. Patterns are every bit as real as currency and have equal status in the collection. They add a nice bit of variety as well, which gets away from the serried ranks of the me too date runs. It isn't an overly long list of designers either. From the 12th century up to the end of £sd I have a list of about 75 people whose names could be attributed to the design. Unfortunately, given the diarrhoeic output of HM's Royal Mint, we now have an almost identical number post 1970 resulting in an enforced 'me too' subset within the list as a result of the Olympic 50ps and others. 50p is in danger of becoming the commonest denomination in the collection, which can't be right and certainly isn't desirable. In the long term though the 50p must inevitably be overtaken by the penny - even the modern ones have a place.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Rob

[Peckris 579]

I think that Lavrillier is a joke of a look for a coin, and just can not accept it as a "true" 1933 penny. I too had a shot at the C. Adams specimen in a day when I could afford such and high-stepped right on over it. Maybe on hindsight could have bought it to "flip" it though...

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection.

Strictly speaking it's a pattern, so not a real gap as such.

Nonsense. Patterns are every bit as real as currency and have equal status in the collection. They add a nice bit of variety as well, which gets away from the serried ranks of the me too date runs. It isn't an overly long list of designers either. From the 12th century up to the end of £sd I have a list of about 75 people whose names could be attributed to the design. Unfortunately, given the diarrhoeic output of HM's Royal Mint, we now have an almost identical number post 1970 resulting in an enforced 'me too' subset within the list as a result of the Olympic 50ps and others. 50p is in danger of becoming the commonest denomination in the collection, which can't be right and certainly isn't desirable. In the long term though the 50p must inevitably be overtaken by the penny - even the modern ones have a place.

Only among those who collect them, which you must admit is only a fraction of collectors of dates and types. For example, I'm only interested in late 18th Century copper patterns, most else leaves me cold - I wouldn't cross the road for a George V double florin or early 60s cent (unless someone gave me them!)

[Rob 3,002]

I think that Lavrillier is a joke of a look for a coin, and just can not accept it as a "true" 1933 penny. I too had a shot at the C. Adams specimen in a day when I could afford such and high-stepped right on over it. Maybe on hindsight could have bought it to "flip" it though...

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection.

Strictly speaking it's a pattern, so not a real gap as such.

Nonsense. Patterns are every bit as real as currency and have equal status in the collection. They add a nice bit of variety as well, which gets away from the serried ranks of the me too date runs. It isn't an overly long list of designers either. From the 12th century up to the end of £sd I have a list of about 75 people whose names could be attributed to the design. Unfortunately, given the diarrhoeic output of HM's Royal Mint, we now have an almost identical number post 1970 resulting in an enforced 'me too' subset within the list as a result of the Olympic 50ps and others. 50p is in danger of becoming the commonest denomination in the collection, which can't be right and certainly isn't desirable. In the long term though the 50p must inevitably be overtaken by the penny - even the modern ones have a place.

Only among those who collect them, which you must admit is only a fraction of collectors of dates and types. For example, I'm only interested in late 18th Century copper patterns, most else leaves me cold - I wouldn't cross the road for a George V double florin or early 60s cent (unless someone gave me them!)

I realise that, though many serious currency collections have the odd pattern or two. A denomination collection almost certainly will, a general collection is less likely to in my opinion.

For most people the lack of patterns is down to cost at the budget collector end of the spectrum and unfamiliarity amongst those willing to spend a bit more. There is no defined price guide for them unlike currency, so there is no widespread appreciation of what is out there and how much a piece will set you back. For that you have to do your homework which is important given that some only cost a few hundred pounds, yet others will set you back 5 figures. I think the fear of getting burnt puts many off, though a lot of currency pieces trade for considerably bigger numbers than proofs or patterns. The other reason is probably related to the surprisingly large number of people at fairs who ask me for coins in fine or thereabouts indicating a fairly active collector base spending nominal amounts whilst gaining as much diversity as possible. A collection of low grade currency would sit uncomfortably with a collection of FDC or thereabouts proofs and patterns which of course is the norm for the latter.

[azda 973]

I have to Be honest, when i 1st started collecting Coins i had nö idea of the spectrum. I initially started with German Coins but obviously being in Germany i was competing against a nation.

I sold what i had then decided on British coins, again my collecting thoughts were all over the place and was buying allsorts until i stumbled across a BU Penny and 400 for a Penny on this site.

My point is, it does'nt matter what we think about collecting habits, if i could afford rarer coins i'd simply buy what has eye appeal to me, whether proof or not, i'd love more rarities in My collection, if i could afford them then i'd have kept that 1905 halfcrown, unfortunately its not the case and we have to respect everyones buying habits whether we like it or not.

[davidrj 194]

link

David

[Cerbera100 0]

Random... Thats got to be one of the most bizarre listings that I've ever seen!

[argentumandcoins 70]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Queen-Victoria-SIXPENCE-1887-Reproductive-Coin-/280499170111?pt=UK_Coins_Ancient_RL&hash=item414f0dab3f

I wonder what you get if you cross it with a Crown?????

[Accumulator 52]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Queen-Victoria-SIXPENCE-1887-Reproductive-Coin-/280499170111?pt=UK_Coins_Ancient_RL&hash=item414f0dab3f

I wonder what you get if you cross it with a Crown?????

Not a lot it would seem. According to the description it's "the withdrawn" type. The Pope would approve though!

[Peter 615]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Queen-Victoria-SIXPENCE-1887-Reproductive-Coin-/280499170111?pt=UK_Coins_Ancient_RL&hash=item414f0dab3f

I wonder what you get if you cross it with a Crown?????

Not a lot it would seem. According to the description it's "the withdrawn" type. The Pope would approve though!

I don't think he would rubber stamp it though.

[Rob 3,002]

My point is, it does'nt matter what we think about collecting habits, if i could afford rarer coins i'd simply buy what has eye appeal to me, whether proof or not, i'd love more rarities in My collection, if i could afford them then i'd have kept that 1905 halfcrown, unfortunately its not the case and we have to respect everyones buying habits whether we like it or not.

Frankly, it's a b****y good job we don't all collect the same things in the same grade. On the reasonable assumption that the acceptable coins would be those in the best condition, 99% of all coins would be melted as unfit for purpose, and every collector would be allowed one BU 1967 penny plus another coin of his/her choice and according to their wallet because that's all there would be to go around.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Rob

[Colin G. 147]

My point is, it does'nt matter what we think about collecting habits, if i could afford rarer coins i'd simply buy what has eye appeal to me, whether proof or not, i'd love more rarities in My collection, if i could afford them then i'd have kept that 1905 halfcrown, unfortunately its not the case and we have to respect everyones buying habits whether we like it or not.

Frankly, it's a b****y good job we don't all collect the same things in the same grade. On the reasonable assumption that the acceptable coins would be those in the best condition, 99% of all coins would be melted as unfit for purpose, and every collector would be allowed one BU 1967 penny plus another coin of his/her choice and according to their wallet because that's all there would be to go around.

the thought of having only a 1967 penny to covet

[Peckris 579]

link

David

Random... Thats got to be one of the most bizarre listings that I've ever seen!

I did more than a double take too! Then I realised that Wicca Annie must mainly sell clothes hence the remarks about smokers and cats. Mind you, looking at that penny, I'm thinking the cat may have got to it long ago