Ebay's Worst Offerings

[argentumandcoins 70]

AFDC is not quite proof Nick. FDC would be proof. 27 Proof sets are around 1100 Quid in the cases Peck, take a look on ebay just now and you'll see a few there. We need to get our mindset off what Spink says and take a look at what auctions are selling for.

I think you are all missing an important point. BIN prices on ebay are inflated above Spink prices to cover ebay's 25% or whatever take on every sale. If a Spink price is £100, then the BIN is £120 or £125. That's just common sense by the seller, and in most cases equal stupidity by the buyer. There is one set at £1100, but others at £850. Knock 25% off the latter and you get £637.50 against a Spink list of £650. You regularly see items listed on ebay that are available on the seller's website for significantly less. I'd do exactly the same if selling on ebay because so many people treat it as the only place to buy, so persuading them to pay over the odds is not difficult, whilst ensuring you get a full price after listing costs and fees seems sensible. The extras cost is achievable because so many people are too lazy to search. If people did their homework, ebay sales would diminish somewhat and dealers could make a better living.

AFDC doesn't really exist. A coin is either FDC or it is an impaired proof grading as Ef/A UNC etc etc.

Totally correct assessment regarding ebay Rob. My ebay shop prices are all well above what I can sell direct from my own site for, but people are too stupid or too lazy to check. Another valid point is that the choice available direct from dealers is usually considerably better than the crap that is sold via ebay sellers and is also (in 99.9% of dealers cases) totally authentic unless otherwise stated.

Edited January 17, 2012 by argentumandcoins

[Paulus 1,942]

Seeing as this eBay Laughs thread has turned in to a discussion about proofs, I have a question for the assembled masses.

I posted the link to the worn 27 florin because I thought it was a bit of a joke, I mean who would want a proof coin in that condition?? But as has been pointed out, proof is a method of striking, not an indication of condition, so, as has also been pointed out, perhaps those YEAR collectors only have one way to fill that gap, a low mintage proof in any condition - I guess I just didn't imagine that many, if any, proof coins would be circulated.

My question is, I have 3 price guide books (Spink, CCGB and Coin Yearbook) and none of them quote the price of proofs in anything other than FDC - why is that? Please pardon my ignorance

[just.me 23]

Another reason that the 1927 3d and 2/- might be more popular could be because of the collectors who housed their collections in Whitman folders. The folders do have a slot for these denominations, but the 6d and 2/6 only had 1 slot for 1927, which would probably have been easier and cheaper to fill with the circulation issues.

[argentumandcoins 70]

Seeing as this eBay Laughs thread has turned in to a discussion about proofs, I have a question for the assembled masses.

I posted the link to the worn 27 florin because I thought it was a bit of a joke, I mean who would want a proof coin in that condition?? But as has been pointed out, proof is a method of striking, not an indication of condition, so, as has also been pointed out, perhaps those YEAR collectors only have one way to fill that gap, a low mintage proof in any condition - I guess I just didn't imagine that many, if any, proof coins would be circulated.

My question is, I have 3 price guide books (Spink, CCGB and Coin Yearbook) and none of them quote the price of proofs in anything other than FDC - why is that? Please pardon my ignorance

At a guess I would say that CCGB (correct me if I'm wrong Chris) and coin yearbook both take their lead from Spink.

Spink will only quote FDC prices because they are a bit sniffy about things and tend not to think that anybody would want anything other than FDC and of course most Spink clients wouldn't.

[Paulus 1,942]

Seeing as this eBay Laughs thread has turned in to a discussion about proofs, I have a question for the assembled masses.

I posted the link to the worn 27 florin because I thought it was a bit of a joke, I mean who would want a proof coin in that condition?? But as has been pointed out, proof is a method of striking, not an indication of condition, so, as has also been pointed out, perhaps those YEAR collectors only have one way to fill that gap, a low mintage proof in any condition - I guess I just didn't imagine that many, if any, proof coins would be circulated.

My question is, I have 3 price guide books (Spink, CCGB and Coin Yearbook) and none of them quote the price of proofs in anything other than FDC - why is that? Please pardon my ignorance

At a guess I would say that CCGB (correct me if I'm wrong Chris) and coin yearbook both take their lead from Spink.

Spink will only quote FDC prices because they are a bit sniffy about things and tend not to think that anybody would want anything other than FDC and of course most Spink clients wouldn't.

Can you recommend a guide that perhaps reflects real prices achieved at auction? I am intrigued for example why decent gold sovereigns often go for 220-240 at a brick house auction and 280-290 on eBay, seems bizarre to me!

[Peckris 579]

Seeing as this eBay Laughs thread has turned in to a discussion about proofs, I have a question for the assembled masses.

I posted the link to the worn 27 florin because I thought it was a bit of a joke, I mean who would want a proof coin in that condition?? But as has been pointed out, proof is a method of striking, not an indication of condition, so, as has also been pointed out, perhaps those YEAR collectors only have one way to fill that gap, a low mintage proof in any condition - I guess I just didn't imagine that many, if any, proof coins would be circulated.

My question is, I have 3 price guide books (Spink, CCGB and Coin Yearbook) and none of them quote the price of proofs in anything other than FDC - why is that? Please pardon my ignorance

Because for all intents and purposes, that's the only grade that matters for proofs. By far most proofs are FDC; a small number will be slightly impaired and dealers & auctioneers will mark those down (no need to have a separate column in the guides). Circulated worn proofs will be so rare and yet simultaneously so undesirable, it wouldn't be worthwhile to list them.

And don't forget, there will be many many proofs where there are also business strikes - for those, you wouldn't even be able to confidently say that what you have is a proof anyway, if it's circulated for long.

[The Future 10]

I'm a little surprised by the that worn 1927 florin going for over £80 but not too much. You have to take into consideration that the mintage is low and most of the coins were not circulated. On top of this, as Peckris said, there are no standard florins/threepences dated 1927. Therefore, it is quite rare to find these in low grade. I guess its a similar with the wreath crowns and even the 1970 proofs.

Its something I do not think that Spink or coin dealers have picked up on. I bought a 1927 threepence for £10 last year from a well known dealer at the Wakefield coin fair. The only problem was it had two holes in it! However, I bet if I put in on Ebay, it would sell for at least double what I paid.

[Peckris 579]

I'm a little surprised by the that worn 1927 florin going for over £80 but not too much. You have to take into consideration that the mintage is low and most of the coins were not circulated. On top of this, as Peckris said, there are no standard florins/threepences dated 1927. Therefore, it is quite rare to find these in low grade. I guess its a similar with the wreath crowns and even the 1970 proofs.

Its something I do not think that Spink or coin dealers have picked up on. I bought a 1927 threepence for £10 last year from a well known dealer at the Wakefield coin fair. The only problem was it had two holes in it! However, I bet if I put in on Ebay, it would sell for at least double what I paid.

The difference there being, that there are a lot - 750,000? - of 1970 proofs, more than enough to satisfy all collectors I would imagine.

[azda 973]

Can you recommend a guide that perhaps reflects real prices achieved at auction? I am intrigued for example why decent gold sovereigns often go for 220-240 at a brick house auction and 280-290 on eBay, seems bizarre to me!

[Rob 2,996]

At a guess I would say that CCGB (correct me if I'm wrong Chris) and coin yearbook both take their lead from Spink.

Spink will only quote FDC prices because they are a bit sniffy about things and tend not to think that anybody would want anything other than FDC and of course most Spink clients wouldn't.

Possibly true, but proofs obviously have less of a following than currency issues, not least because they are less accessible to collectors. If collecting patterns and proofs that were not intended for circulation, you would therefore want to pick up coins in as perfect preservation as possible. Sometimes this is not an option and you must make do with what is frequently unique or nearly so, but if you are aware of better you will tend to wait for it to turn up.

On the whole, only quoting FDC prices isn't a problem because collectors of these pieces usually have a good handle on how many there are and in what grades. Bloodbaths rarely occur, but when they do it is for a very good reason. Most collectors of proofs wouldn't use eBay as their primary source, which, by default would be Spink, Baldwins or similar as they are the only suppliers of decent quantities of material. And, although they take a lot of stick on this forum, I find Spink quite reasonable pricewise for said items because the prices charged in the shop or in the Circular are usually not far removed from the tome price. Rarities within the general type can therefore be obtained at good prices.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Rob

[azda 973]

This dealers Grading is terrible

260935041622 VF? Anyone care to take a stab at the grade?

330672861000 BU (Yeah right)

[Rob 2,996]

This dealers Grading is terrible

260935041622 VF? Anyone care to take a stab at the grade?

330672861000 BU (Yeah right)

Should and does know better. The first is outside the 95% confidence limit for the "normal" Gaussian distribution of ebay grading, which is saying something. The second is closer.

[Coinery 926]

This dealers Grading is terrible

260935041622 VF? Anyone care to take a stab at the grade?

330672861000 BU (Yeah right)

I'm sure this seller has checked his figures, but all those auction pieces with high start prices, and no bids, will be costing a fortune...£1500 start price on one item!

[azda 973]

Its not the figures coinery, its the terrible grading

[Peckris 579]

This dealers Grading is terrible

260935041622 VF? Anyone care to take a stab at the grade?

330672861000 BU (Yeah right)

The first item is less than Fine, in fact Fair/N Fine would be nearer the mark.

The second item is pretty close. The reverse doesn't look to have seen any circulation, while the apparent hair flattening on the obverse could easily be explained by the weak strikes so commonly encountered in that series.

I'll give him 5/10.

[Coinery 926]

Its not the figures coinery, its the terrible grading

Of course! I didn't want to re-state the obvious! I came from a working background where the duplication of facts were a tedious and unnecessary evil.

[ski 1]

330672861000 BU (Yeah right)

the reverse looks really good, if i bought the coin though on the strength of that 1 pic, i would be sending it back

bu....no way.....gvf/ef for me

[azda 973]

I also had it down as EF.

[Peckris 579]

330672861000 BU (Yeah right)

the reverse looks really good, if i bought the coin though on the strength of that 1 pic, i would be sending it back

bu....no way.....gvf/ef for me

The reverse is clearly UNC - point to a single item of wear? The obverse is ambiguous : the flattened areas could be down to the poor strikes of that series. If you look elsewhere on the obverse there's no sign of any wear - legend, rim, eyebrow, etc. The part I don't like is the top of the ear, but that has been known to be weakly struck especially between 1914 and 1919. As for the discolouration of the "flattened" areas, yes that's a bit tricky, but if you examine it, you will see the same colour right behind the head, where there can't be any wear yet.

I'd say the jury's out on the obverse.

[ski 1]

As Peckris points out coins in this series are often very weakly struck, to me however, going by the pic alone, the obverse looks worn, true to say maybe weakly struck and worn.

As dave suggests, i dont think its a bu example.

[ski 1]

The reverse is clearly UNC - point to a single item of wear? The obverse is ambiguous : the flattened areas could be down to the poor strikes of that series. If you look elsewhere on the obverse there's no sign of any wear - legend, rim, eyebrow, etc. The part I don't like is the top of the ear, but that has been known to be weakly struck especially between 1914 and 1919. As for the discolouration of the "flattened" areas, yes that's a bit tricky, but if you examine it, you will see the same colour right behind the head, where there can't be any wear yet.

I'd say the jury's out on the obverse.

yes youre right..........a tough one to grade, a shame about the obverse.......i do like the reverse though

[Peckris 579]

As Peckris points out coins in this series are often very weakly struck, to me however, going by the pic alone, the obverse looks worn, true to say maybe weakly struck and worn.

As dave suggests, i dont think its a bu example.

It would be marked down on the obverse, true - weakly struck should command a lower price than well struck. It's also true that that particular series can see obverses nearly a grade lower than the reverse. But also don't forget that that picture is about 4 times life size, which always exaggerates flaws.

[ski 1]

It would be marked down on the obverse, true - weakly struck should command a lower price than well struck. It's also true that that particular series can see obverses nearly a grade lower than the reverse. But also don't forget that that picture is about 4 times life size, which always exaggerates flaws.

modern photography eh

i took some pics of my 1924 tanner for another thread here, the pic of the reverse looked stunning, the obverse less so, i didnt post the pics becsause of the way the obverse photographed. i dont think the difference between the 2 pics was as different as the coin in this thread, true to say in the hand my coin is okay. but my tanner is gef.

Its true to say that the pics are 4 times life size.......but thats true for both the reverse and the obverse pics.

Peckris is right in my opinion the reverse is a good grade higher than the obverse, is this coin, despite the obverse, and what the camera may have done to it.....BU...?????

[Peckris 579]

It would be marked down on the obverse, true - weakly struck should command a lower price than well struck. It's also true that that particular series can see obverses nearly a grade lower than the reverse. But also don't forget that that picture is about 4 times life size, which always exaggerates flaws.

modern photography eh

i took some pics of my 1924 tanner for another thread here, the pic of the reverse looked stunning, the obverse less so, i didnt post the pics becsause of the way the obverse photographed. i dont think the difference between the 2 pics was as different as the coin in this thread, true to say in the hand my coin is okay. but my tanner is gef.

Its true to say that the pics are 4 times life size.......but thats true for both the reverse and the obverse pics.

Peckris is right in my opinion the reverse is a good grade higher than the obverse, is this coin, despite the obverse, and what the camera may have done to it.....BU...?????

Probably not. It might qualify as a GEF/UNC but deffo not BU

[azda 973]

I rest My case lol