Ebay's Worst Offerings

[Rob 3,000]

5 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

"Sold without guarantee of authenticity" Hardly surprising seeing as it is fake cast garbage from a monarch who reigned for 6 years and died @ the age of 15. Didn't know he died of old age and a bald head. reigned 1547-1553  R.I.P my lord

Oh he made a typo i'll forgive him that but surely to go he must know the difference between a crown and a florin? Perhaps it's Edward VII+3/4

 

 

4 hours ago, hibernianscribe said:

Forgetting the horrendous legend anomalies, a George V florin at that!

Not sure where the Edward VI reference comes in unless he has corrected it. However-

I think we are all being a bit presumptuous here. Maybe it is crown sized, maybe florin sized - who knows? He hasn't put any dimensions on the description, so you have to go with the vendor's take on it unless you know better. Reverse design doesn't come into it, as there are well documented cases of a 'standard'  die being adopted for other denominations, such as the 1950 pattern double florin which has a George & Dragon reverse, or my RM trial halfcrown which used modified ship halfpenny dies. There are others which are used susequently, even if not adopted at the time. Furthermore, diameter is no guarantee of denomination.

I still wouldn't buy this though.....

Edited October 30, 2017 by Rob

[declan03 149]

A bit of a cheeky listing. .....

https://www.ebay.com/itm/George-1st-Farting/152758255053?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2748.l2649

[zookeeperz 470]

54 minutes ago, Rob said:

 

Not sure where the Edward VI reference comes in unless he has corrected it. However-

I think we are all being a bit presumptuous here. Maybe it is crown sized, maybe florin sized - who knows? He hasn't put any dimensions on the description, so you have to go with the vendor's take on it unless you know better. Reverse design doesn't come into it, as there are well documented cases of a 'standard'  die being adopted for other denominations, such as the 1950 pattern double florin which has a George & Dragon reverse, or my RM trial halfcrown which used modified ship halfpenny dies. There are others which are used susequently, even if not adopted at the time. Furthermore, diameter is no guarantee of denomination.

I still wouldn't buy this though.....

Well he called it a 1902 crown for a start and besides that its a fake . Ambiguous protection of "I can't guarantee authenticity" clearly states he knows what they are. I put this in the category of clever misselling  . But he has given the onus on the punter to decide buy it or leave it but don't come crying to me if it isn't real.

[bagerap 706]

It's really just a trickle down from the "Pattern Proof Crowns" put out by Coincraft, Spinks and Birmingham Mint. I get a few of those in mixed lots occasionally, put them up for peanuts and am always surprised at the result.

Here's some of Mr Lobel's current offerings:

 

https://www.coincraft.com/patina-retro-patterns

[hibernianscribe 159]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

 

Not sure where the Edward VI reference comes in unless he has corrected it. However-

I think we are all being a bit presumptuous here. Maybe it is crown sized, maybe florin sized - who knows? He hasn't put any dimensions on the description, so you have to go with the vendor's take on it unless you know better. Reverse design doesn't come into it, as there are well documented cases of a 'standard'  die being adopted for other denominations, such as the 1950 pattern double florin which has a George & Dragon reverse, or my RM trial halfcrown which used modified ship halfpenny dies. There are others which are used susequently, even if not adopted at the time. Furthermore, diameter is no guarantee of denomination.

I still wouldn't buy this though.....

I've just found this so presumably our dodgy example is double-florin size...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1902-EDWARD-VII-PROOF-PATTERN-DOUBLE-FLORIN-BOXED-SET-SILVER-COPPER-BRONZE/182771712074?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D46150%26meid%3D1093b7a9e910456e8bf92af246d1f1c8%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D381856060611&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851

From what I have discovered, there was a 1902 gold proof pattern double florin of this design.

[hibernianscribe 159]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

 

Not sure where the Edward VI reference comes in unless he has corrected it. However-

I think we are all being a bit presumptuous here. Maybe it is crown sized, maybe florin sized - who knows? He hasn't put any dimensions on the description, so you have to go with the vendor's take on it unless you know better. Reverse design doesn't come into it, as there are well documented cases of a 'standard'  die being adopted for other denominations, such as the 1950 pattern double florin which has a George & Dragon reverse, or my RM trial halfcrown which used modified ship halfpenny dies. There are others which are used susequently, even if not adopted at the time. Furthermore, diameter is no guarantee of denomination.

I still wouldn't buy this though.....

Regarding size, since this appears to be a copy of a pattern Edward VII double florin, this seller should know better since he purports to be a dealer and his eBay shop has several British crowns. Thus, his description of this fake is way off, in my view to 'muddy the waters' - add to this his disclaimer that he can't guarantee authenticity - as a dealer!!! Where is this guy coming from? Russia we might say!

Edited October 30, 2017 by hibernianscribe

[zookeeperz 470]

6 minutes ago, hibernianscribe said:

Regarding size, since this appears to be a copy of a pattern Edward VII double florin, this seller should know better since he purports to be a dealer and his eBay shop has several British crowns. Thus his description of a fake is way off.

It gets a bit much when they start faking the certificated restrikes(Modern fantasy Coins)

[zookeeperz 470]

39 minutes ago, bagerap said:

It's really just a trickle down from the "Pattern Proof Crowns" put out by Coincraft, Spinks and Birmingham Mint. I get a few of those in mixed lots occasionally, put them up for peanuts and am always surprised at the result.

Here's some of Mr Lobel's current offerings:

 

https://www.coincraft.com/patina-retro-patterns

Actually I don't mind the official modern restrikes. Esp Edward VIII. Being deprived of his coins and the only official ones would probably mean taking out a mortgage they somehow for me anyway do have a place even if it is  only a reference point in history. I nearly bought the Silver (hallmarked Double florin pattern) £20 which for all the work that is put into the design and it being .925 Silver gives it some Voice to considered an add on to a  collection and is cheap as chips as Mr Dickenson says. Who knows in years to come some fake news may run a story on Edward VIII and remark on the lack of his coinage and only official restrikes are available but are all sold out. It would be Kew all over again. ( I wish)

 

Edited October 30, 2017 by zookeeperz

[Rob 3,000]

14 minutes ago, hibernianscribe said:

Regarding size, since this appears to be a copy of a pattern Edward VII double florin, this seller should know better since he purports to be a dealer and his eBay shop has several British crowns. Thus, his description of this fake is way off, in my view to 'muddy the waters' - add to this his disclaimer that he can't guarantee authenticity - as a dealer!!! Where is this guy coming from? Russia we might say!

As I said earlier, size bears no relation to denomination when it comes to patterns. Look at the multitude of decimal pennies and halfpennies produced by the mint in 1857-9, some of which are only half the size of others.

This halfpenny size halfcrown bears testament to that. And is also a good example of why you shouldn't accept all that is written down as gospel. This 'cupro-nickel' Royal Mint trial half-crown as described in the Adams sale catalogue is in fact approx. 87% iron, just over 12% chromium and the balance manganese. It was an early RM experiment with steel blanks, and presumably contemporary with Freeman 791A (modified Eliz II farthing 3+B dies) which is a 'Sample Farthing' listed by Freeman as in Stainless Iron, but probably the same metal composition as the one illustrated.

[Rob 3,000]

And if you want proof that you shouldn't take everything I say as gospel too, attached is the EDX I ran in 2009. The important column is the last one, which shows the margin of error in the measurement - this is important as I couldn't justify the expense of a certified standard with which to compare the coin's composition, so the 87% iron etc has to be taken as a ballpark figure only.

090902-Halfcrown Sample Analysis.doc

[declan03 149]

The man is a walking encyclopedia!! Good for you Rob!!

[zookeeperz 470]

Wow just wow there a ton of these and what really surprises me nobody well it seems nobody even looks at coins of same date. I know what that particular F stands for

 

 https://www.ebay.com/itm/BRITISH-INDIA-1835-F-ON-NECK-ONE-RUPEE-KING-WILLIAM-BEAUTIFUL-SILVER-COIN-14/162727371525

[Rob 3,000]

6 minutes ago, zookeeperz said:

Wow just wow there a ton of these and what really surprises me nobody well it seems nobody even looks at coins of same date. I know what that particular F stands for

 

 https://www.ebay.com/itm/BRITISH-INDIA-1835-F-ON-NECK-ONE-RUPEE-KING-WILLIAM-BEAUTIFUL-SILVER-COIN-14/162727371525

Frankly, that looks dodgy to me. The hair has a 'modern' look with too little fine detail and what there is, struck in high relief. If you compare with this piece which also has an F on the truncation, the portrait looks ok.

It doesn't guarantee the authenticity of either, but if I had to choose, it wouldn't be the one listed on eBay

[mrbadexample 985]

29 minutes ago, Rob said:

Blimey - any idea what happened to it?

[zookeeperz 470]

Just now, Rob said:

Frankly, that looks dodgy to me. The hair has a 'modern' look with too little fine detail and what there is, struck in high relief. If you compare with this piece which also has an F on the truncation, the portrait looks ok.

It doesn't guarantee the authenticity of either, but if I had to choose, it wouldn't be the one listed on eBay

Nothing wrong with your pictured one I'd have no problem buying it

[Rob 3,000]

I know nothing about them, which is why I didn't offer an opinion about authenticity. I have no idea if these are widely copied or not, but the ebay one just looks wrong. The image above came off coin archives.

[Rob 3,000]

5 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

Blimey - any idea what happened to it?

Cancellation cuts done at the mint to ensure it didn't get into circulation. Sometimes they cut a chunk out, sometimes it is just mutilated. I'm not waiting for a better one to come along

 

[hibernianscribe 159]

25 minutes ago, Rob said:

And if you want proof that you shouldn't take everything I say as gospel too, attached is the EDX I ran in 2009. The important column is the last one, which shows the margin of error in the measurement - this is important as I couldn't justify the expense of a certified standard with which to compare the coin's composition, so the 87% iron etc has to be taken as a ballpark figure only.

090902-Halfcrown Sample Analysis.doc

Rob - with respect size is not the real issue here, nor is metallurgical analysis of metals in the composition of half-crowns - rather it is whether the coin that started this thread is a fake.

[zookeeperz 470]

1 minute ago, Rob said:

I know nothing about them, which is why I didn't offer an opinion about authenticity. I have no idea if these are widely copied or not, but the ebay one just looks wrong. The image above came off coin archives.

Copied as much as the trade dollar so it's a minefield but fortunately most are shocking and easy to notice to the trained or even moderately trained eye. I can't see how these folk get pulled in with genuine coins in virtually the next listings. Unless they just don't care what it is

[mrbadexample 985]

Just now, Rob said:

Cancellation cuts done at the mint to ensure it didn't get into circulation. Sometimes they cut a chunk out, sometimes it is just mutilated. I'm not waiting for a better one to come along

 

I did wonder if that might be the case. Strange how they worried about it getting into circulation - I don't think it would have been particularly easy to spend. 

[Rob 3,000]

7 minutes ago, hibernianscribe said:

Rob - with respect size is not the real issue here, nor is metallurgical analysis of metals in the composition of half-crowns - rather it is whether the coin that started this thread is a fake.

It is what it is. It isn't a direct copy of anything that circulated, nor is it a documented official product. Sure I think it is a modern concoction, just as everybody else does, but in the absence of a genuine product that it is copying, I can't see how you can fake a hypothetical item.

It is like everything else you are uncomfortable with - if in doubt, leave it out. You can't hold the hands of the whole world.

[zookeeperz 470]

What do you think of this I put it along side that coin you put up Rob. Whilst I can count about 30 differences. I don't see it being a fake. The pic is blurry-ish which should be the first scare off normally. But looking at the hair which looks fine to me and the reverse most if looking at the lettering is double struck and is probably giving that thicker appearance. It looks fine . There are differences in pointings to legends and I am not sure but the facial features esp the nose look different. None of which are unusual during a coin series. Not been able to find much out about dies used. But they come in no mark on bust truncation raised F ,incuse F, RS, Thick and thin legends. So not within the realms of possibility that varieties exist. I just think it looks too good to be a wrong-un. What do you guys think?

[Rob 3,000]

The one on the left has slanted sides to the lettering which would be of assistence if casting. As you say, a blurry picture doesn't help, but I get that when auto-focus doesn't, so isn't a reason to condemn on that one point. The key is to find punch links with their idiosyncratic detail. If you could find a little dimple here and there which match on both coins it would help. One has vertical sided letters whilst the other had slanted sides, so I would start looking a bit closer. In the case of the nose it is definitely different as appears to be the ear lobe, so would want to find something matching that I also knew to be genuine.

I think the left one could well be a bit iffy.

[mrbadexample 985]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

I can't see how you can fake a hypothetical item.

 

I prefer the term "fantasy" for this sort of thing for exactly that reason.

[hibernianscribe 159]

1 hour ago, mrbadexample said:

 

I prefer the term "fantasy" for this sort of thing for exactly that reason.

By knowingly attempting to sell a likeness of a hypothetical item with an assertion or inference that it is real, a seller is committing an equal sin to one who knowingly tries to sell a fake item. Both instances are deception! 

Edited October 30, 2017 by hibernianscribe