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

if that was my definition of “superb” then I could toss my collection in the bin

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Diaconis said:

if that was my definition of “superb” then I could toss my collection in the bin

It's the grading AND the pricing which caught my eye, with that structure I'm a multi-billionaire :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll bite. What's a beating error?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bagerap said:

OK, I'll bite. What's a beating error?

 

What you get when the good lady mistakes paint on your collar for lipstick?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, bagerap said:

OK, I'll bite. What's a beating error?

 

Flattened in some sort of mechanical press maybe? Spink sold an ex-Peck GII old-head "penny" once, ie a halfpenny which they said had been squeezed in a press. I couldn't see any distortion of the design in the photo.

The seller gives no weight for the coin - conveniently missing from the description. If it was on a very heavy flan, now that would be more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Diaconis said:

Not in Peck😳, how did he miss it?

This is a real 'beating error'

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Halfpenny-1719-spray-of-leaves-higher-than-usual-not-in-Peck-1-2d-George-I/352998814988?hash=item52305e750c:g:eWQAAOSwTrVbZdiz

And unless I'm mistaken, nose slightly longer than usual?

Looks like a bad contemporary forgery. I'd bet the weight is wrong, the corrosion suggests poor alloy choice. 

Potentially interesting to the right person at that price - I'd like it if it wasn't in such rubbish condition. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2020 at 7:31 PM, oldcopper said:

Flattened in some sort of mechanical press maybe? Spink sold an ex-Peck GII old-head "penny" once, ie a halfpenny which they said had been squeezed in a press. I couldn't see any distortion of the design in the photo.

The seller gives no weight for the coin - conveniently missing from the description. If it was on a very heavy flan, now that would be more interesting.

There is a photo with the coin on a scale. Weight is 18.49g and so it is definitely not on a heavy flan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Loose change said:

No.Nothing wrong with it ,from the picture it may of had a wash or light clean but the coin is what it is.

Remember sometimes coins that were struck in the millions will have part of the dies that become worn and also some parts weakly struck ,this will make the coin appear to have uneven wear.

Pete.

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me looks genuine enough, just a bit over graded. I would give it VF - too much wear, particularly on the shield, for any more.

Share this post


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

To me looks genuine enough, just a bit over graded. I would give it VF - too much wear, particularly on the shield, for any more.

I'd go GVF bearing in mind that Reverse G shields can wear quickly as they are convex unlike earlier shields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying ( and partially failing) to get to grips with the differences between types of worn 1861 pennies.

Can anyone tell me why this went for the price it did?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1861-Victoria-Penny/184191413965?hash=item2ae2a9eecd:g:hNkAAOSwLRpeWnyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Blake , that's the one I bought and posted on here the other day. its an F28  obverse 5 with reverse G its very rare and on Richards Rare list.  Its the only year that obverse 5 is to be found with reverse G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2020 at 8:50 AM, Paddy said:

To me looks genuine enough, just a bit over graded. I would give it VF - too much wear, particularly on the shield, for any more.

Even then, if you could get the seller down to £25, not a bad buy. 

Share this post


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

I'm trying ( and partially failing) to get to grips with the differences between types of worn 1861 pennies.

Can anyone tell me why this went for the price it did?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1861-Victoria-Penny/184191413965?hash=item2ae2a9eecd:g:hNkAAOSwLRpeWnyd

It could potentially have gone for quite a bit more, Blake. Although they're not quite as rare as the 18 accorded by Freeman. More probably at the lower end of R17, with <30 examples extant.

Learning the different varieties of 1861 pennies is an art form in itself. Took me an age and I still have difficulty getting my head round obverse 3 even now. 

By contrast, 1860 and 1874 are a doddle. 

Share this post


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

It could potentially have gone for quite a bit more, Blake. Although they're not quite as rare as the 18 accorded by Freeman. More probably at the lower end of R17, with <30 examples extant.

Learning the different varieties of 1861 pennies is an art form in itself. Took me an age and I still have difficulty getting my head round obverse 3 even now. 

By contrast, 1860 and 1874 are a doddle. 

Yeah, I can tell the 1874's from across a room, and the rev on this one is a doddle.

However- is the 'no signature' judged purely by the gap, and how come the ribbon appears central in the pic, and should be cut left?

The pic below is exactly what I can see on fleabay...have you all got eyes like hawks, or do you judge using different clues?

s-l1600-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

Yeah, I can tell the 1874's from across a room, and the rev on this one is a doddle.

However- is the 'no signature' judged purely by the gap, and how come the ribbon appears central in the pic, and should be cut left?

The pic below is exactly what I can see on fleabay...have you all got eyes like hawks, or do you judge using different clues?

s-l1600-2.jpg

Well it's clearly either obverse 4 or 5 - note the narrow rim and the space underneath and to the right of the bust, for the LCW signature. But because that photo is so dark, you can't be absolutely certain (IMO) whether the signature is there or not. Since the reverse is obviously G, that makes this coin either a F25 (signature present) or a F28 (no signature) - hence the doubt.

Should just add that with obverse 5, the space for the signature is present, but not filled in.    

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/26/2020 at 11:40 AM, azda said:

Typical the thief is from manchester - talk about give a dog a bad name LOL

Edited by copper123

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

×