TomGoodheart

While I admire your initiative Mikey, I'm not certain this is the best way to go about finding employment. Most of us members come here just to discuss our interests and to socialise. Yes, there are some members who sell coins as well as collect. And they often have their own website. But I'm not entirely clear how you might see this tie in with your skills. Are you offering to write articles about coins? In which case it might help if you tell us more about your hobby. What interests you and what do you know about? What do you collect? Or do you have web skills? Can you design a website for someone? What was you employment before? These are the things that might help someone here think 'Oh, I could use a bloke who can do that!' Maybe. Oh, and good luck.

Mmm ... I'm afraid the photos don't do your coin justice. Could you try again to get a sharper image? And .. just checking .. it does say 1998, not 1989 (or 1990), yes? And when you say 'big', that means 24.5mm? Thanks!

Well, if it is genuine, I agree; it's a tremendous coin! No obvious bag knocks and pretty much as it would have been fresh from the mint.

Boom boom!

Hmmm ... this is the problems with buying on the basis of a photo. As we all know, changing the angle of the light can make a significant difference to a coin's appearance. And there's just nothing like seeing something 'in the hand'. But as for this coin, well, I'm no expert on such coins and their 'mint' appearance. My only concern is the rim. Particularly near VICTORIA D: G: when you view the enlarged pic. See how there's a raised edge that catches the light? It reminds me of one of the signs I use to identify good quality counterfeit £1 coins. Odd rims and an unusual appearance to the metal which I can best describe as 'glittery'. Rather like when you mix up metallic paint (or nail polish), the coins seem to have a lustre made up of particles. Difficult to describe but maybe you can see it in this pic. The coin itself is not (I believe) 'grainy; it's a characteristic of the metal alloy it's made from. Of course, this could just be a very nice genuine coin!

Well, you nearly scared me off. Well! After a telling off like that I definitely need to lie down in a darkened room with a medicinal bottle of whiskey. And perhaps a nurse too. Just in case I take a funny turn.

Did we scare him off?

The difficulty with advising you is that the value of a coin depends almost entirely on its condition. Yes, there are rarities, but let's for the minute assume that you don't have any of those and look at what state these coins are in. It would help if you could post a photo of a couple. A digital camera or a flatbed scanner should give us a better idea. The other thing that might help is an idea of where the coins came from. There are many people, like my Dad, who pick up 'nice' coins from their change or travels and make a collection of them. Unfortunately for the most part these collections have minimal value. Certainly the recent stuff (from 1970 on) will probably have little value unless in excellent condition. Even the older coins (1920s and before) will need to be in decent nick. Here for example is an 1862 halfpenny that sold on eBay for £28 Vicky 1 And here, one that didn't sell for £2.99 (probably because it looks like someone cleaned it with brasso! NEVER clean coins!) Vicky 2 If your coins all resemble the first one, maybe they will be worth valuing and insuring.

Even in hammered coins it's not clear cut I'm afraid. I was taught there are firstly, coin types. These are where the bust design or reverse changes significantly. You just can't mistake a Vicky bun portrait for that stupid muffin-wearing Jubilee bust. They are different types. Then there are varieties. Here the changes are more subtle and require a bit of inspection. Such as the third bust of William III. (To be honest I'd class most of the bust changes of say William III or Anne as varieties myself as they are substantially the same. Or at least less different than some of the different varieties in hammered coins.) Then there are the oddities. A letter is missing; BRIT is shortened to BRI. Someone has had a bad day and stamped the die carelessly and oops, the Scottish lion is upside down. Back from lunch at the inn and 'AVSPICE' becomes 'AVSSPCE'. What of these? Are they really varieties, when there is only one die, created in error? And if not, then quite how do they differ from that handful of coins for which a new portrait was created but then apparently withdrawn, leaving as few as five or six coins in existence? I suppose what I'm getting at is that, like beauty, varieties are (partly) in the eye of the beholder. And to me, a line has to be drawn somewhere. So while I find a coin where contraction stops have been used instead of dots, or where five dots have been used to break up the legend instead of one, interesting, I'm not going to go out of my way to search for an example. Whereas some people do. If you want to chase a coin where the dies have corroded or filled to make a slightly different legend, fine. But for myself I have enough problems just finding an example of each of the major portrait changes. And unless (or until) I win the lottery, that's unlikely to change!

Looks genuine to me too. I'd only really grade it Fine. Price-wise I'd expect it could fetch £30. That particular type seems quite difficult to find with a nicely struck up portrait and so yours is fairly typical. Adding to the fact that the toning appears quite pleasing from the original listing (and assuming it really does have that steel blue colour) you might find you'd get more. But probably £50 would be the ceiling. In case it helps the Spink reference is S 2797, and for specialist collectors of Charles I shillings, it's Sharp F5/1. The anchor mint mark dates it to between May 1638 and July 1639.

Mmm .. would that mean I could get an NHS precription for additional cash to treat my "sickness"??

Mmm .. despite the lack of appeal of this particular coin to me, I kinda agree with Red. Last (only, really) time I bought a really expensive coin, I'd have paid quite a bit more (I freed up as much as I could and would have spent it all). Getting my money back was the last of my considerations at the time. There were four known examples, two more were found, I knew none of the existing four were likely to come on the market for many years, and I wanted one. Would I do it again? .. probably .. chances to fill a gap with a true rarity don't come up very often. My only cause for hesitation is the knowledge that coins eventually do come up for sale, and sometimes in rather better condition. If one did and if it was nicer .. well, I might regret being rash and leaving myself with no funds for several very tempting coins that have come on the market since then. But that's collecting I guess; balancing the 'if's with desire and common sense. And despite now seeing quite clearly the times I've been carried away and paid well over the odds with little hope of recouping my money, I can't honestly say that I'd never do it again!

Mmm .. I think this is one of the reasons I'm just not as excited by milled coinage as hammered. With the latter, you have 20 dies and you have 20 potential 'varieties' because they will all be subtly different. And so you are (generally) forced to consider only the grossest changes significant. The subtler variations in positioning of legend, changes to the coat of arms and so on usually only come into play when you're guestimating how many dies might have existed. Or checking if your coin is that illustrated in an auction catalogue. Yes, I guess someone, somewhere, might be collecting each and every different castle mint mark or harp in the Royal arms, but most of us just have to ignore those. Whereas (a few) milled collectors seem to get all aerated about a worn out dot, a slightly different tooth alignment or a 10th of a mm between date numerals. Really it's no different from sovereign die numbers to me. And about as interesting. Sorry.

I posted this before on the 'previous' site and still find it useful (though they have reduced the information available for free). CoinArchives.com lists recent auction information which you can search. If you need more than one term, link with 'and' (for example '1933 and penny') and see what comes up. I use it to check prices of coins and find pictures of things I might be interested in.

I find it frustrating that people list 30 Charles de Gaule 2€ pieces or Charles & Di wedding crowns individually! For goodness sake! Do they not realise that they can list them all in one listing, save themselves ££ and me time and irritation at having to skip past their bloody listings! Yes, 30 listings stand out more than one, but they can highlight one just as easily and probably cheaper. Having pages of the things just seems closer to spamming than selling.

Oh well. Looks like overall, only a loss of £30. Could be worse I guess!

I expect jewellers can do that, but for us ordinary folks at home, I'm not sure. The real deal should be around 1.5g if you have any accurate digital scales. But the main thing is often the thickness, actual coins will be thinner than replicas and pewter feels .. slicker (difficult to explain!) Probably the best way is to get a coin collector or dealer to look at it. Since replicas aren't designed to deceive people the difference between one and a real coin is usually pretty clear to anyone with a bit of experience.

It's a Charles II third issue threepence. 1662 ish. Whether it's real or a modern reproduction coin, I'm less sure. Edit: Quite likely it's a modern pewter repro made by Ancestors of Dover I'm afraid.

I used to pick up odds and ends from change until my Dad left me a few pieces. I kept the nicest, sold the silver scrap and bought a few that appealed. Then I found a book on shillings and fancied collecting them. I got a fair few, but avoided Charles I due to the complexity. My aim was really to get a representative example for each major bust/reverse change. Then I tired of later milled and decided to concentrate on Tudor/Stuart and sold a few bits to Chris. Gradually I was drawn to Charles I shillings and started to shed the others until funds ran low and I got rid of the provincial issues too, leaving me with Tower mint shillings from 1625 to 1649. There are over 30 different portraits, 20 reverses and some two dozen mint marks so there's plenty of scope. I have examples of coins of which I only know of one or two others. Some for which only a handful were struck from just one die. And one that wasn't even heard of until someone recognised it as a new bust type in 1995. I've met other collectors from whom I've bought and learned. I keep shifting my collecting goals subtly. Currently I'm working on shedding a few examples of poorer condition coins I bought because they are scarce, in the hope of buying better later. I don't buy very often now, even though there are plenty of gaps waiting to be filled (in fact one of my provisional eBay sales will leave a new one). I'm much more selective about condition and am less likely to compare my example to those in the Brooker collection, though that's still a good guide. I'm not expecting to finish collecting soon, if ever. Just to gradually build a collection of decent coins, some of which will be rare.

blimey - that's very Illuminati, Tom! How about this one then?

Do you live near a college that offers art classes? I know when I was sculpting I would probably have found a use for some shiny copper discs! Sewn them to a jacket, nailed them to a carving, stuck them .. somewhere! Why not see of your local art school wants them? I'd have them but my wife will kill me if I add any more craft material junk to the already existing plie in the studio garage.

Thanks Rob! No, the advice is appreciated! I'd not thought about the BIN and reserve. I guess I just figured if someone wanted it that much it would BIN would save us both time, but the reserve keeps that option until a few bids build up. As I say, I'm generally only after recouping my costs. My impression is that if you have the nerves to start at a low price people are more likely to bid than if you start off high. But that then risks the things selling for a pittance. Of course, if I was more careful about price when I buy it might help! But sometimes you see something novel and jump. Particularly in the early days of collecting! Of course, a few years later you start to realise that there are much better examples out there .. if you have the patience to wait for them. All part of the learning curve!

Looks like I need a better camera. My eBay page

Oh, sure. It's fine for picking up stuff. So long as you know what you're doing. And getting rid of things you don't want that are easy enough to post or can be collected. But to sell, I'm beginning to wonder. Once I've included the listing fees (about £3.50) and commission (9%) and PayPal fees (3.5%) it really cuts into the selling price. And because I can't put in a reserve price below £50 I currently have one item (a coin) that, if I get no more bids, I'm facing a £25 loss on. The irony is that I'm not looking for a huge profit (though that would be nice!), just to recoup what I paid ... so I can then put the money back into buying more coins! It shouldn't be too difficult for coins I bought around six years ago, but it is. I think for all the coins I've sold perhaps a third have brought in money. Which means I've made a loss in over 60% of sales. I suppost it's OK for selling stuff a dealer doesn't generally want. And certainly cheaper than the auction houses 20%+. But somehow I lack the knack of getting my money back. [/grumble]

Now you're just giving me a headache!