Madness

.... [self-pitying rant deleted] ....

Sold guinea for $455 AUD. $150 AUD loss. 🤢 🤮

Of course it's bloody affectation! That's the whole art rock aesthetic and I love it!

Spellbound, you say?

Duplicate - Sorry

Ah! I see what you mean thanks. Does haymarking detract from grade?

Thanks Rob. There is a stop over George's head here, though, isn't there? What grade would you give?

1787 Sixpence My guestimate: EF I almost gave this GEF. While it lacks many of the finer details of the Pingo proof, I think this relates to die issues rather than wear. One of the first points of wear on these coins appears to be the tips and edges of the top laurels. There's next to no wear here on this example. I'm not sure if the lack of detail on the frills of his shirt around the neck relate to wear of or die issues, similarly with the bottom right curl of hair. The top of the reverse has a weak strike as does the Honoverian shield. The details in the Hibernian harp are excellent for a circulation coin. There are some hairline scratches on the obverse and flecking on the reverse. Good amount of remaining lustre. I'm still having trouble differentiating between die issues and wear. I'm also having difficulty interpreting the reflections in images and determining how they relate to wear. Feedback please! btw, what value does Spink give to the various grades of a run-of-the-mill 1787 sixpence? Edit: The seller has listed this as a 1787 Shilling. I believe that it's actually a sixpence because of a. The extra detail in George III's hair to the left of the laurels and b. The left of the base of the bottom of the hair-ribbon loop is squarer and consequently slightly closer to GIII's neck in the shilling than in the sixpence I've asked the seller for diameter measurements in order to confirm.

Thanks for looking out for me @DrLarry. Refund is official with payment pending in PayPal. Waited for this to happen before listing the coin.

Purchase price = $750 If I sell at $600 I'll clear a bit under $550 after fees and costs. Add this to the $200 refund and I'd almost make my money back. I'm not too upset: I've made some much more expensive mistakes than this. Take the time I was obssessed by vacuum tube (valve) audio amplifiers. Spent thousands in bits of glass that lit up when you ran electricity through them. They made great music, but the difference in sound produced by different tube variations and types was mostly only subtle. Also got into building and modifying tube amps. Do you know how much it's possible to spend on boutique capacitors? You live and learn. I'm far less impulsive these days than I was five or ten years ago. I also have far less money!

Thanks Chris. I need to sell the coin for $600 AUD in order to break even. I'm not optimistic that this will happen, but I'm happy that it's not going to be more than a $150 learning experience.

Thanks Rob, but I quickly received the $200 refund and accepted it before having read your suggestion. In any case, I've listed the coin on eBay: http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/705-53470-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5575378759&campid=5338273189&customid=&icep_item=263875399258&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229515&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg&toolid=11111 Do you think what I've written is fair?

Rrr...oll up! Rrr...oll up! You too, ladies and gentleman, can take a short ride in a fast machine! The price of entry, you ask? A mere, solitary guinea! Hopefully the process of my eBay return will be similarly short, but not too rough.

I still haven't received the partial refund from the seller of the guinea. Have just opened an eBay case against him, requesting that he either accept a return for a full refund, or provide a partial refund, in which case I'll retain ownership of the coin until I can sell it (probably for bullion value). A sorry story of silliness, silliness of the "un-researched purchase" variety. I intend to never let this happen again.

I have another theory in regards to the formation of the funny line on the "I". Doing a bit of hobby woodwork and home renovations there are times when I find it quicker to repair a gouge in wood with wood-filler (or "builder's bog") rather than replace the entire section. After the filler dries I sand it back flush with the surface and in most cases all is fine. Occasionally, though, when I sand it back I discover that I hadn't entirely filled the gouge and there is small depression remaining, often running along the edge of the gouge. The surface is smooth, but the defect is still obvious. Can you see where I'm going here? Whoever created the die might have initially punched a "D" instead of an "I". Rather than throwing it away and starting again he used some "filler" for the curve of the "D"and filed this surface back to form an "I". However, the curve of the "D" wasn't perfectly filled and left a small thin depression along the side of the edge. When coins were made using this D, this imperfection showed itself as a very narrow curve that's slightly inconsistent in depth. Do you think this hypothesis has any credibility? Is anyone aware of dies being repaired by some sort of filling agent?

My guestimate: Obverse - GVF Reverse - VF

You're saying that it's ill considered speculation on the part of the Mint Museum employee to make those comments? Could you please provide evidence to confirm or deny your speculation in regards to the odd marks in the "I"? Can you think of any examples of similar marks in lettering on legends? This would be extremely helpful. Thanks! Edit - By the way, who is Hocking?

@Rob Have you followed the link to the Mint Museum website and read their comments? "What is particularly interesting about the portrait punch illustrated here is the area of damage to the front of the bust and that the tool was nevertheless still identified in contemporary inventories as serviceable. One explanation is that, with an engraver spending perhaps as much as a month making such a punch, it may have been more practical to complete the portrait by hand on the die by repairing those missing elements of the neck and drapery than to have to start all over again with a new punch."

[in reference to this image:] I've found an image of an older portrait punch to illustrate Rob's speculation. Has helped me visualise things better. Source: Royal Mint Museum website The comments made re its continued use are illuminating.