Rob

Here's another good one. ebay 1/2d I emailed drivingjames to suggest he may like to consider revising either the title or the pictures and the reply was "Why?". I despair. This one has further to run.

compared to this

Maybe a better approach would be to note at the bottom of each section the major variations found on the issue such as a small picture explaining that the last digit can vary in position between dies such as below and which is not a different reverse design variety together with another similar style picture comparing genuine wide and narrow dates

is this any better?

I knew there was a reason for not using it, but I had forgotten. I have never understood why it doesn't go back the 130 years or so to the start of milled, after all the number of low grade pieces dated prior to 1797 on eBay is testament to the potential market. Everyone knows what a dump halfpenny is and also appears to have one! It doesn't have to be all encompassing, but there is no separate milled or hammered guide available in simplified form.

We are getting into the realms of exponential expansion here. A slight variation in the position of the last digit is just individual die variations. If there were 50 dies, then you have 50 varieties. I don't think you will find too many collectors specialising in Freeman 150 varieties. Errors are a different thing and will always have a relatively large following.

The problem is trying to get scans of varieties. A camera is better but I don't have a good one. However, you can add an 1846/5 shilling to the list. You can make it out in the picture of ebay 8345114858 but it doesn't scan adequately.

I noticed.

1 over inverted 1 in date 1787 with hearts shilling

1817/6 shilling

Most contents policies specifically exclude high value items such as jewellery, coins, stamps, antiques etc. The usual limit is a derisory few hundred pounds which as you say doesn't cover the TV these days. I would suspect the £500 is the total collection as contents insurance tends to only cover items found in 90% or more of all households.

My insurer is Liverpool Victoria and they just treat the collection as an add on to the contents insurance. They do have requirements for a certain level of security, but no electric fences are required. Premiums are about 0.5% of sum insured. They are quite good for normal contents insurance too as my policy automatically covers up to about £150K contents irrespective of the actual value, whereas most insurance companies require you to state a figure so they have a number to adjust in the case of a claim. I have never claimed so don't know how good they would be in that instance, but so far the experience has been OK.

Why would Chris want to buy my 1981 copy of CC on ebay?

Apparently, "The seller ended this listing early because the item was lost or broken." Breaking it must be almost as difficult as finding one, so we must assume it was lost. A great loss to the numismatic community, only a few thousand left. ----------------- Thank god.

London Coins 27th November, lots 923 and 924. Both available to buy if you want them badly enough.

Sending it back is the right decision if it appears to have been dipped. An abused proof will never be collectable when there are perfect or nearly so examples about.

Most of the issues post 1816 are prooflike in many instances and here the letters are the key. The 1887s have to have razor sharp milling - almost to the point where it cuts the fingers although the double florin rims are wider for the proof and it goes without saying that the rim/edge angle is usually perfect. Excess metal is only occasionally found on the rims of proofs. Most years of the Victorian shillings exist with prooflike fields where you need to examine the edge and lettering usually to confirm it is just a normal type. There is also the additional problem whereby during years in which large quantities of proofs were made for public consumption it appears the overall standard of striking was lowered for the sets, presumably so that not too many were rejected. When only a handful of proofs are struck in any one year there is little wear to the dies. This does not apply if you are making thousands of each denomination.

I know him too having bought in the past. I just wish people would be accurate. It's not difficult deciding what is a proof or not. The letters, fields and edges all have specific qualities not present in normal currency pieces. They don't have to be perfect to be recognisable as a proof, but in the hand it is usually obvious.

This guy appears on the face of it to know what he's doing - sometimes. The problem is that he comes up with things like this. How can you describe a coin as choice UNC, yet in the following sentence say this could be a proof. If you can identify and describe a choice UNC coin, then you should also know what a proof looks like and should be prepared to say so - not to insinuate and so mislead. The same knowledge should also enable you to differentiate between proof and prooflike etc. I guess that not quite choice is a phrase people will see, absorb and mentally consign the coin to the bin. Or perhaps it's just imitating others, after all, 90% of all coins listed on eBay are high grade or choice. Can we have a list of good and bad sellers on eBay without legal ramifications? A one off could be just that, but serial offenders need to be pointed out somehow.

So it should be. All of my VIP proofs have fields where I can see what's happening in the garden in the reflection. However, some of the set pieces are in a similar state of preservation, so this alone cannot determine whether a piece is a VIP or not. The question I still have is - Is the bust sandblasted to give a frosted appearance? The proof crowns were issued as part of a set (crown down to farthings) and although the bust has some opaqueness, it doesn't look to be to the same degree as a VIP proof which has an almost velvet like appearance. The surface of the head detail on a VIP doesn't even look vaguely polished. All of the proof sets for public consumption as issued do not have this. The image in your picture doesn't show this subdued image and still looks bright enough to be reflective to some extent - although clearly a proof.

Me too. The matt should not be reflective. The picture I posted showing the frosted bust has zero relectivity. If the bust is reflective it has been cleaned or it isn't a VIP at all.

6 months ago I had no choice because she bought one of the Weyl patterns off Colin Cooke while it was listed when I had a last minute bid lined up. Cost me £75 more than it should have done when she relisted it for a higher price, but when you know its probably unique and not in the metal as described you have to bite your lip and pay up, blacklisted or not. The description was copied verbatim. Actually, that also applied to Nicholson, Colin Cooke, Glendinings and the vendor at the sale on 15/12/1993 so perhaps that's a bit unfair. For the record, it was in tin and not aluminium. This metal is unrecorded for the Weyl patterns.

Pictures are always too dark. Everything is practically mint state irrespective of grade and any technical questions asked in the past have always elicited the reply "How can you tell?"

Which reverse is it? Picture if possible please

Is the one pictured supposed to be a VIP proof?