Rob

Put it into a proper auction where the trust lies with the auction house and not the dodgy vendor on eBay. There will be a mechanism for transferring restricted goods abroad, you just need to ascertain the paperwork required. An added bonus is that the premiums will stay in the UK as opposed to sending 15% abroad through ebay and Paypoo fees. Those two businesses account for a lot of unnecessary capital transfers abroad. £7.7m profit made by eBay last year in the UK? My a**e. This country needs to keep its money circulating internally, not shipped abroad never to return.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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.

But the price is coming down with each new find

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.....

Good job I scrolled down. I was about to ask if it was used in conjunction with a Roman catapult.

The point I am making is that so many things are described as UNC and people will bid on them because they are so described. If you don't put unc in the title virtually nobody will look at it, but the truth is that UNC coins make up a tiny fraction of one percent of the total population. Some are aware of this but many aren't. This thread exists in large part because of delusional sellers and buyers alike. It is like 'rare' on ebay. About 8 or 10 years ago in this thread I took the first 25 'rare' coins and separated out the rarities. There was a 1934 halfcrown, which is scarce in high grade, and an 1853/2 halfpenny which is at least verging on rare. The rest were 1967 penny type material. Descriptions are best ignored. The volume of listings is such that I believe it has conditioned people to expect most things to cost 99p or not much above because there are too few eyeballs for widespread competitive bidding. I usually list some piece of junk that has a chance of selling even at a quid, just to get a card out and advertise the site and so open eyes to the fact that there is a world outside ebay. I would also like to add that it is not a very successful method, but hope springs eternal. Ebay is just another place to buy, not the only place. Most dealers do not make 50% + VAT. 20% is closer to the mark for a typical sale, (and the VAT is applied to the margin, not the full price), though clearly some things slip under the radar and are acquired cheaply. Whether you buy on ebay or from a dealer, you will have researched the coin just in establishing what you want. Investing is buying cheap and selling dear, just as it is for everything else.

It's easier to throw them away. Last year I listed nearly 2kg of pennies with an 1871 and a few more 1860s deliberately placed on top - which didn't sell, probably because I started it at a tenner and not the obligatory 99p. Took the 1871 out and it sold for over a tenner as a stand alone listing. Took the rest down to the scrapper when I next passed him. Just over 35kg of bronze pennies and halfpennies have gone that way in the past year because it isn't worth the hassle of listing (& relisting). I'd lose the will to live if ebay was the only outlet.

Silly. It's all that is wrong with eBay, or at least the people who buy there. Rhetorical question, but how can some thing blatantly not as described reach £12.50, when a halfcrown in the same grade sells for melt, and a couple of other things sell for a third of melt? Answer, on a rare foray onto ebay via the wife's account, they weren't mis-described. The other things that didn't sell for below melt will go in the pot tomorrow. There has to be too much material listed to achieve a reasonable price by listing as an auction.

This is an excellent example of the bling purchased by people who say 'look at me and what I have'. Everyone has a phone on their watch,so doesn't need the extra weight on their arm, and the coin is of no collector value as it mounted and doesn't fit in a 2x2, tray, slab, capsule............. As a coin collector, you simply wouldn't buy this. Value? At the current spot price of $29.58/gram and 14g of .995 platinum (assuming it is correct) - $412.0494.

Diamond Jubilee medallion depicting 4 generations of the Royal Family as seen. The signature below says Greuber, but he was at the BM. Not sure if they were sold in conjunction with the BM or not. They are quite common.

It happens on all hammered coins because the diestock is essentially a length of bar of a given diameter, the end of which serves as the die. When it is worn out the end is ground down, polished and re-engraved. That's why you can often see traces of a previous die under the current die detail.

If it is that good, they could always make it available to all and sundry and be a competitor to eBay. Maybe that way they would get people to join. eBay has got too big to be much use for sellers as there is too much material for buyers to sensibly plough through. I'm sure the way forward is an auction site with a low fixed listing cost for everybody - say £1. That way you will eliminate 90%+ of the dross that is only listed because it is free to do so and encourage the average quality rating to improve dramatically. It would take a lot of things away from traditional auction houses too if the pricing structure for buyers' fees was addressed. The internet does bring benefits, but businesses ultimately need to make a living. all those anxious to buy everything at 99p will one day want or need to sell. Presumably they will be happy receiving 99p less costs for their period of ownership?

Pretty certain it will be. The top stop of the colon after D is also nearly filled.

Most of the silver is cleaned. The surfaces are all wrong on all bar the low grade milled and most of the hammered. The Calais halfgroat and the Roman look too bright too.

Which might feed into why the 1791 gold halfpenny I used to own but sold on account of the heavy scuff on the cheek, resurfaced 6 months later slabbed proof 64 cameo. The only reasons I could see for this getting through was either the identity of the submitter, or they don't actually check very hard when you have a rarity/unique piece, because it is desirable on their part to say they have slabbed it. After all, PF64CAM sells better than Unc details. . I can't disagree with the protection issue, but slabbing means storage requires upsizing - think of a full height wardrobe sized cabinet, and presentation becomes a tad more difficult when you need to use a telescope to see the coins laid out at the end of the line when laid out.

On the assumption it is real in that case. Roman coins are widely copied, which results in many sales, just none recorded through auction houses. Nothing to compare with at least rings a warning bell and warrants further research

Yes, but for a quid it is probably worth finding out.

Leeway doesn't come into it. Wear is wear, whether it happened a year ago or a millennium ago is irrelevant. Leeway is wishful thinking on the part of the owner. All people have to do is accept that there are coins which don't make unc and be happy with them. It's not difficult really. None of the three I posted alongside were uncs, VF, nEF and a decent EF was the best I could go to.

You might struggle for people with in depth ancients knowledge on here. Can't help, sorry.