Rob

There is a pair of them in existence. One in the BM and the other doing the rounds.

Do you need any lot info? I am using all four as we write.

£2K. Who's been looking at bidding in London Coins next sale then?

I knew I had a picture of it somewhere. Enjoy.

Simon Monks does a lot of tokens as does John Newman.

Surely they tone nicely because they normally sit in a felt lined box for years. That's mutually exclusive to circulating.

No way of telling once it has done the rounds for a bit unless it retains its original brilliance. If part of a set you can see if a currency piece has been added to rebuild the set by comparing the surfaces, but as a stand alone item you are on a hiding to nothing. Maundy threepences are the most likely item to be missing from a set due to the denomination also being a currency issue.

If you mouse over his 5th picture, you can make out the name Hearn!! And presumably he knows because that word has been erased whereas the others are reasonably intact.

The wife was going to see someone and her journey was not too far out of the way, so she dropped it off as she was sort of passing. Better than waiting until Wednesday to receive it.

Did you read the item description in the listing? Not only optimistic but borderline rude too! Is it rude to say people who don't want to spend anything are not welcome? Over the years I have seen/received a lot of derisory offers that were well below intrinsic value, let alone their price as a collectible. OK, in this instance the price is just plain silly, but I can see where he's coming from. In this case, yes it is. I refer to the words used, not the intended meaning. Ok, maybe he shouldn't discriminate and only refer to poorer bidders, but the idea of sticking two fingers up to time wasters is one that most ebay sellers can sympathise with. A person submitting a bid of £1 for a sovereign in the hope that the seller hits the accept button instead of the decline one isn't likely to be welcomed with open arms.

This is still spending $200 for $95 worth of work. Please, I implore you, send the $105 you have no need for or wish to pee against the wall to me, and I will spend it on something where you actually receive a benefit or goods for the expenditure.

Did you read the item description in the listing? Not only optimistic but borderline rude too! Is it rude to say people who don't want to spend anything are not welcome? Over the years I have seen/received a lot of derisory offers that were well below intrinsic value, let alone their price as a collectible. OK, in this instance the price is just plain silly, but I can see where he's coming from.

I fail to see why paying someone $249 to grade 5 coins that would normally cost $35 each, i.e $175 in total, is any better off than paying $200 to grade 5 coins that would otherwise cost $95. The first is a smaller overpayment, but still an overpayment, and certainly a larger outlay depite the lower overspend. Surely, if desperate to spend money for nothing there must have been a pyramid scheme closer to home you could have used - or you could play the lottery? It's little wonder you get grade inflation given the incentive to grade higher from the higher fees charged as a consequence of the higher 'official' value. You also run the risk of having coins undergraded as you have only paid to have them graded up to a certain value (for which read grade). It actually goes some way to justifying the use of a third party to grade the graders.

I've still got half a dozen or more questions waiting for a reply - tomorrow never comes. Basically you might get a reply if it doesn't involve them doing any research, otherwise, forget it.

Uh, surely you mean they charge you $40 for each of the first 5 coins and then however much per coin the the normal rate is after that? What are the benefits of membership? The entitlement to spend money with them?

I don't know if if the mint has any records remaining for the period, but you could ask. I haven't got any figures. I think that by and large the prices reflect the rarity/grade given in Cope & Rayner. It's far more useful than the vague prices given by the guides.

The point is that whatever the P&P charged, the outlay is clearly stated. Just as people would take the buyer's premium into consideration if bidding at Spink etc, so should bidders on eBay. It isn't as if you get hit with an unexpected charge after you have won the item. If the P&P was only known after winning, then there would possibly be a case that the seller was taking people for a ride, but surely not when clearly stated in advance. And for the same reason I don't think that people should be able to leave black marks against your name for what you charge - but they do, and that for small amounts of a few pounds.

I still don't understand why people get so uptight on eBay about sellers charging postage, nor why they should lose any rationality if it is not charged. Why does everybody expect everything to be done for free? Maybe it is symptomatic of benefit culture Britain. If people can't be ar**d buying something because someone has the temerity to charge postage, then sellers not bothering to supply at a loss is a reasonable response.

Thanks Garrett. Scott - PM sent.

Peck. Otherwise known as English Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins in the British Museum 1558-1958, p167. Not cheap, but essential reading for any serious copper collector. If you want a copy, I have a couple available.

They were only struck for the first 3 months of 1698, as there was a glut of halfpence and farthings in certain parts of the country. An Act of Parliament to stop coining being passed on 12th May 1698 and effective from the 24th June. This explains the relative rarity of the 1698 1/2d.

It's important that interest rates return to real values because it sends out the wrong message when too low. Low rates encourage the profligate to borrow beyond their means and lay the seeds for another consumer disaster. Those that don't borrow meanwhile have to park their money somewhere where it will earn a real rate of interest. If I can in something and get 1% over inflation after tax, I'm a happy camper. Part of the problem is that a 'healthy' economy requires people to buy things they don't really want, and the most likely candidates are those who don't have the money. Consumer spending is under control at the moment because memories are too fresh, but give it a couple more years and the same old story will repeat itself. We need to make things and export our problems. Then we can spend without much concern.

I don't think we will see a slow-down in top end material prices until interest rates return to a realistic, above inflation, rate. Artificially low rates don't help anyone. The idea that it will force people to invest in the economy and create jobs is pie in the sky. That involves a risky venture with no quick exit-route. Putting your money into commodities and collectables however is a position that is markedly easier to extract yourself from, whilst still offering the chance of a real return. That has to be part of the reason that desirable pieces have exploded in price, as the best will always find a new home with relative ease.

The point I am making is that those unaffordable coins of today, would have been just as unaffordable to the likes of the majority of today's members had they been collecting at the time. In one way you are better off today because a good number of us in our current jobs would not have had the disposable income 120 years ago, but measured against that is the number of attractive items that have been systematically stripped from the collector's reach following bequests to various museums. Some household names in numismatic terms have deprived today's collectors of a lot of quality material, the likes of which has not been replaced and is unlikely ever to be in the future. Henderson paid top whack and bought extensively at the Montagu, Murdoch and other large sales around the turn of the century, but then promptly gave the lot along with his library to the Fitz in 1933. Blackburn museum's collection is entirely down to the Hart bequest in 1945. Weightman and Clarke-Thornhill both gave the BM first pick of their collections, with the remnants being sold to collectors. Just look in the back of your copy of Peck to see the amount of material taken out of the system and then compare with the paltry remains listed in the Weightman sale of 1926. Baldwins complained at the time that the remains of the Clarke-Thornhill collection were barely worth having when compared to those the BM took (basically any examples of dies they didn't already possess - not just types). C E Blunt assiduously collected coins of Marlborough mint to the extent that he had a virtually full set, but then gave them all to Devizes Museum. It is somewhat unhelpful that the majority of types are unique, with the other rarely offered. Birmingham Museum took Peck's George III coins in their entirety in lieu of death duties - again, many were unique. Norweb gave her Charles I to the ANS. J P Morgan's family offered the collection to the BM in 1915 after he died on the Titanic. Some were released to collectors, but again, a good number were upgrades for the museum collection. All of these collections had first class material and this makes a severe dent in the quality of coins available, which in turn pushes up the price of the dwindling pool of choice pieces. That more of us have disposable income is a double whammy when it comes to prices for quality, but then it has to be set against the fact that you are at least able to play the game if you save up. The cost of individual pieces is not so much of a problem. A coin costing a half-crown in 1900 is little different to today's purchase of a few hundred pounds in relative terms to the daily wage.

Some coins have always been outside the range of the average bloke. A salary of £30 pa doesn't permit the purchase of a triple unite at a minimum of half that sum. It's a difficult question that I'm not sure has an answer. So many choice pieces from past collectionbs have been squirreled away in museums, never to see the light of day again. Their removal from circulation means lower quality collections, but then, coins have never been more accessible than today. While you say you couldn't afford a £5K coin today, the chances are the same would have applied to a sub-£10 coin in 1900, but you have more disposable income today than you could ever hope to amass then. Today you have sufficient surplus to save up for something. Also, coins are continuously being found, meaning that yesterday's rarities are no longer so. Knowledge is not lost, so we can build on the past. That's a big positive.