Rob

No problem.

HB from me too. Just in time.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fkokkieh.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2Ftrackback-spam.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fkokkieh.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2F26%2Fon-spam-a-history%2F&h=530&w=709&tbnid=r6o3_GxbWU-sQM%3A&zoom=1&docid=Ual5frKFIpK5wM&hl=en&ei=xZtBVKX9MsjbaJaJgpgL&tbm=isch&ved=0CC8QMygOMA4&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=569&page=1&start=0&ndsp=36

I think many ebay buyers think it is now a right that all things should cost 99p (with free P&P).

I'm not sure I understand your question. Die cracks can appear at any time, but mostly towards the end of a die's life. All dies of whatever year can be affected, so there is no reason why any die crack should attract any premium. As they aren't a design feature of a specific die, assigning rarity to them is meaningless. Any rarity is down to the mintage figures or surviving example known of a type or date.

yes

Dealers are reacting to what the market is demanding, not the other way round. If sufficient buyers of decent middle grade or better don't appear, then no one is going to hold stock. The VF - gVF area is the biggest problem. It is where the price curve gradient starts to take off appreciably. Take something that often crops up in sales such as Chas 2 crowns. Spink prices these at a couple hundred in Fine, with a VF going for about 3 times that. The gulf is in the next jump to EF where previously a multiple of 2 or 3 times the VF price was about right, but now it is 6 or 7. That's where the reluctance to pay too much comes into play, be it dealer or collector. The potential difference in value for an almost imperceptible difference in quality gives both parties a pricing headache. If in doubt, leave it out, is the general rule adopted. Of course, vendors don't want to sell too cheaply, so put on a reserve which isn't met. Buyers are afraid to pay too much for a potentially sub-standard coin as perceived by the market and so don't bid. It's a real chicken and egg situation. Another point that seems to apply is that grading in auction catalogues is often taken as gospel, possibly with the bidder having relied on images on his computer when deciding how much to pay. This is also going to cause a headache further down the line because there are a lot of things in my opinion that are either very fully graded or overgraded - something which can only be determined by many hours spent looking at different grades of coins in hand. The marketing effect of a higher catalogue grade cannot be overstated. As a rule of thumb, I reckon on marking down at least 10 coins (and probably more) for every one that I feel is undergraded, though many have to be said are ok. Just depends on whose auction catalogue you are looking at. This factor I believe has led to appreciably higher prices at the top end where an EF coin looks uncirculated to the untrained eye. Bids are then made according to perception.

There is a large gulf opening between the top pieces and the rest. The top pieces sell quicker than you can list them, but anything below is increasingly difficult to shift. There is very little incentive to buy in lesser material if you are going to sit on it for a long time, hence the reluctance to buy on the part of dealers. Anything will shift if priced cheaply enough, but then a dealer will have to buy in at an even lower price. Dealers will always be willing to sell pieces that give them a return. I get asked if I want to buy collections almost on a daily basis, but the majority get rejected because of the prices asked. As you are usually asked to take the collection in its entirety, prices have to reflect the pieces that won't sell easily as well as the desirable ones. It isn't an exact science.

Gut feeling is that nobody is selling, more people are entering the hobby, and prices are a reflection of the new entrants desire to build a collection. Very often, it appears they have no reference points from past sales as you regularly see people appearing at auction who you have never seen before and they bid higher than one might expect. If you supplement those people with dealers acting on commission for collectors, it soon becomes apparent that the general market has moved higher for all the quality pieces. The ebay side of things is taken care of by people who bid on multiple bulk lots, again at prices that make you wince in the saleroom. I look at what I can realise from the components of a bulk lot and frequently find that it sells for the same price, sometimes more. I don't feel there is anywhere for me to go buying at that level. The sharp end is rising to fill the lists of people like Baldwins or CNG. They get good prices for what they list or auction off in the case of the latter. There is a ready market for anything of good quality, but alongside that I think there will be a number of new collectors who haven't taken time to do a bit of background research who are paying way over the odds for common material. Eventually the wheels will come off the bus, just as they always must do. In the context of a long collecting period, a few OTT prices will not do any harm, but anyone looking for a short term investment/gain is likely to be on a sticky wicket as they will not have the benefit of time to offset the recent purchase costs. Examples of this are known.

No, way short. You won't pick up a Cromwell for less than 6 or 7.

Kunker aren't setting the prices, it is the explosion in freely available information that is responsible for the prices realised. 20 years ago you would have said "Kunker? Who?" with only a few people kept up to date regarding foreign sale info. Today, that info is available to all and sundry who can bid from the comfort of their armchair half a world away. There is the reason for your price increase. Like many things, the internet is a double edged sword. It enables the purchaser to find cheaper than might be locally available, but for competitive bidding, the number of potential contestants expands to proportions you could never have imagined 20 or even 10 years ago.

Yep. That's what I had set aside for it. Only one other Ed Conf Langport penny has gone through salerooms since WW2 and that was the ex-Lockett and Elmore-Jones expanding cross. Given there are only 9 or 10 coins of the mint in private hands and most of these are Cnuts, I'm just amazed at the lack of interest in what is a significant rarity. The Shrewsbury pyramids sold two lots later went for 1900. That's a relatively common type for the mint and did have a super portrait, but at 60% of the price there isn't much difference between the two.

There were some big, big prices in that sale. Henry 8th groat, 3800 hammer; ditto for a Mary groat, and today, 60000 for a 1692 5 guineas. I had two I was looking at and got 1. The 1709 E* 1/- hammered at 2200 which was too much, but I did pick up the unique Langport Edward the Confessor Pointed Helmet penny for a very cheap 3200. I was expecting it to go to 5 or 6 which would have been in keeping with the other prices. I'm chuffed and have been walking around all week with a large grin on my face.

Warwick and Warwick next week. You have just missed the Kunker sale in Germany, but should probably be grateful as it was a bloodbath.

There were no 1674 dated halfpennies,so the transition from 1673 to 1675 makes sense. This is not the case for the farthings as 1674s are quite common, so you would assume that any 1673 dies would be converted to 74s rather than having them left over into 75.

On the 5 over 3s the overcut is an s shaped punch which protrudes to the right of the 3 from the mid point or higher. When seen in relief, this is cut deeper than the original digit.

Peter Wallwork stopped a few years ago (I acquired his library 2 or 3 years ago). I think he is doing property development(?) now.

Look at the shape of the last digit, then compare with the Nicholson halfpennies or my 1675/3/2 in the unlisted varieties. They added to the existing digit usually rather than fill the old one in. For the halfpennies at least, 1675/3 is at least as common as the straight 1675. Somewhere there is a hand written drawing I appended to a thread regarding shapes of the 5/3. I haven't done the separation into 5/3 for the farthings, but surmise it is likely they reused dies for the farthing, just as they did the halfpennies. The reverse die can be paired with any obverse as they will have replaced each die as it broke. There is no reason why this should not apply to all denominations.

That's shi*e. However, I see a business opportunity, if it generates more than melt.

5 over 3 too.

The argument against this is that there is very little in the way of extra work to be done by the vendor. It doesn't matter whether you are sending a signed for parcel to an internal or overseas address, you still have to fill in all the recipient's details. The only additional work is to fill in the white customs label saying description (1 or 2 words), value and ticking a box to say if it is a gift, sample etc. so what? I'll fill in customs labels all day at £50 a time. For them to re-package is doing the same job twice, which is unnecessary. It's like many things in business. Most aren't rocket science, just that people can't be bothered to get off their a**e and cut out the middle man.

With global shipping rates, so is ebay.

USPS flat rate envelope insured to $1K is $46 ish if the website is to be believed. Add in UK 5% import vat at £25-30 plus the RM £8 fee and you get to about £60 all in. i.e. Only about half the sum quoted. I said you get stung. Nice little earner for eBay though. Sure nothing comes for free, but taking the piss can be expensive. So much for their hypocritical bollocks about keeping postage costs to a minimum. Things like this need to be shouted from the rooftops, because the rates are usurious. Thinking out loud, I wonder if the OFT would have a case. All in all a case of caveat emptor. Avoid ebay and buy from the US from the likes of Heritage, who only charge $30 for shipping lots.

Needs a question mark at the end to complete the description.

That probably needs to be qualified. Those polished dies for the New York Exhibition were always going to be returned to the Mint afterwards, so if they needed another die at a later stage it is reasonable to assume they would use an existing one rather than start from scratch. There is no design difference, so no unintentional pairing from that perpective. I would even question whether the use of a currency/proof die pairing in say the Jubilee Head coinage was unintentional. Again, the design is current in both instances. In the case of the two most recent examples, both the 20p and 2p mules used an obsolete design.