Rob

That's just plain stupid. You virtually have to leave planet earth to avoid contact with 1887 shillings, though the large JH type are decidedly rare, sorry, non-existant.

Nothing to suggest it is anything other than an I

Today was quite interesting with a fair number of passed lots too. Some of those shillings were reasonable, some OTT and some about right. The prices paid for the two 1850s was just a reflection of the absolute rarity of the date.

A more accurate description of the item purchased would have been 'a collage of threads'

There was a thread recently by Mongo on exactly this topic. Can somebody link to it as I'm on my way out.

I had a woman on the phone a few weeks ago getting all excited about an 1877 penny, which had Britannia on the front(sic) and it was a rare type cos she's got a thin neck and would I come and value it for her because she has seen they sell for £3500. After a few minutes explaining that the type was determined by whether the date was either wide or narrow but I would happily give her a valuation at my normal rates, I asked which it was and the phone went dead. Wasn't the first, won't be the last. It is just a case of the ebay mentality where every other coin is the rarest type.

I'm intrigued as to how he determines a fair price that he is happy with given the other numismatic item is a coin weight and is described as a coin, unknown denomination. Just let him carry on.

Now what do we do? Presumably go into frenzied posting to make up for yesterday.................. unfortunately I've nothing to report

Hooray. Sorted?

Yes

Depends on the coin and whether there are two or more people desperately seeking the variety. 6 or 7 years ago I had a nice Elizabeth 1 shilling pencilled in for a bid of 5 or 600 which was about right for the prices at the time, but it went to over 2K because two variety collectors were competing. The greater the number collecting a series, the greater the likelihood that prices will exceed expectations.

Yes. It is your picture and you own the rights. The new owner only possesses the coin, just as you would own the rights to any image of a picture you took in a public place. A building may have belonged to many people over the years, but any images of it are only copyrighted by the person who took them. If not, you wouldn't find many images in newspapers, magazines, on the tv, or anywhere else.

Same dies as Brooker 300

I have slabs with no bar code, barcode and no legend, barcode with NGC and barcode with the full name. The earliest two which I have to hand are the green label without barcode. The highest number is 195xxx. The double florin falls between this number and the lowest number I have with barcode to hand. That there is no image is not surprising because the number is an early reference number (which is supported by the early hologram on the back which is the same as my green label slab ). Images are not provided unless paid for by the submitter and at the time indicated by the reference, I'm not sure the service was even offered. I have a few 'Cheshire Collection' NGC slabs which are numbered 1846720 to 727. These can be accurately dated to the beginning of 2005 as we know this was when the coins were sent to NGC. At least one of these coins in my possession was unslabbed in Nicholson, so there can be no argument as to the dating/label no. correlation. The label on the double florin would date to the early 1990s at the latest being only 6 figures. I still don't think there is anything wrong. There is no compulsion to have the coin imaged in the NGC reference section. A few months ago I commented on an NGC slabbed coin previously in my possession that had been tooled to remove a large scratch on the cheek prior to submission. That was a $30K coin in a St.James's sale, but there was still no image on the NGC site. That I knew the coin had been tooled was due to my having intimate knowledge of the piece which I could confirm was genuine on account of the untampered with tiny surface marks. Not everybody feels the need to pay extra to have the image taken. Many of the images appear to be the result of a personal desire to show off an individual's registry set, or to provide a virtual collection.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. The reverse hologram is as used on the early bulky slabs. The two examples I have with this type have reference numbers 162612 and 195437, but have the early insert without bar coding. The earliest slab I have with a bar code is 308500 which is obviously later than the coin listed, but the double florin appears to fit into the sequence ok. Those with a bar code can have NGC, Numismatic Guaranty Corporation or nothing below, and there are several types of hologram. Here the various designs of both label and hologram are shown.

You would be best asking the American posters on here how they ship coins outside the country.

I don't think the potential number of examples extant is large enough to do a meaningful survey. You can establish relative rarity values using a scattergun sampling approach when dealing with common items, but when you are talking about genuinely rare coins I don't think you will get the answers you want. Let's do a survey. How many people on this forum will own up to having a 1933 penny? We know there are supposedly a small number in private hands, but even an answer of one would suggest that one in 30 or 40 (this being the number of regular posters) people had one. You are talking about a coin which has supposedly a population three times greater in private hands, or if the numbers are wrong maybe 3 or 4 times more again. The numbers simply aren't large enough to get even an approximate estimate of rarity other than to say it is likely to be a double figure number.

What grade is that one, Rob? It was unc for wear, but with two small rim marks and a bagmark either side.

The only numbers you can have any faith in are the mint's own. All the estimated rarities given in the various references are just that (estimates) and have been proven to be wrong time and time again, in both directions. There are unique coins which are approaching double figures, or perhaps have reached this number by now. References tend to feed off each other, and those collectors who can't be bothered to compile their own data and cross check the published figures take things mostly as gospel. You need to gather all the info you can and start off with a sceptical viewpoint on any published data.

These days the design is engraved on Dave's dinner size plates and reduced. The hammered coinage was made up from many small punches which means that individual punches can be identified. We are talking about two totally different technologies here. By extension there will be very few features that are significantly individual to any issue of modern currency from the last 100 years. Dare I say it, but micro-varieties are likely to be the majority, with tooth pointings probably the most significant.

When you are talking about coins that are supposed to only exist in single numbers or low double digits you have to include slabbed coins because so many examples are in them. To exclude a slabbed example of 1 in a supposed population of 10 is a 10% error. Include 2, one of which has been resubmitted and it is 10% in the other direction. The potential errors are huge in percentage terms.

A census of eBay? Why do I suddenly feel tired!! Sick note from me too. I've got a terrible pain in my arms and hands. Operating a mouse and keyboard is impossible.

Good VF-nEF. The lion's nose on the issue tends to be well struck up unlike the previous issue. 1925 shilling as an example.

That explains the reverse but i see no signs of that on the obverse.the bust and legends are bigger than another sixpence i have If your proposal is that this could be a shilling obverse, sixpence reverse, then the flan would either have to be extremely thin, if it's spread to the dimensions of a shilling, or it's actually a shilling flan, given that the obverse sits on it about right! So, what's the weight? dont know the weight dont have any scales the coin measures 23mm A sixpence is 21mm which bear out the spread flan theory - so at 23mm just over 10% too large. ok so nothing spectacular then.does this spread flan effect the value?thanks rob youve put some effort into this Using the widest diameter on your coin as 23mm, the ratio of coin diameter to the outside of the legend diameter on my screen is 65:56 The corresponding dimensions on my example are 21mm and 19.5mm, so the diameter of the outside of the legend is within 0.3mm for a spread and not spread example. Sixpence it is. The bust goes all the way to the edge on a sixpence. This won't affect the value which will still be based on the grade and type.

I know what you mean but am still not sure it will show anything other than the existence of the said coin. My rare (I've never come across another) 1935 proof penny is slabbed by NGC. What would this tell someone searching slabbed 1935 coins, beyond the fact that they do exist? It certainly wouldn't indicate rarity. I'm not trying to be awkward, just pointing out the hurdles to interpreting these figures in any meaningful way. Slabbed statistics are worse than useless. Different grades for the same coin counts as two coins if resubmitted; some slabbed coins don't exist because the variety is wrong (though there might actually be a genuine example in a different slab; many coins are removed from slabs and so may be double counted if slabbed and unslabbed populations are combined; NGC used to have several designations for the same generic piece (1797 pennies spring to mind) based on whether someone remembered to put a space in the label detail; slabs get crossed over from one TPG to another because their registry sets are only allowed to be in the host's slabs, so get double counted. All in all the statistics are highly unreliable and best ignored. All it says is that there is likely (but not guaranteed) to be a certain number of an item around. Something we already knew because the reference books included the item in the first place.