Rob

Go home. That's awful.

There's always someone. Never underestimate the capacity of the uninformed to make a bad decision.

They should know what they are cataloguing given the length of time they have been in the business. However, I think you might fall foul of their rule 6 since more than 8 days have passed since you received the coin. A mis-described item would override any grading issues and one would hope is covered by the general conditions for purchase at auction sales referred to in item 7, but I have no idea what the wording is. If you compare the images of a couple of proof crowns on the London Coins archive, the rims are infinitely better than what you have there. IMO, the images of the obverse look like the surface has been polished. The reverse is less clear cut, but the rims are still wrong. They should be crisp, flat and squared off. Any edge milling should be relatively sharp to the touch compared to a currency coin. Compare yours with the rims on the two coins sold in sale 167 http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&searchterm=1887+Proof+Crown&searchtype=1 CONDITIONS OF SALE1The auction sale is by upward bidding to the highest bidder against cash payment in EURO with a premium of 20 % of the hammer price.2The auctioneer is entitled to waive payment in cash and to supply the merchandise against invoice. Invoices are to be paid within 15 days. The cost of postage, insurance and bankcharges will be charged to the buyer. An interest of 1 % per month or part of month will be charged if payment of the purchase price including the premium, tax and any cost is not received within the stipulated period.3Title remains with the seller until goods have been paid for in full. The risk is for the buyer from the moment of knock-down.4The auctioneer guarantees on behalf of the consignor the genuineness of all items sold, unless otherwise stated.5Grading is made to the best of our knowledge based on our long experience but is to be considered as the personal opinion of the cataloguer only. All lots will be sold ‘as is’. Difference of grading by grading institutions does not give grounds for the returning lots bought.6Justified complaints can only be considered within 8 days from receipt of the goods.7Unless otherwise stated the general conditions for purchase at auction sales, as deposited at the Court in Amsterdam under number 388/1989, are in force. Should any legal action arise, the Court of Amsterdam has exclusive jurisdiction for both parties. Only the Dutch text of the conditions of sale has legal forc

Possibly a few too many contact marks on the obverse?

That's probably because they've identified the likely suckers as being on the other side of the pond. They could really go to town and get them certified as genuine, or maybe even the 'finest known'.

I can see it will be good for less scrupulous sellers as it provides style over substance and will probably appear on ebay at some point. Why show a truthful and accurate representation with a still image when technological smoke and mirrors are available? Sad but true - people like fashion, fads, novel ideas, things their mates have etc. at the expense of practicality.

I know it's a first attempt and has potential for improvement, but it neatly demonstrates the downside to videos which is the subject keeps moving position. When you study a coin it helps to keep the image constant and let your eyes move where you want them to rather than play catch-up. Trying to study a small area or feature is impossible. Take pictures from different angles by all means to try and emphasise a point or feature, but to show something, it needs to stay still. i.e. less technological input or video skills is more, unless it is done as an entry for a video competition. This was discussed a few years back when someone kept posting their recent acquisitions as videos. Couldn't view the coins properly unless the video was halted - which for most is the same as taking a regular picture. I really struggle to see any benefit in doing it this way.

Which auction house are we talking about?

I just drag the required file into the reply box. I've no idea about choosing files from a menu.

Which is how I treat it. The rarities were never very accurate and always seemed to be one person's opinion written on the back of a fag packet. TBH they are redundant for most applications because as long as there is enough to go around - nobody cares. Somewhat depressingly, the one area where they could be of use is the least attractive to collectors (proofs and patterns), but even then things seem to be based on a number plucked out of the air.

For many less widely collected varieties they were a guesstimate 70 years ago and mostly remain so. Nobody has the time or inclination to revise the complete book and so it is down to individuals to do their homework in their chosen field. Nobody has all the coins in the world at their fingertips, so any estimation of rarity will be just that. I'm sure we all have R's that we have seen but one, and R7s where you can pick and choose. Know your subject or be prepared to be pleasantly surprised or disappointed.

Counterfeit eighteen-penny pieces, not pennies. i.e. BoE 1s6d tokens, of which there are many varieties.

Best deal of all time for me on ebay was this in 2005. An 1889/8 halfpenny for £3.56 delivered - from Australia. It ended up being culled in 2009 due to a surfeit of much better 17+S examples.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-ABRAHAM-LINCOLN-2006-2-Pound-coin-2/363024349356?hash=item5485eff8ac:g:FQQAAOSwFpBe3Sn1 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rare-Abraham-Lincoln-2-Pound-Coin-Mega-Rare-Printing-Error-By-Abraham/224051810434?hash=item342a875082:g:eTkAAOSwClZetqJx https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rare-Abraham-Lincoln-2-Pound-Coin-Minting-errors-and-Misprint-2006/283483266327?hash=item4200eb5d17:g:mv4AAOSwWM1c2Uha etc. etc.. People have gone mad! There's at least a dozen and a half of these on the first page of a British Coins Lincoln search.

I concur. I can't see anything wrong. Quick checks are 4 berries - is a twopence and on a penny the Trident points to the right of the second N compared to at the N for the 2d, 1/2d & 1/4d, with the last two unlikely to appear on an ebay listing where the vendor doesn't have a clue.

This appeared at the back end of 2003. The vendor had a reserve on it, which usually means unrealistic expectations. I put in a bid of 600 which I considered reasonable given the only other known example (VF) had sold for £2K a few years before, making this the second known. I picked it up for 500. The underbidder went to 151 hoping for a bargain.

Except on eBay where the opposite applies. All things bright and not beautiful are described as lustrous.

Assuming the holder is genuine, that might just be dipped. For some reason, dipping (and 'conservation') isn't considered cleaning by the TPGs.

Hopefully designer sunglasses are included for this price. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1787-George-III-Shilling-VERY-RARE-1-OVER-MIRRORED-1-Superb-coin-see-photos/233588897551?hash=item3662fbb70f:g:k3EAAOSwh5pevrRM

I tried to click on the link and was unexpectedly saved from viewing by the Daily Mail pointing out I had an ad blocker The ability to surf randomly in the knowledge the DM will block me from unnecessarily viewing their articles is as good as winning the lottery. Mine's a pint.

There is an alternative explanation for gold not suffering from striking splits in that it is softer and so can deform (spread) more easily. Silver has a problem in that it is extracted from ore whereas gold is found as nodules and not extracted from a salt. Being the path of least resistance, I don't think it a coincidence that gold was fine until debased by Henry VIII. Then you have the question of alloying in the case of silver, with the divergent melting points of the alloy constituents coming into play. I'm pretty certain the more extensive haymarking seen on silver is down to poor metal mix because copper's m.p. is 100 degrees higher than silver compared to 20 degrees between copper and gold, so in the case of the former, the silver will be melted long before the copper.

Someone inadvertently left detail on the coin?

The only thing I've heard of was the Henry I coins requiring to be snicked to be current. Coins were current as long as the inner circle was intact. Where are we talking about. England, Scotland, Denmark?

Oops, red face time. Not sure what I was thinking about there other than not the response. Silly sod. I'm as mad as the bloke on the obverse.

No idea, but a guess would be the need for pennies far outweighed that for halfpennies [and farthings], the requirement for which could be considered already served by the numbers circulating, whether genuine or not. Another angle could be that the security edge wasn't sufficiently developed for a currency issue, bearing in mind there was no security edge on the pennies or twopences. Or maybe it was down to a shortage of copper given the quantities needed for ships' hulls. The IOM being self determining could presumably issue what it liked. The head of state might have been Victoria, but the Tynwald passed the laws.