Rob

They turn up on a reasonably regular basis. e.g. The last 3 St. James's sales had 2,4 & 4 pieces respectively. I didn't check the other houses, but it is reasonable to assume these were not the only pieces available in the past 15 months.

Desirability isn't objective, but it plays a huge part in pricing. Consider your wreath crown. Struck for currency between 1928 & 1936 with 9034 struck in the first year and a low point of 932 for 1934. Prices for UNC are between £500 & £5000 and availability is clearly not an issue because most sales will have at least one example. Now consider the following list: 1675/3/2 halfpenny 1694 1/2d with GV/B on the obverse. 1694 1/2d struck in brass (2 known, 1 available to collectors) 1788 1/2d type R24 in aluminium 1790 1/2d type R44 in silver P1231 obverse uniface in copper (1 available to collectors) 1807/6 restrike trial halfpenny 2x P564 1689 farthings struck on a Charles II halfpenny Charles I 2/6d im.Eye struck on a shilling flan Charles I 2/6d Worcester mint Allen dies D-23 13 varieties of Weyl patterns. This list is not exhaustive, but all of the above 23 coins are mine and other than where indicated are unique (or effectively so) to my knowledge. But - not more than 1 or 2 of them have a cat in hells chance of selling for more than the price of an uncirculated 1934 crown. Why? It all comes down to the number of collectors relative to the coins available in the market place. There are probably more than 932 collectors worldwide looking to acquire a mint state 1934 wreath crown despite not all being in that grade, but far fewer interested in a Weyl pattern for example. Collecting habits change too. One year it might be pennies, the next year it might be crowns. Currently you can't get good hammered gold for love nor money and as a result prices have exploded, but I wouldn't like to prophesy that this will be the situation next year. Desirability overrides the rarity factor time after time. The basic rule should be to collect what you like and invest in what you can comfortably predict. Coins are essentially a discretionary purchase made from surplus funds unlike commodities which are subject to the demands of commerce and so the latter are likely to produce more predictable and better investment results if you do your homework. Sure the investment tail has wagged the collecting dog as witnessed by last month's Heritage sale where an MS65 slabbed 1901 1d sold for about £600, but taken in isolation you could come a cropper big time if you paid too much attention to this isolated instance.

Silly idea. If you knew the answer to the question, you wouldn't be asking. Don't even try to second guess the market without a very deep knowledge of what you are "investing" in. On any day, all coins can be either cheap or expensive relative to market, but that requires you know what the market is and one swallow doesn't make a summer. Simply going for gold is even more of a risk, because bullion is a single commodity at the end of a very solid bull run whereas coins can effectively be many commodities depending on the field involved. However, as all prices have risen in line with the general market - in fact they are the general market, it would take a crystal ball to identify the next area to outperform the mean. I don't have one of these.

Unfortunately mary's husband William batted for the other side... Pink and Orange clash, that can't be right.

You could change the upper value to £38K ish based on the P1311 in the Evans descendants' sale. There's only one of those. Forget that one. Must remember not to try to communicate after pub.

You could change the upper value to £38K ish based on the P1311 in the Evans descendants' sale. There's only one of those.

Anything from scrap to over £1K, it all depends on the condition. You would have to post a picture.

I'm not sure electronic scales are the answer here. You need a small accurate one for coins which will weigh up to say 150g, but two decimal places is a must in my opinion. Over that the kitchen scales will suffice. The Post Office doesn't take particular care where they dump their deliveries, so the likelihood of them needing a weight to two decimal places beggars belief.

Possibly, but I don't think the difference will be appreciable because martlet which is the scarcer mark is not significantly more so than cross crosslet. VF may be a reasonable mid range coin, but not a stunningly desirable 'must have' and so you would be aiming at the type collector in all probability who would be content with either mark. Some busts are rarer than others for a given mark. If it is bust 3J however, please PM me because we need to discuss a purchase as I need one of these.

If the weight is about 8g that's ok, it doesn't pretend to be a coin that's ok, so it would appear to be genuine. Have a word with Paul Withers at Galata as this is his department and has written about them too so is clued up.

Presumably an honest answer. You don't need to know about coins per se, just how to identify a potential good selling product and make casts. It isn't rocket science that any high grade (but obviously not perfect) item on ebay will attract bidding attention. Even a half decent one in lower grade will sell for far more than the cost of making a cast.

Who did you buy it from? There are a few vendors on ebay currently selling casts but not advertising their status. 10% underweight is a likely weight for pewter (lead/tin alloy). Pure tin would be about 30% down, pure lead 20% over - both are ish numbers.

Shillings should be 6g, though a couple of basis points either side should not raise any concerns. Say a range of 5.98-6.02g with the caveat that if it is no better than a washer, the weight might be below this depending on the wear.

Any hoard coin from over 700 years ago or more with rainbow toning is extremely desirable. Maybe only 1 in 1000 come out this way, the others are variously dark or bright, but typically uniform. That is why the Edward the Confessor expanding cross penny in the last Spink sale (lot 163) made £1300 hammer. Even in the 1980's it was a £3-400 coin. Tasty.

PCGS & CGS slabs are easier to get into compared to NGC because they have a thinner rim which you can remove with cross cut pincers. As the rim contains most of the seal, you can remove the contents without too much hassle. NGC are a bit more sturdy. The same tool works, but you do need a bigger one because you have to nibble away at the whole thickness.

Hi Choolie, 1. You are correct in your assumption that they are high quality examples and will typically have mirror like fields, though some e.g. 1902 proofs were struck with a matt finish. The legend is typically more angular than a currency piece, though not necessarily so and edge milling tends to be sharper than that found on a regular circulated piece. They will frequently have wider rims and a sharp right angle at the edge. Some or all of these features will apply depending on the coin in question. If someone says possible proof then ignore it. If you can't tell, it isn't. And just because it has polished fields doesn't mean it is a proof. This forum gets asked the question 'proof or not?' at least once a month. Some 'proofs' have features that are not found on currency coins and so they are strictly patterns which is the term used for proofs with a design that was never adopted for the currency issues. 2. Around the late 1790's there was a desperate shortage of silver in Britain due to the demands of the Napoleonic Wars. Consequently the price of silver fluctuated wildly and little coin was struck. The 1804 five shilling dollar was struck on captured Spanish 8 reales coins and superseded the countermarked 8 reales which were first issued in 1797 current for 4/9d. The oval countermark used was a goldsmiths mark current for stamping plate at the time in question. Counterfeits quickly followed and in 1800 the octagonal countermark was introduced using the bust punch from the maundy penny. It was initially current for 5/6d as the price of silver had risen to this value. The countermarked pieces were again superseded in 1804 by the 5/- dollar which as it says was current for 5/-. These were struck for a number of years by Matthew Boulton's Soho mint, but all were dated 1804. Sometimes you can see details from the original coin and dates up to 1811 have been noted, so they must have been struck up to this time. Some of the dies were acquired by Taylor at the Soho Mint sale in 1850 and restrikes were made using the original dies, though these are not too common. There are also a few examples known of countermarked French and US coins besides the much more common Spanish and Spanish American issues. Countermarked 4 reales also exist, but although they would be nominally current for a half crown there is no documented evidence for a proclamation giving them legal tender status. 3. LXI, LXII etc refer to the regnal date i.e. the LXI refers to the 61st year of the reign, LXII the 62nd etc. This is found on the edge of the last crown issue dated 1818-20 as part of the legend DECUS ET TUTAMEN ANNO REGNI etc. Some patterns also exist from earlier years with different edge readings, but you need not concern yourself with these as they are rarely encountered.

Scarce in terms of proof and patterns apart from those issued for the general public means perhaps 2 or 3 dozen known whereas extremely rare means less than half a dozen. It is dependant on a large extent to the number of examples in museums which by definition are off limits. If there are 12 known and 8 or 9 are in museums, the 3 or 4 available examples become extremely rare, with a quality piece maybe excessively rare. Mrs Reluctant, Mrs Rob, Mrs Peter and probably Mrs everone else seem to worry about the number of coins arriving. A common problem, so ignore it. Be happy, she is still paying attention to what you do. I explain that there are still gaps to fill in the cabinet she bought me. And when that is full I have solved the problem of the next Christmas present. :D

Scarce, rare, extremely rare and excessively rare are somewhat nebulous qualities. Excessively rare usually means only one or two known, or at least in that grade if qualified as such. With a caveat, extremely rare will mean a handful known, very rare we are getting into double figures and scarce means that there are a decent number available, though not necessarily at that point in time. It will vary from issue to issue depending on how many people collect a series. Clearly a coin which is in absolute terms relatively plentiful, say hundreds known, will be common, but if the demand is such that collectors hold onto them, very few pieces come to market and so it becomes rare in colloquial terms if not in definition. Conversely, a coin may be known from only a dozen examples, but if the number of collectors is limited to half a dozen then the coin is common because the dealer will have difficulty in disposing of it and one will always be available. Usually, a rarity will frequently only be applicable to coins in a decent grade and by virtue of such collectable. It is the quality that will in all probability determine the rarity attribution, particularly in reference books. A good example is ESC which if the numbers are to be believed would imply such a limited quantity of known examples that obtaining one would be impossible, but new pieces are always coming to light and so nearly all unattested rarity attributions are liable to be revised downwards. Rarity attributions are most accurate for proofs and patterns where the coins were never (or rarely) circulated and so the original totals are a good indication of available examples. Currency coins were circulated, withdrawn, hoarded, melted, lost & found etc. This results in an estimate for rarity which is invariably inaccurate because it is impossible to do a proper census.

There will be some value there, but not a huge amount. Most 20th century material is worth melt unless in mint state or close to. The post 1947 cupro-nickel, bronze and brass 3ds are almost certainly worth just scrap. The 1920-46 silver is .500 fine, so should realise about 9 or 10 times face value as bullion based on today's silver price. The later sets and proofs are impossible to quantify without a list, but common whatever they are with only the very odd exception.

The top image reinforces my thoughts that it is an E because there is an angled feature which matches the profile of the top of the widening end on the lower bar relative to the central spur and the spacing is correct too. I can't say if it is prominent in the hand from the image, but if the colour is a reflection of the strike, then it matches.

I'm not sure it is a thumbprint on the 1/2d because I can't see any fingerprint detail and the mark covers the lower points whilst missing the high relief ones. It looks more like attack by a corrosive liquid to me if the consistent colour is reliable.

Ironically, the rare or high end of the market is probably where the greatest security lies. As the really top pieces have in the main been illustrated somewhere over the past 100 years, a clear picture has been built up of where the choice and thus desirable rarities have been and currently are. Their recurring appearance is frequently illustrated time and time again for posterity. e.g. I have Brooker 1153 - a Worcester 2/6d. It isn't a particularly attractive coin and has quite a flat obverse, but is a unique example of a 2/6d known from the reverse die (although a single 1/- struck from the same reverse die is also known, Brooker 1170). As a result it was illustrated in the catalogues of Hamilton-Smith (1913), Vaughan Morgan (1935), Ryan (1952) and Vincent's article (1956) plus of course Brooker. If it wasn't rare it wouldn't have been illustrated. This gives a degree of comfort when trying to establish whether a coin is genuine or not. Hammered coins are as easy as anything else to make copies of, but very difficult to replicate as a coin with a specific provenance due to the many imperfections in shape and strike unless you have it in the hand and make a direct copy.

I couldn’t resist having a dabble back into this during my work lunch break! In trading standards a phrase like "A person who needs to be saved from their own stupidity will only learn the hard way" theoretically has no place in regulatory services, all the stupid people that we could place in that boat would be considered as vulnerable consumers, and no matter how stupid they are regardless of fault or circumstances, they are still just vulnerable consumers and its trading standards job to protect them because the trader must always exercise all due diligence to ensure what they are selling is legitimate and must not mislead the consumer in any way. As you said before its a specialist field and we cannot look at all aspects of coins in the same way we can at Levi Jeans or a Gucci Handbag, but the same trading laws should be applied to the transactions just as any other item in terms of buying, selling, descriptions etc unless there is explicit implied terms otherwise. In regards to "As a member of the BNTA, W&W would be obliged to adhere to their rules as a condition of membership." That’s very good, I admit I have not actually looked anything the BNTA do and requirements of their membership, that specific requirement is a good form of regulation in its self, I am guessing most of the auction houses or larger traders are all members of the BNTA, if not maybe it there should be some sort of rule that if a coin traders turnover exceeds a certain threshold maybe it should be compulsory for them to subscribe to the BNTA. or somthing along those lines. The gilt coins from w&w, I think I saw them at the auction after the one you saw them at, they sold at the auction I attended for I think £80 and £120 to a phone bidder, that’s the last I think any of us saw of them, it looked like car touch up paint to me! In regards to regulating the trading of coins on ebay, that’s just a colossal task and x amount of additional laws come into play including several EC directives that would take us forever to get through, although as a platform for selling, theoretically ebay should regulate it. In the Tiffany’s v Ebay US case, Tiffany’s had to employ two full time members of staff to just monitor ebay transactions to ensure all the items that were being sold were genuine. Ebay argued that its just a platform for people to sell and have no responsibility in the content listed as per their terms and conditions. The judge ruled that those terms and conditions are unenforceable and ebay have full responsibility in ensuring that the selling platform they provide protects buyers and trademarks and regulates seller listings accordingly, and were ordered to pay for the costs of employing the extra staff, and an amount of compensation reflective of the damage caused to Tiffany’s brand by allowing 1 in 7 (or some figure like that) Tiffany items to be sold that are fake. The figure came to millions! Ebay’s Vero protection program should maybe extend to coins. The rejection of the stupid person tag by the system is a fundamental reason why faith in government policies and institutions is sorely tested. Most thinking people take the view that few "vulnerable" people are unable to see that their actions may have consequences and feel that most know full well what they are doing and what they are trying to achieve. The vast swathes of people in this country who are unable to work through low educational standards, yet have knowledge befitting a doctorate in the operation of the benefits system and how to make the most of it leads to much well founded cynicism. Apologies for the digression, but I think we are talking about a parallel sample group to the uneducated buyer here. You can't subscribe to the BNTA, you are invited to join. There is a minimum period (3 years) required for you to trade before you become eligible, but you still have to be invited. Chris who owns this forum is a member. There is no obligation on dealers outside the BNTA to follow any code other than to work within the law, but there is nothing to stop one following their code of conduct even if not a member and many choose to do so. I don't know what eBay's Vero protection program is exactly, so can't comment. From a quick glance it appears to protect intellectual property, which would not apply to coins. I can say however, that when I contacted them regarding fraud on the site, I was informed that they don't deal with members of the public, I had to discuss it with the police who invariably are too busy and so nothing gets done. Since eBay have made accepting Paypal compulsory and therefore a virtual monopoly for payments I have mostly avoided eBay. I certainly haven't sold, as the automatic resolution in favour of the buyer with a full refund is a scammers paradise. They are making too much money to willingly crack down on any underhand behaviour.

A couple of misplaced attempted E's looks a likely candidate. Looking above the obvious E and to the left near the linear circle is what could be the top of another E. On the bottom bar of the obvious E is a vertical line to the left of the existing serifs which is in the correct position relative to the central bar spike to be an E as well. The central one looks quite flaw-like, but the spacing is about right.

I think you will find that any responsible auctioneer will take back an item that has been wrongly described. As you say, in this instance the distance selling regulations already allow for cases such as this, so why introduce yet another (publicly funded) body to do the same job. In the last few years I have returned at least half a dozen items that were not as described to auctioneers as far away as the US and Australia. They have always refunded me despite the obvious difficulties I would have bringing a case for restitution in their local court should they decline to settle. Most businesses on this planet are legitimate and treat their customers fairly because they wish to have ongoing trade. Any business that tried to defraud someone of a large sum of money would soon have no customers because word of mouth is a very effective conveyor of good or bad news rather than a regulator which is frequently dealing with failures of procedure rather than substance. Large sums of money lost would rarely go unchallenged in the courts. As regards the two 'gilt' pieces at W&W, one was a penny and the other a 1/2d as I remember. Nobody would have bid having viewed the lots, and if they were purchased blind by a bidder that person must have returned them because they appeared in the following sale as I recall and so the system would appear to be working. As a member of the BNTA, W&W would be obliged to adhere to their rules as a condition of membership. They are unlikely to relinquish their membership on the basis of an unwillingness to forego £100 or so in premiums. If an item is listed sold as seen, I think this should be a binding statement. The seller has laid his cards on the table and the auctioneer has conveyed the message. If you haven't seen, then don't bid. The same could and should apply to ebay items. Caveat emptor. A person who needs to be saved from their own stupidity will only learn the hard way - if at all.