Rob

1806 Soho mint copper currency halfpenny with no berries in the olive branch. Spink 3781, Peck 1376.

Although not strictly following the original line of this thread, here is an example of a dipped coin slabbed. It is difficult to see how a coin can be artificially detoned whilst in the slab, so one must assume that it was in this condition prior to slabbing. The links are the toning spots to the reverse together with the weakness on the obverse and reverse where the flan is thinner and so not completely struck up. The picture from Spink auction 4 lot 862, described as toned, extremely fine is the same coin as Goldberg 3359 21/9/05 (slabbed NGC MS63 1875720-009). The toning seen in the Goldberg picture is much deeper than when seen in the flesh. 1720 shilling. I can't add a scan of the piece in question as there is only 13k of space left for attachments but can supply to anyone interested. It also highlights the irrelevance of the grades assigned.

Funny how offenders are so apologetic once the story and subsequent cover-up has been exposed. More bizarrely, I'm not sure why so many people are willing to accept the apology in an attempt to rehabilitate as any offenders tend to be serial ones, and leopards don't change their spots. Past evidence of underhand activities suggests that the problem will resurface under another id.

Good to see that eyes have been opened in the US. IMO, dipped or AT'd coins have been slabbed for quite a long time. I suspect the overpowering attraction of filthy lucre has something to do with it.

Looks like you can add babyscarbabs to his list of shill bidder id's too. No longer resistered on eBay! babyscarbabs has gone too, although ebmplc is still going.

This guy always overgrades. Detail = extremely fine in most instances. This has the bonus of a silhouette. I also note that gg20285672 bid £97. At that level he would have to relist it as at least gVF

It is one of a number of types of model coinage produced in the Victorian era. Toy money you might say. Someone should have a piece which they can upload as an image. Made by Lauer of Nurnberg.

The 1922 reverse has the shield closer to the border than the 1927 reverse.

Looks like you can add babyscarbabs to his list of shill bidder id's too.

Looks like ebmplc likes numismast a lot. He's being a bit greedy though, he only paid just over £310 for this 1720 halfpenny and just over £220 for this 1694.

That's a very useful tool, I've heard of the search previously but have never been able to find it, could you point me in the right direction Follow the Advanced Search link and choose the By Bidder option, then tick the boxes you want for the time period in question and also tick whether high bidder or not.

Updated list of items remaining attached. Copy_of_Adams_Library_Duplicates.doc

Usually I'd just do View > Toolbars and uncheck them if they're there, but if it's spyware then it's a totally different kettle of fish. Try googling the name of the search bar and if it's notorious (such as the mysearch bar) there are walkthroughs of how to get rid. Or switch to Firefox Thanks Oli. I'd already done a spyware check but had never been to View before so didn't know this unticking facility existed. I only use the bits I need. I must have accidentally hit it today, I certainly wouldn't choose to clutter the screen.

Hi all. Would anyone computer literate out there tell me how to get rid of as much of the crap at the top of the screen as possible. Before today when I went into Google I had the Windows bits at the top and then the address bar and then a Google box and ABC, blocked etc in one line. Today I seem to have acquired another line which has Adobe, Yahoo, search, Y mail, Y mobile and sign in. I have never subscribed to Adobe or Yahoo, so don't know how this has appeared and don't paticularly want it as all this rubbish is now filling nearly 20% of the screen, I don't need 2 search boxes and mail I can do through outlook. Help please and thanks in advance.

I don't think there are any lists of miscellaneous die flaws, infilled dies or other minor varieties for old silver or at least not in general circulation although individuals may keep one. The problem is there are so many minor variations that it probably isn't worth noting. Thanks Rob, kind of what I thought. The reson I asked was while flicking through Spink. I noticed 3435 William and Mary Halfcrown The E in ET broken top error or GVLIELMVS E with broken top error is listed as Extremely rare. So I guess my question is how come those errors are recognised where as other minor variations arent? Historical. Most of the errors are there as a result of being included in Peck, Freeman or ESC. This isn't a real error but is due to a weak strike. This fact was acknowledged in the Adams sale and the coin didn't sell. Whilst it is interesting from a collecting point of view to see all the die variations based around the perfect item, it is not going to add value in the same way as a recognised mistake by the engraver which is a genuine variety. So all of these missing serifs to letters or simply an old die suffering from infilling are a reflection of the passage of time in die use; missing colon dots would have a place if you could link the die to an example held by the mint which is unambiguously missing on the die, but otherwise should be treated as just a blocked die. That's my point of view. Most if not all of the recent varieties introduced into the half crown sections of Spink were instigated by Colin Adams. It also gives credence and an uplift to the desirability (and value) of the variety if it has "official" recognition. but you will not get Spink or anyone else to include 20 varieties of one coin in a general reference book, or at least variations that are not errors.

I don't think there are any lists of miscellaneous die flaws, infilled dies or other minor varieties for old silver or at least not in general circulation although individuals may keep one. The problem is there are so many minor variations that it probably isn't worth noting.

Not quite a full keyboard

?

Here's another concert party that members of this forum will almost certainly be interested in, particularly as the coins offered are usually high grade and expensive. A couple of weeks ago I noticed this for sale. Interestingly, I had sold the same piece to someone trading on ebay under the id mdagcoins and posted it to him 2 days prior to the listing date. See picture below for confirmation. Note that in my picture it struggles to make gVF and EF is a no-no so it was listed overgraded and with the wrong description and "suggested" value. An error later corrected in a note at the bottom of the page. It had also not escaped my notice that the same purchaser of the 1720 shilling was particularly astute at winning listings by the seller which didn't come close to their "suggested" value. A few examples as follows. 1821 crown listing 330007752671, 1834 half crown 1835 sixpence. He was also fortunate enough to acquire a genuinely EF 1773 1/2d for £87 last Friday although I don't have the number to hand. Given that they both reside in the same neck of the woods, I leave readers to draw their own conclusions

I've bought a couple of things from her in the past but have not been too impressed, so tend to move along quickly when the id comes up.

Yes. Essexrat and martymouse do seem a little coincidental.

He's having a laugh. This is a £300 or so coin because at least it looks good. It's also one of the commonest Taylor restrikes. Peck 1309 As for this, I do wish people would do some research when they say it is the best known example. Spink only give a price to EF because that is the grade of the best known piece in this instance. The best piece which is ex-Montagu, Banes, Wheeler, Lord Hamilton and Adams is significantly better than any of the top pieces and is still only EF. Like all of the other known examples, it too has some of that inconvenient wear but is still better than this piece. He ups the grade every time.

No.

w13ang is another user who uses private feedback. He is currently selling a Peck 778 (1718 silver halfpenny proof (?)). I was the underbidder on this piece at Baldwins in May when he paid £360 hammer. The first time he listed this he used his alter ego tee2459 as the shill bidder who according to his relisting was a non-payer. For some reason he didn't leave himself negative feedback, although I'm sure he could have written himself a cheque. Now it's relisted and his other shill is matthews9289 who is top bidder. I'm going to have a good time and bid to what I was prepared to pay in May. I know I'll be outbid, but I might as well hope he screws up. In any case, I'm more than happy to let him keep paying. People like this are a problem. Particularly when they try to offload a piece like this for £800 which he did. There are too many part time dealers out there who think that because it was bought at auction it must be a bargain, and an equal number of suckers who think everything on offer is cheap. Another rant over. Thank you.

I'll go along with this. If you look at the NGC site they list population reports for the various denominations and grades. If their records are up to date, they have graded precisely 6 Charles II halfpennies, 2 of each year. 1672 MS62 & MS65, 1673 MS64 & MS65 and 1675 VF40 x2. They gave my 1675/3/2 as seen in the unconfirmed variety section a MS65BN grade which conveniently ignored the 5/3 overdate which is very clear, and also the generous amounts of lustre which whilst slabbed showed through even in a darkish room: although I will let them off the underlying 2. It is almost certain that they are unaware that this piece is quite possibly the best known and certainly the only piece I have ever seen in the hand or in catalogues that is close to mint state although I don't know what the museum examples are like so there may be better. The MS64 is the Cheshire Collection piece, lot 2209 which is definitely not mint state and a 1675/3 in any case. The 2 1672's are also both ex- Cheshire collection and although relatively with respect to each other grades of 62 & 65 are OK, there is no way the P509 is mint state. The 1675's I don't know about. How anyone can say that a sample size of 6 pieces is sufficient to determine what a mint state example looks like beggars belief, reinforced by the fact there are no coins slabbed in low grade which is equally important in ascribing grades and merely reinforces my belief that American grading companies are insufficiently experienced to quote any grade to most rarer British pieces. But no business will ever admit that. The key to grading is knowing what the best looks like, but also knowing what is a weak strike, what is worn dies, and given the number of replicas in the market these days what is real or not. All of these things depend on having seen a top grade piece, or preferably pieces. Thank you. Rant over.