Peckris

Yeah, but if it was going too cheap, why wouldn't the seller just withdraw it from sale? An over-enthusiastic shiller would cost more in the long run.

I'd say EF without a doubt. The elements in question are : Victoria's hair strands and bodice detailing, Britannia's breasts and fingers, the shield, and the ship. All pass muster in my book

It happens a lot. I think it's called bid stacking and is somehow supposed to deter other bidders from trying to beat the current high bid.That's the opposite effect that a shiller would want! Exactly my thought too! A shiller would NOT want to win the item.

This is what I don't understand about eBay. Here you have: j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:39:55 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:39:12 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:25:11 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:22:57 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:22:37 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:03:25 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:01:15 BST e***r £850.00 28-Jul-13 20:00:04 BST Now, e***r has an unsuccessful bid of £850 at 8 PM. In the next 39 minutes he (or someone) seems to have had seven attempts to outbid j***e. Yet there aren't seven increments of £5 between £850 and £870!! How do you explain that? On the coin itself, I wouldn't rate it as a £870 example. The hair detail of the strike just isn't strong enough, though it's good in all other respects. Nobody has tried to outbid j***e, the additional seven bids were all made by j***e, probably to ensure a bit of headroom to cover any last minute bids. Then why are they all for the same amount?

That's a shame - took me quite a while in photoshop. But to summarise, the CGS photo looks elongated in the vertical plane, which would make the bust look comparatively narrow ('squashed'). That would also account for the broader harp in the 'fake'. None of this is to say it ISN'T a fake, just that the comparison with the CGS photo probably isn't much of a case.

To the right, underneath your post Rob, was this : Back to Forum technical help and support If there were still unread posts in this forum's topics, it would show Back to Enquiries about Non British coins · Next Unread Topic → and it would continue to show that until I'd read all the topics since my last visit. ~~~~~ As for going to the first unread topic in any particular forum, I'd see this : and I'd click 'Sterling Copies Book' and go from there.

This is what I don't understand about eBay. Here you have: j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:39:55 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:39:12 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:25:11 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:22:57 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:22:37 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:03:25 BST j***e £870.00 28-Jul-13 20:01:15 BST e***r £850.00 28-Jul-13 20:00:04 BST Now, e***r has an unsuccessful bid of £850 at 8 PM. In the next 39 minutes he (or someone) seems to have had seven attempts to outbid j***e. Yet there aren't seven increments of £5 between £850 and £870!! How do you explain that? On the coin itself, I wouldn't rate it as a £870 example. The hair detail of the strike just isn't strong enough, though it's good in all other respects.

The problem here is that the photos are not to scale, not exactly to the same plane, have different colour balance and tone, use totally different backgrounds, etc. I've tried to demonstrate this by drawing lines in Photoshop to illustrate how this affects the obverses : You will see that aligning on the left and top, the CGS coin is a BIT wider, but it is a LOT deeper. If they were true circles, this would be impossible. The only way to explain it is the distorting effect of photographing a coin that's not absolutely in a parallel plane to the lens (which would not be a problem comparing two scans). Yet interestingly, if you place the two busts side by side and rotate one slightly so it's in line with the other, the width of them is exactly the same, however it appears on the two photos. For me, the suspicious element is the complete lack of hatching in the shield quarters, top left and bottom right, on the non-CGS coin.

I've never seen 'First unread post' even on the old forum. I'm not sure this particular forum software features it as a particular button. And 'Next unread topic' is still there - next to the forum name and 'Go' button near the bottom (but above the Reply box). That works a lot better than the old software's button which would take you to the next topic UP, which was a 'mare if you'd started with the latest post in the top topic. So, click the 'Latest topic' button next to the forum name, which gets you the latest post since you last read it, then click 'Next unread topic', which takes you to the latest unread post in the next topic DOWN. It works so much better than the old system. When there's no 'Next unread topic' button anymore, you've read all the unread topics in that forum, and you can click back out to the main forum listings.

That's quite convincing - where do you get that it's a fake?

Well there you go! I hadn't even seen that - typical of an erstwhile programmer : all complaints and no eyesight And I can even switch back mid-reply to get the formatting stuff back again.

How did you highlight the box? I just tried and all I could highlight was the text inside the box. I managed to delete that ok. However, when I tried one more backspace (all the text had gone) it did delete the box alright, PLUS my reply, PLUS my presence in the topic, returning me to the previous topic I'd been in!!!! I'm not trying that again! It wasn't a momentary glitch - every time I try the same thing, the same weirdness happens. I'll just have to live with unremovable boxes. I simply REFUSE to use Firefox.

1870 used to be one of the scarcer dates, but now it seems to have been overtaken by (e.g.) 1867.

How did you do that! When I click 'Quote' it gives me unremovable boxes instead the 'Quote/endQuote' code we had before. (As you see, I can delete the contents, but how do you get rid of the boxes themselves?)

I just Googled this from their site: "Lawrence Chard Lawrence Chard started dealing in coins, including gold sovereigns in 1964. The original business was located in Dale Street, Blackpool. In 1969 we bought and moved to our current premises. R. & L. Coins Originally we were known as R. & L. Coins, and we still retain that sign on our facia. Chard (1964) Limited In 1992, we changed our name to Chard (1964) Limited, partly because the Chard name was well known and well regarded, particularly by many Blackpool "old-timers", and partly because in addition to our original business dealing in coins, we have a gold bullion, gold jewellery, and diamond ring section of our business." So L was Leonard though it doesn't say who R was. And this: "Company Details Trading Names Chard Chard Tax Free Gold Chard Coins Chard Gold R&L Coins Company Name Chard (1964) Limited Address 521 Lytham Road Blackpool Lancashire FY4 1RJ" They now seem to deal only in gold sovereigns.

Editing seems to work ok for me, unless it looks different once I've hit the button to 'Add Reply'. That's not quite what I meant - you can certainly change people's quoted posts to e.g. bold, italic, and red, as I've just done with yours! But try to delete nested posts, and it's a different matter (before, you just deleted anything between a or even just bits of it). E.g., I can't see how to remove my nested quote here, and just leave yours. ETA: Interesting - putting {quote} and {/quote} - but using square brackets - has generated an empty quote box!

None of you has mentioned those great stalwarts of 60s and 70s Coin Monthly - R&L Coins of Blackpool. They took out multi-page ads as I remember, selling mostly lower grade key date and date-run items, modern stuff, new issues, and accessories. I bought a few nice things from them in 1979 when I worked in Blackpool (BU 1929 penny, and early strike 1933 halfcrown UNC, among others). Peter Ireland too, who was also based there. The Leonard Kaitcher you mention - was he the same guy that ran the KAITCER COINS ad in Coin Monthly? Quite high priced but top quality stock if I remember right.

Well, come on - she was advertising 45 years ago!!

"I can't even afford a top class G5 shilling at the moment, so I'm just not buying right now! :(" Not even a 1918, 1926ME or 1936? (There's one defect with this new forum layout, unless I'm missing the obvious - you can't edit 'quoted' posts down to just the bit you want, or the last person who posted? Looks like all you can do is copy & paste, but then you lose whose quote it was).

The current bid is less than $30 per coin - I don't think you're missing anything.

Oh yes - Carole was a regular advertiser in late 60s Coin Monthly. One of several women then involved in coin dealing, such as Joan E Allen, and a shilling specialist whose name I've forgotten, and a husband and wife team among others ... all gone now.

Come back, Exchange & Mart. - all is forgiven. In the late 60s you could get a complete grading kit (cost to the seller from circulation: 5d) for a very reasonable 7/6 including postage. Or was it 6 coins? Perhaps they threw in a 'Poor' bun penny to complete the kit.

Now, their catalogue was GOOD. And as they themselves weren't shy of saying (at its mid-90s launch) it was the first proper new catalogue since Seaby/Spink. Great collecting notes at the head of each different type section, plus some good general articles at the back. I remember the prices seemed higher than Spink at the time, but they were soon leapfrogged.

My word, Master JMD's posts must have taken up quite a lot of forum space!

I once bought a cheap auction lot in a black plastic wallet which included a nicely toned GEF but very common 1887 JH sixpence. Folded neatly behind it was the description of the item in The Phoenix, "Gem Uncirculated... £30". This was at a time when even a BU example was rated about £10 in Spink! The Phoenix was very entertaining reading, and it was free. The only value-for-money item they ever did.