Peckris

What about a Vitesse? Worth it just to burn off drivers who think it's a Herald The Vitesse was a mean car 40 years ago when burning up Austin 1100s but the only thing one would burn up now days is the engine oil. This is quite true - but it's still a straight 6 so I'm assuming it could be tuned into quite a mean machine? MeanER, anyway. Obviously you'd have to upgrade the shocks and brakes, and change to radials, not to mention doing something about that appalling rear end slide .. but it could be done?

But this seller misses out the u, too. That is definitely American!!

I think you would have to compare a 1934 wreath crown with (1) other wreath crowns and (2) crowns generally. Compared to other wreaths, which are all very scarce, the 1934 is not exceptionally rare. However, all wreath crowns are scarce to rare compared with most other crowns, certainly from 1818 onwards, excluding Gothics. However, I take Rob's point too - wreath crowns form a constantly changing and fluid market, with pieces appearing all the time. So yes, they are scarce to rare in an absolute sense, but they are not at all difficult to obtain.

Actually 'colourized' used to be the British spelling, while the Americans alternated between '-ised' and '-ized'. Then the Brits decided to go with '-ised' and the Americans said "Right! We'll go with '-ized' then."

What about a Vitesse? Worth it just to burn off drivers who think it's a Herald

It depends 100% on the particular coin. If it has eye appeal that made you fall in love with it and bid to win it - DON'T SELL! But if you look at it and think "Another would be just as good, maybe even better", then it's a no-brainer really.

Yes, I had a Mk IV Spitfire too - my replacement bonnet was fibre glass (only one I could afford!) and it regularly unclipped itself at speed and rose a foot into the air. Bonkers is right! But great fun to drive.

One wonders where Osborne got his example from, particularly as the reverse hasn't been decided on yet..

Somehow I don't see Wills and Kate leading any kind of "revolutionary" force in an "engagement", on either side of the Atlantic.

Yes - I understand this point. I think Rob is conflating 'rarity' and 'availability', which is of course a perfectly justified and meaningful position. But then there is 'absolute rarity' which - as you say - includes all specimens held by collectors whether or not they appear on the market from time to time.

More RM slapdashery (Why doesn't the usual 'angry face' emoticon work? It gives this : > , instead of what I finally selected from the row of faces above)

I'm not so sure about the CuNi, but the bronze designs seem far superior to the ones finally used.

I think you and I are singing from different hymnsheets Rob. To you, it's not rare unless only a handful is known. To me, in the context of artifacts produced by the multi-million, a few thousand is rare, a few hundred very rare, and anything under a hundred is extremely rare. Which is where this whole subjective debate began...

That's a very good book, though you have to watch out for a few glaring errors - the 1923 halfcrown being rated rarer than the 1925 is a case in point!

What you do is either set up a dummy eBay account, or enlist one or more friends, then rack up lots of bids to simulate frenzied activity on the item you're trying to sell. Hopefully you or your cronies won't thereby win the item, but you can always relist it or offer it to a genuine underbidder. However, if you're a victim of it (it's not clear from your title), complain to eBay and have them investigate the bidding activity on the item in question; it is an illegal activity after all. Dave here (azda) is probably the expert on shilling, purely from an observer's point of view I hasten to add

Sorry to disagree. The 1930 obverse is not a lot better than Fair - the hair detail is nearly all gone, and the top of the ear is missing completely. As for the reverse - the top left of the harp is fused into the shield quadrant edge, the adjoining thistle is flat, the lettering is worn - not away - but WIDE (look at an UNC specimen, you will see how fine the legend lettering is). There are certain designs which - even after a lot of wear - still retain a lot of detail; the obverse of George IV Crowns, and all George V halfcrown reverses, are cases in point. Just because a lot of detail has survived, it doesn't mean that the grade is therefore higher than on other designs. I'd give that halfcrown a grade of Fine only, being an average of the obverse and reverse, which are a whole grade apart. Here is my 1930 : strictly speaking it's GVF, but a more lax assessment might say NEF. See how much difference there is between the two coins? (The quality of photograph is not good, as it's a JPEG scan blown up 100%, but you see the point, I hope).

Welcome to the forums Simon

If you post pictures of the better Roman coins I can help identify them for you. (If they're just little green discs, they won't be worth anything really.)

Oh no - he only gets his MP's salary. Unless you're talking about Healey? Last of the few, that one...

You've been unfair on the 1914, which I'd rate as Fair (averaged between obverse and reverse - the obverse is better). You're right about the 1965, but you've overgraded the 1940, which I'd rate as VF. Yes - detail is all-important, while colouration determines how much 'eye appeal' the coin has, which could affect its selling price by typically -/+ 20% (whereas a coin in a more worn grade might be worth anything from one half down to one fifth of the higher value). I don't agree with everything Wybrit says on that page - his bottom grade is better than Poor IMO, and would certainly be collectable if rare. I can't see the 1886 halfpenny in-hand, but it does look better than EF to me. However it may not be in-hand, and I suppose that's his point.

One slight addition...

Oh, don't forget The Beast of Bolsover!! Unless you actually meant Denis Skinner, and Scargill was a misprunt?

No. He had a thingie shaped like a turnip if I recall ... Yes but that was eventually eaten, remember?! Someone got close enough to eat him?? Haha no, your original post should have been "No. He had a turnip shaped like a thingie". And it's that what was eaten It was actually much funnier than that! : Percy: Well, My Lord, while Baldrick and I were preparing the Turnip Surprise, *we* had a surprise -- we came across a turnip that was exactly the same shape...as a thingy! [Percy and Baldrick laugh.] Edmund: [not amused] ...a thingy... Baldrick: ...a great big thingy! It was terrific. Edmund: Size is no guarantee of quality, Baldrick. Most horses are very well endowed, but that does not necessarily make them sensitive lovers. I trust you have removed this hilarious item...? Baldrick: Oh, yes, yes, My Lord. Edmund: Good, because there's nothing more likely to stop an inheritance than a thingy-shaped turnip. Percy: Absolutely, Edmund. ...but it was jolly funny! [laughs more] Edmund: Yes, yes, yes... Baldrick: I found it particularly ironic, My Lord, because I've got a thingy that's shaped like a turnip!

Great movie! At least, the first half is.