azda

2 heads are better than 1. it will be good to see the outcome though.

I was thinking exactly the same thing about our new friend. A great period of history and not many know such in depth knowledge. I often wonder where people get their Info from regarding the Slaney piece and it being a possible forgery, i assume this is what you mean by "not quite right"? I'm assuming You're in the trade with your opening few sentences.

The majority of your listings state either "rare" or "very rare" I'm personally not a huge fan of these type of listings especially if they are modern bullion coins or cupro-nickel, this would put me off viewing any further listings you have (that is a personal opinion only) Grading is subjective, leave the grading to the bidder and maybe just add "collectable graded" if all your listings had UNC in I'd also walk on by

The George IIII proof crown is a fantasy piece, although not stated in your listing

Hello and welcome so far I've seen spelling errors which won't help, such as BRITISH spelt as BRIRISH, I've seen 2 so far. Are your coins also in the correct catagories? (I haven't checked that)

We also get charged for the item plus the postage which i find insane, what has the postage got to do with the value, everyone has to pay postage. Its the same with ebay now charging 10% on postage costs, why? They don't post it or pay any costs towards it. And they say Buddhas Are Lucky charms lol. Ask him next time to drop the value to a tenner

I bear no i'll Jerry, its when i get called condecending for no reason that i start taking offence to and start to bite back. I did'nt give the man any reason to be negative towards me other than comment on his grade. We live and learn, but i did say that he should stick around and try and learn, but he just got a little fiesty towards me. I too had a similar start to My time on this forum, hence the reason i said you need thicker skin, until you get to know the forum peoples post can be preceived negatively

Thanks Dave. I admit i do go off into a tangent at times, but i said nothing untowards to the man.

Which is something i never understood. If he's a novice then why did'nt he want to hear the advice instead of jumping onto Nordles comment. I only mentioned the grade, then i was condecending, sorry but i don't get that. If helping him get an accurate value by helping him grade, or anyone else die that matter, then we'd best all be quiet about grades and coins. It just went OTT, which he himself took there. As i said, you need a little thicker skin especially if someone is challenging a grade on here, there's more Pages about grading on here than any other subject.

If you look at his initial post Jerry (and yes i know its me You're talking about) he asked for a cost based in his assesment if grade, of which i merely said that the grade was'nt as high as he suggested, so am i wrong to suggest this fact? I never said anything else until a strop came in after Nordles comment and which he jumped onto the bandwagon and played the injured Party card. I don't see why i'm the bad boy here for suggesting a correct grade assesment, thus in turn would give him a Rough idea of price. He said he was a novice yet graded accurately, so we're all in agreement that he did so and i was in the wrong to point this out? Sorry but i won't step back for Helping him out by giving him a correct grade. Post 1 and post 2, then comes post 3 from Nordle then he feels offended, please, gimme a break

Just a word of advice Paul, there are many fakes of Liz milled coinage without "copy" or "WRL" stamped on them, I'd only buy those from reputable dealers or auction houses. Glad it's resolved for you, it's a lot of money to lose had it come to that.

Well i don't Understand why he went ballastic either. Paul you mentioned wie should'nt mention grade but it was he who Said he bought the book, graded his coin accurately and was still a novice, for me those things don't to Hand in Hand, grading and novice. I only offered an opinion on his grade, what would Happen if no one Said anything and let him rum Riot with £0000s of pounds? He'd be onto a loser before very long. During the course of the thread, I did say welcome to the forum, but he just went off on a tangent to make himself look picked on, I was'nt picking, I was replying to his more bitter posts. I think he was extremely niave and thought people were picking on him and not the faults that we picked up on the coin, there is a difference. I would have hated to see his reaction if he had shown us a counterfeit coin that he thought were genuine

I'm also curious about your post Mark, what is it you expect when you say "its sadly not unexpected"?

How do you break Someone in gently Paul? If they don't want to listen Do we keep banging our heads against a Brick Wall? A novice who apparently graded accurately is an extremely rare commodity. I only mentioned his grade and Off he went with a little help from Nordle. Do we gently let them down or Tell it like it is? When i first jumped onto this forum i felt let down by sellers who toll me a coin was X grade when it was'nt, i used the info to enhance my knowledge, its a hard learning curve for some people but you either use the knowledge you gain here or you spit the dummy out and have a hissty fit. I'm an adult not a child, i can handle someone telling me they don't like a coin i may have bought or that in their opinion the grade is'nt right, but at the end of the day, i buy a coin to Suit me and no one else. Some people should just grow a pair and stop being too sensitive, its a piece of metal ffs.

Dup post

I'm Scottish, i'll probably understand them even when i'm sober

I have no idea what you 2 drunks are talking aboot

Agreed copper i think unless you've been here a while it can look a little unfavourable, but as you say, why butter something up when it does'nt look great it is less of a grade than the OP thinks, thats where it all goes tits up. I have to be honest though i think we as a forum collective have helped more people than we've pissed off Oh and cheers Richard

I could be wrong, but i think he's took it badly, i hope you return fluke and try and at least listen to older and wiser heads. I always thought honesty was the best policy, some people just hate you dissing their coins i guess.

Fluke you seem to be going around this all wrong. If you think being honest is condecending then so be it. You said above your grades are close to exact but you also say You're a novice, so why not take some advice from people who know a little more. I'm by no means an expert and there are many more older and wiser heads in here than me, but we all have opinions and are opinionated. Everyone likes to think their coin is the dogs testicles but if you listen and without getting stroppy then you'll learn much more and a lot quicker. No one is having a pop, you just picked up on Nordles post after i made My comment on your grading and jumped, do you just want us to agree with your grading and leave you be or would you rather learn more? I was'nt having a pop at you, i was being subjective to your grade, nothing more. But when you start having a dig at me then i'm like a dog with a stick. So, chaps, and start listening and learning

Lol, ok, you seem to be having a wee problem, so lest get it clear. OBV comes first then REV, so when you say VF-AEF then that means OBV VF and REV AEF Nextly, people don't buy 2 grades, they buy 1, so if a coin is graded GVF they will then drop down the scale to VF to make an offer, they won't buy at an EF price if its only a GVF. So now onto your AEF OBV grade, sorry but its not. Check the wear again, in all i'd say GVF OBV at a push, and as i'm on My iphone it is a push, REV is no more than VF even with a quarter picture. Now take yourself off your high Horse, Stick the dummy back in and stick around, you might learn something, thats if your ego does'nt get in the way of course. Also your grading is'nt exact if it was i'd suggest you try for a job at any of the large TPGs. Have a good one

A true value would come from grade and not just because its a coin. The higher the grade the more value in theory a coin has. Its better to be told straight other than pussy footing around don't you think? Welcome to the forum, please upload the whole coin both sides so we can look at its grade in full view, but its only My opinion and grading is subjective, but from what i saw of the REV AEF or any EF should'nt be mentioned in this REV, there's to much wear. Please bring thicker skin. P.S, was your VF-AEF supposed to mean VF for the OBV and AEF for the REV it just a General whole assesment of te coin?

It is if You're talking VF OBV and AEF REV

Judging by your REV picture i'd say your REV grade is very optimistic, its more a VF than AEF

A Little more This time round of course, people knew what to expect. However, prior to the sale two very knowledgeable dealers did ask auctioneer Richard Bishop if it was as good as Part 1. On being told it was, the response was along the lines that it would realise about 2.5 times the total of the first part. That was a very good prediction. So what did happen? There were a lot of disappointed people as prices were generally much higher than people anticipated. In one dealers words, People were spending money like confetti. They simply had to have a piece of Slaney. As anticipated, the top lot was an 1820 George III pattern £5 by Benedetto Pistrucci, who had added his surname under the truncation on the obverse as well as under the ground upon the reverse. He had also added the small initials W.W.P. on the ground by the dragons tail. This was for William Wellesly Pole the then energetic Master of the Mint. The obverse has the usual legend and the edge the ornament and a safeguard inscription in raised letters as well as the regnal year. The reverse is void of all lettering and really shows St George and the Dragon to full advantage. Apart from light handling marks and a small scratch behind the horses tail, the piece is otherwise in a brilliant good extremely fine state. It is the Basmadjieff specimen sold by Glendinings in 1953 for £360. The 2015 price is £360,000 with the Premium. To turn £360 in 1953 to £300,000 in 2015 would require an annual compounded rate of just over 11.45 per cent. The corresponding £2, generally in extremely fine state, sold for £42,000 (£35,000 hammer) against £76 hammer in 1946. In the gold milled section, the above was not my first choice. The piece that I really would have liked was a 1673 Charles II five guineas. It was the spectacular deep red toning of the obverse field that immediately attracted my attention. The bust of the King is not toned so the effect is a golden portrait against an autumnal leaf. The reverse fields are also toned red, but as the four crowned cruciform shields and sceptres break up the flan, the effect, while pleasing, is not as dramatic. The cataloguer did not hold back with, a spectacular example, a few light hairlines under a remarkable deep rich red tone, extremely fine with lustrous original surfaces, an exceptional coin with an exemplary pedigree, very rare thus. The Coin Yearbook 2015 gives the EF price at £22,000, which is in line with catalogue values elsewhere. This coin is specialthe cataloguer clearly thought it was special too as he set the estimate at £40,00050,000. I should imagine that when he suggested these parameters he hoped that although punchy, it would prove conservative. It indeed was, as the piece sold for a hammer price of £135,000, which is £162,000 with the Premium. This is quite a price for a five guinea piece. It was secured from Baldwins in 1951 for £120. To turn £120 into £130,000 requires an annual compounded rate of just over 20.27 per cent. Other milled gold highlights include: a Charles II 1668 5 guineas with no elephant and castle, generally EF, £48,000; a William III 1699 5 guineas with a light mark on the Kings cheek, otherwise EF, £108,000; Queen Anne 1702 pattern guinea, EF, £33,600; 1706 5 guineas fine flan crack, otherwise EF, £36,000; 1711 guinea about EF, £12,000; George I 1720/17 2 guineas minor flecking otherwise EF, £18,000; George II 1741 5-guineas, £42,000; 1746 5-guineas, £22,800; pattern or proof 2-guineas 1733, EF, £45,600; pattern or proof 1729 guinea, GEF, £26,400; George III 1761 pattern guinea by Tanner, EF, £26,400; Queen Victoria 1839 Una and the Lion £5, generally GEF, £132,000 and an 1893 long proof set, generally uncirculated, £31,200. There was some impressive English hammered gold too. Top here was a James I fine gold rose-ryal of 30 shillings with the spur rowel mint mark for 161920. Its obverse is the last of what I regard as the majestic portraits, with King James seated upon his throne holding an orb and sceptre. The piece is lightly double struck on the reverse and there are some short scratches to the right of the shield. However, apart from these minor imperfections, it is in extremely fine state. The piece is a magnificent full round coin with a superb realistic portrait. It sold for £46,800, which is slightly more than double its top estimate. The spectacular Charles II five guineas of 1673 sold for a total of £162,000. There was an excellent choice of English hammered silver with siege pieces galore. However, it was in this section that there was the only mishap of the sale. A Charles I Scarborough siege piece was offered with a pedigree going back to 1872. It had been in the Montagu, Murdoch and Lockett collections. All Scarborough siege pieces are extremely rare and are generally quite crude. It was catalogued as probably [a] two-shillings. Generally in extremely fine state, it is a better striking than most pieces encountered. It was offered with an estimate of £20,00030,000. However, rumours began to circulate around the trade that despite its fine pedigree, the coin was not quite right. This reflected on the day with the hammer falling at £13,000, which is £15,600 with the Premium. The star of the hammered silver more than made up for this little mishap. This was an Oxford pound of 1644. The work of Thomas Rawlins, its obverse features the King mounted on a spirited horse trampling on the arms of war. The Declaration is within a cartouche that has a single plume above. When this was auctioned at the Lingford sale in 1950, it was described as a beautiful piece of great rarity. 65 years later the cataloguer of this sale wrote, crisply struck on a neat round flan, nearly extremely fine with a deep old toning, extremely rare and a beautiful example of this important coin. It sold for £144,000, which is double the low estimate. It was knocked down in 1950 for £160. £144,000 was paid for the 1644 Charles I Oxford pound by Thomas Rawlins. It was not just the large silver pieces that were contested. A Henry VII testoon or shilling with the lis mint mark for 1487 was offered. This is the first issue of the denomination and the first coin in the English series to have a realistic as opposed to a representational image of the monarch. It is an extremely rare coin. The reverse is struck slightly off centre and the fields both sides are lightly burnished, but