Nick

Very little, I'm afraid. There were more 1910 shillings minted than any other Edward VII date. I would suggest you wait for a better one. I think Paulus already has this. As Nick said it is the most common Edward V11 1/-. It nearly accounts for 60% of all Edward V11 1/-'s minted. Ah yes, so he does. As I said, "It's lovely"

Very little, I'm afraid. There were more 1910 shillings minted than any other Edward VII date. I would suggest you wait for a better one.

For gVF money, it doesn't look a bad buy at all.

You should see what some Americans charge UK buyers for postage. $32 isn't cheap either I've just bought a hammered coin from the states, with postage charge $16 - not bad I thought, but in his listing he writes: "USPS International Registered shipping takes 1-2 months to arrive so if this time frame does not work for you do not bid". Not that friendly a statement, so I queried it, thinking he must mean 1-2 weeks...nope, he means 1-2 months! I still bought it anyway...it hasn't arrived, yet! It's arrived, costing me £139 with postage, which I think is superb value! I'd really appreciate opinions on grade, the pictures are an honest view of the coin. I did have some more 'dramatic' pictures (I'm sure you all know the kind), but thought I'd keep it real! So Grade, any thoughts, please? Grrr, files too big...will post them as soon as I can! OK submit, how do you do it? I've zipped the files, which are originally 1.6MB. I tried to upload the zipped files but still too big! When checking the properties of the zips, I discovered they are still 1.6MB...any ideas? JPEG is an efficient format that does not compress well. The only options are to reduce the size/resolution of the pictures or to host them externally on PhotoBucket or the like. Thanks Nick, I presume resolution can't be changed once the pictures have been taken? With respect, you've been misinformed. JPEGs are the ONLY way to compress and reduce the size / resolution of pictures. "Resolution" is a poor term, as it means different things whether you're talking about pictures, or digital displays. As far as pictures are concerned, there are several things you can do (using an image editor like Photoshop, or one of the cheaper / free alternatives): 1. Reduce the resolution in terms of ppi (pixels per inch). You may see that your out-of-camera resolution is 300 or 150 ppi, which is far too high. To display on a computer screen, you can reduce this to 72. This would affect the printed size too, but that doesn't matter for display here. 2. Reduce the overall dimensions (i.e. the number of pixels in absolute terms). If it is - for example - 3000x2000 pixels, that's far too big for a computer screen. To show nicely in this forum without having to scroll, it doesn't need to be any bigger than 800x600 (though Azda likes 'em far bigger ) 3. Increase the compression, and thereby reduce the filesize. In Photoshop, the quality / size scale runs from 1 (crap) up to 12 (full size). If you're only going to compress once, play around with a value between 5 and 7, or equivalent. And don't forget - the average digital camera allows you to reduce the "resolution" even before taking the shot - there should be a range of JPEG options in the menu. If you take all those actions, you will end up with a JPEG that SHOULD fit into the (rather paltry) 150k maximum which this forum allows. That depends on the capability of your monitor and video card. Most modern monitors are now designed to handle HD video which means a minimum of 1920x1080. 800x600 is like being back in the dark ages.

You should see what some Americans charge UK buyers for postage. $32 isn't cheap either I've just bought a hammered coin from the states, with postage charge $16 - not bad I thought, but in his listing he writes: "USPS International Registered shipping takes 1-2 months to arrive so if this time frame does not work for you do not bid". Not that friendly a statement, so I queried it, thinking he must mean 1-2 weeks...nope, he means 1-2 months! I still bought it anyway...it hasn't arrived, yet! It's arrived, costing me £139 with postage, which I think is superb value! I'd really appreciate opinions on grade, the pictures are an honest view of the coin. I did have some more 'dramatic' pictures (I'm sure you all know the kind), but thought I'd keep it real! So Grade, any thoughts, please? Grrr, files too big...will post them as soon as I can! OK submit, how do you do it? I've zipped the files, which are originally 1.6MB. I tried to upload the zipped files but still too big! When checking the properties of the zips, I discovered they are still 1.6MB...any ideas? JPEG is an efficient format that does not compress well. The only options are to reduce the size/resolution of the pictures or to host them externally on PhotoBucket or the like. Thanks Nick, I presume resolution can't be changed once the pictures have been taken? Resizing the picture does exactly that.

You should see what some Americans charge UK buyers for postage. $32 isn't cheap either I've just bought a hammered coin from the states, with postage charge $16 - not bad I thought, but in his listing he writes: "USPS International Registered shipping takes 1-2 months to arrive so if this time frame does not work for you do not bid". Not that friendly a statement, so I queried it, thinking he must mean 1-2 weeks...nope, he means 1-2 months! I still bought it anyway...it hasn't arrived, yet! It's arrived, costing me £139 with postage, which I think is superb value! I'd really appreciate opinions on grade, the pictures are an honest view of the coin. I did have some more 'dramatic' pictures (I'm sure you all know the kind), but thought I'd keep it real! So Grade, any thoughts, please? Grrr, files too big...will post them as soon as I can! OK submit, how do you do it? I've zipped the files, which are originally 1.6MB. I tried to upload the zipped files but still too big! When checking the properties of the zips, I discovered they are still 1.6MB...any ideas? JPEG is an efficient format that does not compress well. The only options are to reduce the size/resolution of the pictures or to host them externally on PhotoBucket or the like.

His main account is probably suspended for some eBay violation or another, so he's using his wife's account.

1958 is difficult to get in top grade, but why? According to the mintage figures, which are supposedly accurate for that era, there were more than 120 million minted. The young head Victoria series are also difficult to obtain in decent grades, ESC only lists 4 of the entire series as more common than scarce. 1860-70 (excepting 1864 & 1866) are probably the most difficult apart from the very rare years 1848, 1854 and 1879+DN. I've found 1960 in top grade hard to get. I think that a lot of the later sixpences are more difficult to come by than they should be. This is because auction houses will only sell them as part of a larger lot and eBay sellers tend to use single-sided and/or stock photos.

I was interested in the 1869 shilling and the 1882 sixpence, but both went out of my reach.

1958 is difficult to get in top grade, but why? According to the mintage figures, which are supposedly accurate for that era, there were more than 120 million minted. The young head Victoria series are also difficult to obtain in decent grades, ESC only lists 4 of the entire series as more common than scarce. 1860-70 (excepting 1864 & 1866) are probably the most difficult apart from the very rare years 1848, 1854 and 1879+DN.

It's a shilling, by the look of it. Coin alignment (ie upside down) is the norm for George IV coins.

Sounds like good news for the fakers of NGC and PCGS slabbed coins.

I would but I'm none of the above.

Maybe take a good look at the ebay seller ID and see what you spot. To give you a little hint, there's a * in the name, so i would'nt trust that price what so ever You've got me there, Azda, what do you mean? If it was shill bidded, there's still £33 to pay in fees! And why bid up your own item that high, surely it suggests there was still someone willing to pay over £300? As I said, though, the coin may well have been UNC, but without having it in hand, and no talk in the description about lustre, etc, I couldn't even conceive of a bid at half of what it went for! That was one of the sellers with whom there was more than a whiff of collusion between him and other eBay sellers with similarly styled names. The coin definitely looks to be a proof though, not a currency piece.

Well, if you can pick it up for 99p then it might yield a bit of a return when you sell it! His usual Crew are bidding it up 460 quid it ended at, not surprisingly, over double its value. I hope the buyer throws it right back at him, although i doubt it. Maybe in 15 years it'll be worth what he paid. There certainly is one born every minute. MP must be laughing his socks off. Well its certainly not EF, remember he usually ups ALL his coins 1 grade, and then possibly dipping, then his crew get involved, so i'd agree at the VF mark. I'm certainly not feeling sorry for these people who are bidding on his crap, i mean coins. They should look at his photos and check against any previous sales. What i don't get is why no one has ever gave him a NEG or NEUTRAL after getting something from him, especially when they've clearly been dipped etc, well actually i do know why (refunds with a bit on top to not leave the NEG) There's one born every minute i suppose.... It's quite possible that they don't know any better. If the little knowledge they possess has been acquired by exposure to eBay, they may well think they are paying the right price. Perhaps, those buyers should be hinted towards getting their purchase valued - then the gulf between what was paid and what it is worth would become apparent.

Well, if you can pick it up for 99p then it might yield a bit of a return when you sell it! His usual Crew are bidding it up 460 quid it ended at, not surprisingly, over double its value. I hope the buyer throws it right back at him, although i doubt it. Maybe in 15 years it'll be worth what he paid. There certainly is one born every minute. MP must be laughing his socks off.

Incredibly - "Due to popular demand, this product is no longer available"

Posted in error. Deleted.

It's nose to VS that is the rarer one. I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator. OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse. (Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?) No offence intended. However, I still maintain that both noses point to S albeit not quite the same part of the S. See the picture below which has Davies obverses 3 & 4 merged together such that the portraits align as closely as the slightly different sizes allow. I agree that they are pretty easy to tell apart, especially when you see the two side by side. I think you've made my point for me! On that overlay, the legend GEORGIVS is probably the biggest displacement between the two obverses. If you take the nose as an arrow head, with the bridge forming one side and the underside of the nostril forming the other, then quite clearly - on your photo - the arrow is pointing between the V and the (upper of the two) S. But pointing almost directly at the lower S. There is only one way that a nose can point to anything - and that's along a line parallel to either axis. The two axes here are 1) straight down the slope of the nose (from bridge to tip) and 2) the lower edge of the nose (parallel to the line formed by the top of the nostril opening). As can clearly be seen in the attached pictures, both axes of both noses point to the same letters. If there are several interpretations of what the words "nose points to" means then clearly it's a poor descriptor.

Looking at London Coins archive of 1828 halfcrown sales, it's clear to see that this one is much nearer the gF example than it is to the EF. If genuine, I reckon it's VF.

Par for the course with this seller. Always at least one full grade above actual and never mentions cleaning or surface marks/gouges. It amazes me that none of his customers have ever had a coin bought from him graded - they'll be in for a shock if they do.

Don't think you're missing anything - it looks like a bog-standard, perfectly ordinary, average, cleaned example of the Withdrawn Type 6d. Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S". It's nose to VS that is the rarer one. I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator. OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse. (Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?) No offence intended. However, I still maintain that both noses point to S albeit not quite the same part of the S. See the picture below which has Davies obverses 3 & 4 merged together such that the portraits align as closely as the slightly different sizes allow. I agree that they are pretty easy to tell apart, especially when you see the two side by side.

Don't think you're missing anything - it looks like a bog-standard, perfectly ordinary, average, cleaned example of the Withdrawn Type 6d. Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S". It's nose to VS that is the rarer one. I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator.

Don't think you're missing anything - it looks like a bog-standard, perfectly ordinary, average, cleaned example of the Withdrawn Type 6d. Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S".

The price wasn't the only typo; Apparently after Prince Albert died the Queen entered into a "25 year period of morning". I'm sure I've seen the film, John Wayne was in it wasn't he? That's right, "The Longest Day" That would need quite some breakfast, to get you through to lunchtime.