Nick

If that is a fake, which I doubt, then we are all in trouble unless there is something obvious that isn't visible in the photographs.

I see Dave's favourite eBay seller is up to his old tricks again. This 1836 halfcrown for example, virtually UNC - I don't think so - closer to gVF. Mind you, if you imagine that "virtually" means "nowhere near" then it makes more sense.

I would say it is overpriced, because the grade is only aEF to EF because there is general wear all over. All of the reverse is looking a little worn and on the obverse the jewels on the crown and the plait of hair are looking a little flattened. It's a nice example, but not worth that sort of money.

Do you have any better pictures of the coin in question? From the lowish grade pictures I've seen, it does appear to share a number of scratches/bagmarks that were identified last time fake Northumberland shillings were discussed.

Not a hammered fan myself, but I wouldn't turn my nose up at this one if I found it in a muddy field. 11th century coin

I have the coin packaged up at home ready to post back to the seller (I am in Australia until next weekend), he finally told me his address yesterday and has agreed a full refund, all going through eBay Resolution Centre. He claims he has had his own experts examine it and found nothing wrong, but if true they can only have been judging from the photos. I havent done this before and have a question - he isnt ging to refund me until he gets his coin back, what recourse do I have if he simply doesnt repay me after that, does anyone know? Does eBay step in? Thanks for any advice! Also, I have no idea how to check whether it's silver, does anyone know? A relatively simple method which doesn't require any expensive equipment would be to measure the density. This can be evaluated using measurements for the weight in air and the weight in distilled water (see wikipedia page on density for the formula). Silver is 10.5 times more dense than water.

I have the coin packaged up at home ready to post back to the seller (I am in Australia until next weekend), he finally told me his address yesterday and has agreed a full refund, all going through eBay Resolution Centre. He claims he has had his own experts examine it and found nothing wrong, but if true they can only have been judging from the photos. I havent done this before and have a question - he isnt ging to refund me until he gets his coin back, what recourse do I have if he simply doesnt repay me after that, does anyone know? Does eBay step in? Thanks for any advice! Just make sure that the return item is aent via trackable postage. If he chooses not to repay and the case is decided in your favour, eBay/PayPal will intervene.

I think that the most useful description is exactly as you describe: "small edge knock, otherwise UNC".

Mark Rasmussen has a website

Thanks, But for the portuguese coins there is a sort of bible(commonly called after the name of the author Alberto Gomes or just A.G.) that we use, the rest are pocket books mainly as a price guide. In England do you have a book like that to use has a reference or each collector uses a different guide to catalog is collection. If so wich is the most used by the majority of the U.K. collectors. Regards The problem is that there is no one reference book that covers all (or even most) of the monarchs, denominations, varieties etc which is why most people use a combination of Spink, ESC and Davies for silver coins and Peck, Freeman, Gouby, North etc for copper/bronze coins. If I were only allowed one book, I think I would probably choose Spink.

I'm not sure that I agree with it being an R/I with a slanted I. The serifs aren't very long and the angle of the I is so slight as to be almost negligible. The following picture is from the same coin and shows the R/I also used in GRATIA. Presumably the alterations to the Rs would have been made at the same time with the same punch, which shows that you would need either a much larger slant on the I or a substantial die break to connect the serif to the leg of the R.

That's a possibility. It would be useful if there was another example to compare with. Does anybody have such an image?

The magnification I have available is not quite as good as the camera and nor is my eyesight for that matter, but I'm pretty sure that the foot of the upright and the leg of the R are connected. I think that there is also a slight curve upwards where the foot meets the leg, which is what made me think it may be R/B. I will try and get some more photos from slightly different angles to see if I can get it any clearer. I think this photo shows it better.

The magnification I have available is not quite as good as the camera and nor is my eyesight for that matter, but I'm pretty sure that the foot of the upright and the leg of the R are connected. I think that there is also a slight curve upwards where the foot meets the leg, which is what made me think it may be R/B. I will try and get some more photos from slightly different angles to see if I can get it any clearer.

With all due respect, Alfred Bole was a collector. You, unfortunately, fall into the same category as 99.9% of us on here, ie you have a collection that includes some. A collector at Boles level will stop at nothing to obtain a missing variety and money seems to be no object. As a dealer I can probably comment with some degree of knowledge (as did Derek and Rob) on the popularity of Sixpences. They AREN'T! How times have changed! I remember in the late 60s, the humble tanner was a popular denomination. You can see its decline with the ratio that the 1923 6d holds in relation to its peers. While the 1924, 1925, 1926 halfcrown & florin, H & KN & ME pennies, have kept their ratio to commoner types in values, the 1923 6d has gradually dwindled. 1976 Seaby : most surrounding dates worth £5 in EF, 1923 = £16.50 2005 Spink : other dates between £12 to £15 in EF, 1923 = £20. What were the Seaby 1976 prices (UNC) for the rare years mentioned earlier in the thread?

1827, 1836, 1848, 1854, 1862, 1863, 1867-1870, 1876, 1879 with die number. There are also a number of varieties that are very scarce or rare.

In terms of protecting the entombed item from accidental handling damage and to a lesser extent environmental damage they do a good job. However, in almost all other respects there can be issues for some people: - they take up more storage space - they make photography more difficult (by presenting two perspex surfaces parallel to the faces of the coin) - you are relying on a third party to correctly attribute your coin (which they frequently get wrong) - you are relying on a third party to correctly grade your coin (which they usually do +/- 2 points on the scale)

The 2012 Spink catalogue has it at £85 in EF.

Yes there are Calvin, but they aint Billy and Mary. It's certainly some type of evasion but, unless anybody on here has more knowledge/experience than me, it would be impossible to pin it down. ??? One, surely - it's too central on the flan to be two. Where's the second head? I agree. It looks more like a pre-1816 George III portrait to me.

London Coins Auction 128 (Jul 2010) Lot 1738.

I agree with Peck that the other one is more likely an R/I, because the top bar of the V would not be in the same position. If you could see the top bar of the V it would be to the left of the upright of the R. However, most pictures of R/? I have seen also have that doubled top bar. Here are a couple of pictures: one is R/V; the other is a possible R/B and both could probably also be called over I

Unlikely - what if the king / queen died suddenly, or some other event? It's almost unheard of for currency coins to be issued early (even the 1968 bronze coins in the blue wallets weren't current). I guess there may be a difference between coins minted and coins released into circulation. Perhaps, if coins were minted in advance they wouldn't be released until the year they were intended for - to avoid the situations you mentioned.

Found a mention in ESC, Appendix I. "Also in some years coins have been struck with the following year's date, but have been included in the total of coins issued in the year they were made."

There's no rhyme or reason to any of it. I'm pretty sure that their quotes computer software is little more than a fixed number plus a random number.

Unlikely becasue that would risk having predated coins in circulation which by definition should be rejected by the person paid if they are half awake. Ok, that sounds plausible. Surely though, they would at least have made a headstart producing some dies for the new year? Or wouldn't they know what the demand would be at that point.