Nick

The more I look at that 1/- the more I'm convinced its wrong. Has anyone dropped a note to the buyer (& seller)? I have a feeling this is all innocent.It would be interesting to trace the history of this coin. I know for certain that this coin has been bought (and returned) on eBay before, but not whether the seller is the same. However, in both cases the seller was from Plymouth, Devon.

I've heard anecdotal evidence about fake 1905 shillings where a 5 has been transplanted onto a higher grade 190x shilling which has the final digit of the date removed. So I would avoid any 1905 shilling where the position of the 5 looks a bit off, or has surface/tooling marks around the 5, or has heavier toning around the 5. There is one on eBay at the moment that I think looks a bit questionable. I just had a look on Ebay and there are several. The dodgy one wouldn't be the one for sale on Saturday at 1:24pm ? Yep, that's the one that caught my eye. In the end it sold for £410. Judging by the positive feedback the vendor received, the buyer seems happy with it - incredible. I did report the item to eBay as a fake but, as usual, they did nothing.

Maybe I'm just being dumb, but even with the picture I cant figure the S/SV bit...! Which bit is doing the pointing?! Is it the bottom of the nose, the front of the nose or somewhere in between?! I is confuzzled! I never understood the S or SV pointing either. The attached picture has the two obverses overlaid so that the portraits align. Even allowing for slight misalignment of the pictures, there's virtually nothing between the two in the SV region. It's much easier to look at the width of the obverse rim (wide = obv 3, narrow = obv 4) and the pointiness of the nose (pointy = obv 3, bulbous = obv 4).

It doesn't look like shill bidding to me. It can't be for the coin values, so it must be for the silver content. 6 pre 1920 florins = approx 2 troy ounces of silver @ £20 per oz. I must try the same myself, I've got plenty of pre-1920 crap I could let go - especially for £20 an oz.

I've heard anecdotal evidence about fake 1905 shillings where a 5 has been transplanted onto a higher grade 190x shilling which has the final digit of the date removed. So I would avoid any 1905 shilling where the position of the 5 looks a bit off, or has surface/tooling marks around the 5, or has heavier toning around the 5. There is one on eBay at the moment that I think looks a bit questionable. I just had a look on Ebay and there are several. The dodgy one wouldn't be the one for sale on Saturday at 1:24pm ? Yep, that's the one that caught my eye.

I've heard anecdotal evidence about fake 1905 shillings where a 5 has been transplanted onto a higher grade 190x shilling which has the final digit of the date removed. So I would avoid any 1905 shilling where the position of the 5 looks a bit off, or has surface/tooling marks around the 5, or has heavier toning around the 5. There is one on eBay at the moment that I think looks a bit questionable.

You can believe what you like - it's a free country.

Really ? Even old, long since demonetised ones ? Never knew that. It's not true. The Coinage Act of 1971 says: "10.1 No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin which is for the time being current in the United Kingdom or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so" Please don't Nick, poor old Peck will have a melt down if this one starts again I know, I know. I thought long and hard before posting, but maybe he has forgotten.

Really ? Even old, long since demonetised ones ? Never knew that. It's not true. The Coinage Act of 1971 says: "10.1 No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin which is for the time being current in the United Kingdom or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so"

In general, the earlier dates stand a better chance of being worth something above the bullion value, especially the 1840s sovereigns as there are a few rarer varieties. Also the later Victoria and George V sovereigns can have additional value dependent on the mint mark. As always, condition is key to determining a value. If you can upload pictures, I'm sure someone will help with grades and values.

I'm sure that we can all believe that this sort of fraud occurs, but proving it is another matter. Ghost bids from the floor are risky for an auction house as it's possible for a sharp-eyed spectator to see that there was no actual bidder. I suspect that auction houses wishing to maximise their profits would prefer to invent absentee underbidders or to employ shill bidders in the audience. I know the only time I even bought a coin from Torex I happened to get it for my maximum bid to the penny, lucky what. The time I lost a coin again at Torex I was the under bidder to someone on the floor who got the coin for the same bid as me. That's almost exactly what happened to me with another auction house. I left proxy bids on two lots. The first won, but at my maximum (funny that, I thought) the second lost to a bidder in the room, also at my maximum. Apparently room bidders take precedence despite my bid being the first (having been submitted several days before). Room bids don't always take precedence. You can win or lose at the same maximum bid. It's pure luck and depends where the bidding starts and on the bid increment. Imagine that the bid increment is £10 and your maximum proxy bid is £100. Scenario 1: Starts at £80, room bid £90, your bid £100 => you win assuming nobody wishes to bid higher Scenario 2: Starts at £70, room bid £80, your bid £90, room bid £100 => you lose as £100 is your maximum

I'm sure that we can all believe that this sort of fraud occurs, but proving it is another matter. Ghost bids from the floor are risky for an auction house as it's possible for a sharp-eyed spectator to see that there was no actual bidder. I suspect that auction houses wishing to maximise their profits would prefer to invent absentee underbidders or to employ shill bidders in the audience.

I presume that the sharp-cornered variety is the scarcer of the two? Is there a price differential? Or would that rely on Spink acknowledging the variety in their catalogue.

Great coin! I have to ask the grading company for permission to use that picture then. Interesting question! I don't know about the legalities of using images that can be easily downloaded from the Internet, but I'd guess that it depends on the intended use. If you intend to include the images in a publication, then I think permission should be obtained and an accreditation given to the owner. Otherwise, it's probably not necessary.

There were no silver threepences later than 1945.

The attached pictures are from CGS UK showing a 1949 threepence that they graded as UNC-80.

And here is another that looks very similar: scratch on neck, scatch in front of top lip and even has the same obverse rim nick at around 7 o'clock.

£22 postage looks a little excessive!!! Must be for the insurance as 1927 pure silver coins are like hens teeth They could be in pure silver because the picture shows the obverses of two identical pieces. If they were different there would be more reason to be suspicious about the pure silver claim, but as we are talking copies they could have been made yesterday and so the description must be taken at face value. I though silver was debased to 0.500 in 1920? The lettering means that it's a 1935 crown, so if it's sterling silver - it's a bargain!

I do scan eBay every now and again for scarce varieties, but it takes greater perseverance than I possess.

Does such a thing exist? The main references I have access to don't all agree. ESC lists it as ref. 2125, rarity S (scarce). Spink 2011 (S.4015) gives a price of £40 in FDC. Davies doesn't list it at all. If they do exist. How were they issued? and how many were minted?

Are all four known to exist? Davies has the 1+B as unconfirmed? I've only ever found three of them. Regarding the proof/maundy question. All my 1911 proof series have toned a dark cobalt blue whereas the maundy set it the normal golden colour. Also the 3d from the proof set has obv 2 and the maundy 3d has obv 1. My 1911 proofs are all colourfully toned, mostly crimson, mauve and cyan. The smaller ones are quite tricky to get a decent photo showing the toning, but here is the proof "maundy" 3d which is obverse 2.

That's because the maundy 3d and proof 3d are different coins Ok, so if I understand this (please correct me if I'm wrong). There are three different 1911 3d coins: - Currency - Maundy (produced with polished dies) - Proof (produced with polished dies and polished flan) Therefore it doesn't make any sense to say currency proof or maundy proof unless there are exclusive design differences between the currency and maundy dies. And four varieties of the currency 3d Are all four known to exist? Davies has the 1+B as unconfirmed?

That's because the maundy 3d and proof 3d are different coins Ok, so if I understand this (please correct me if I'm wrong). There are three different 1911 3d coins: - Currency - Maundy (produced with polished dies) - Proof (produced with polished dies and polished flan) Therefore it doesn't make any sense to say currency proof or maundy proof unless there are exclusive design differences between the currency and maundy dies.

That is what I suspected, but Spink quote different prices for a 1911 threepence proof in FDC (£40) and a 1911 Maundy threepence in FDC (£22).

London coins are CGS aren't they? Not entirely, but there's only a sheet of Bronco between them.