Nick

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between. The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here Nick, does the RM report for 1894 give quantities of proofs struck, either singly or in sets, for 1893? Yes it does. Although it doesn't specify the denominations of the single proofs. The numbers quoted are: 756 gold + silver sets 17 gold only sets 556 silver only sets 95 gold single proofs 23 silver single proofs Which makes a total of 3187 gold proofs and 7895 silver proofs. Interestingly, no mention of the bronze proof pennies which Freeman lists (but Peck does not). Not that I've ever seen one! It only specifically mentions "specimen" coins of the new design, which might explain why any bronze proofs are excluded - given that the bronze coinage kept the young head for another two years.

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between. The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here Nick, does the RM report for 1894 give quantities of proofs struck, either singly or in sets, for 1893? Yes it does. Although it doesn't specify the denominations of the single proofs. The numbers quoted are: 756 gold + silver sets 17 gold only sets 556 silver only sets 95 gold single proofs 23 silver single proofs Which makes a total of 3187 gold proofs and 7895 silver proofs.

Has anybody had notice of an invoice from DNW yet? The account management section of their website shows the invoice total, but the total is entirely negated by the same number as a negative previous balance and thus the total due is zero. Even if you fill in the details of what the total should be, nothing happens when you press the pay button.

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between.

"Care in the community" has a lot to answer for. Im new here so thanks for introducing me to this bloke got to love this one, ebay No 370831082109. Mint lustre specially created with a piece of Scotchbrite!!! whilst being held with a pair of pliers! But folk are buying this rubbish for silly prices! see this 1870BB 5Fr piece £205 is a reasonable price for EF+ but this coin struggles to make Fine (€22 in TB25) the ribbon is just visible on the neck The minimum criteria to make VF (TTB45) a €30 coin, requires the point of the moustache to be clearly visible But then I'm just using the grading standards from Le Franc Was this a BIN as I can't see any bids on it. I wonder if the 8 page views is accurate. BIN with positive feedback I wonder if 'very considerate seller' means the coin was returned? Certainly should have been, but there again shouldn't have been bought in the first place. If you look at the feedback that he left for the buyer ("...Grateful for acceptance delay caused by wrong coin"), it shows that he initially sent the buyer the wrong coin. So, not only does he know nothing about coins, he's incompetent too.

The 1839 sixpence with the c.1880 obverse that sold at Heritage earlier this year has medal alignment.

Must've used quite a lot of pressure to achieve this effect, hence being out of shape, obviously. Oh well, you live and learn, and it didn't cost a fortune, thankfully. It is surprising how clearly the incuse effect is, you would instinctively expect the legend to be squashed under such pressure. Perhaps the coin with the incuse impression may have been heated beforehand.

"Care in the community" has a lot to answer for.

Everyone should know how much they bid, so everyone should know if they won or not unless it is at their maximum Except that there were a few occasions today when the auctioneer overruled Internet bids with those in the room, but the online bidding page didn't reflect the change. So if the Internet bidder didn't have the audio feed, they might not be aware that their bid was no longer the highest bid. Edit: But that would be still be at their maximum. Must remember to engage brain before typing.

Ah I see, so by soldered fixing they mean welded.

It did seem that many lots were going for less than the estimates, although the choice items were still fetching good prices.

Easily removed if you have a soldering iron. Probably ex mount. A soldering iron is more likey to make an even bigger mess. If it solder it will have alloyed with the silver. Really? I can't imagine any soldering iron getting anywhere near hot enough to melt the silver so that it would alloy.

Easily removed if you have a soldering iron.

I'll have a dig around. See what pops up. PM sent. Looks a bit dodgy. r**6 has won an item from MP in the past and left feedback to the effect that he made a mistake with bid and the seller cancelled the sale (ie he was bidding up the price and won the item by mistake).

I'll have a dig around. See what pops up. PM sent.

I'll have a dig around. See what pops up.

Now here's a funny Thing. The winning bidder of the top link is now winning this one underneath, so why would our favourite ebayer let this ebayer place a bid if he did'nt pay for the bank token? r**6 (2620) Feedback http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1903-EDWARD-VII-HALFCROWN-SUPERB-HIGH-GRADE-EXT-RARE-/360672249816?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item53f9bdc7d8 Do you know the full eBay id for r**6 (2620) ?

The coin itself looks a bit polished. The feature on the edge looks like a bit of metal overflow that escaped the collar and has folded back over the milled edge.

Calm now Peck. Don't have a seizure. Just remember the idiom about horses and water.

I stand corrected Dave - 1922 penny on ebay- meant to bid on this but forgot. Flaw on both neck and ear are in the same postion as those on the 1918KN but this is a different obverse die. Must conclude that this micro variety is in fact a result of clashed dies You're right. The attached overlay shows (although not very clearly) that the features line up, so must be a die clash. Really interesting thread! Good image, Nick! Edit: Could have been very easy to forget to reverse the Britannia image first, before overlaying! Oh yes, been there many times. It's even more confusing when the coin has an inverted die axis.

I stand corrected Dave - 1922 penny on ebay- meant to bid on this but forgot. Flaw on both neck and ear are in the same postion as those on the 1918KN but this is a different obverse die. Must conclude that this micro variety is in fact a result of clashed dies You're right. The attached overlay shows (although not very clearly) that the features line up, so must be a die clash.

I'm sure you've told us before Dave, but how do you see the identities of 'private bidders'? Also, I can never quite understand things like this : £222 29-May-13 17:22:23 BST £25 29-May-13 18:27:39 BST How does a later bid of £25 even register, when an earlier bid jumped it up to £222 ? Because the earlier bid of £222.22 only had to beat a bid of £7.77, so was winning at £8.27. Then another bid came in at £25.88, which was immediately beaten by the £222.22 bid, which was then winning at £26.88. So why don't they show the £8:27 bid, they do usually I think? Otherwise it looks ridiculous. Or at least, adjust the timings so it looks like a proper auction. After all, if an auctioneer has a commission bid on his books, he keeps going up against the floor until one or other of them drops out, but if commission wins it, he doesn't show the timing of the bid as "two days before", or whenever the commission bid arrived with the house - it's the time of the sale. It's because the £8.27 isn't a bid, it's just one bid increment above the current underbidder's bid. There is a link on the bidding page to 'Show automatic bids' if you so wish. It looks and feels very much like a proper auction to me. Remember that you don't get to see timings on any other auction so, if they confuse, ignore them.

I'm sure you've told us before Dave, but how do you see the identities of 'private bidders'? Also, I can never quite understand things like this : £222 29-May-13 17:22:23 BST £25 29-May-13 18:27:39 BST How does a later bid of £25 even register, when an earlier bid jumped it up to £222 ? Because the earlier bid of £222.22 only had to beat a bid of £7.77, so was winning at £8.27. Then another bid came in at £25.88, which was immediately beaten by the £222.22 bid, which was then winning at £26.88.

His greed is only exceeded by his stupidity. But then again, he is obviously confident that eBay won't see anything suspicious, nor will they see a business being run through an individual's account.

Pray tell, I have a fake 1905 half crown and wish I knew what points it out as a fake. From what I gleaned on this very forum, there's a small break in the R of EDWARDVS that is the prime giveaway on many of them. But there may be other flaws on those from other sources? Are you certain that this only appears on fakes? I have seen more 1905 halfcrowns with the defect on the R of EDWARDVS, than without. The EF example in the Andrew Scothern collection (being auctioned by DNW later this month) also has the defect. The only giveaway of fakes that I'm aware of is the wonky I of QVI on the reverse.