DaveG38

Too late for me. My pension annuities are bought!!

Edward VII Florin with Britannia standing for one. Victorian Gothic florin for another. Then a Cartwheel penny or twopence. Finally, a William IV halfcrown, just for the curtains, and maybe a George III shilling, to show how ugly he was.

That'll teach me to scroll up and look at every image!!

We've seen loads of this most common of all 6ds on here, reaching nowhere near those prices! That price is ridiculous!This coin is undated, so isn't it a shilling not a sixpence?

I've just had a look at mine and as you say the reverse is not frosted. Looking at the design, I'm not surprised as it's a very busy scene and I guess frosting wouldn't have added to it. In fairness to the RM, the design has a very contoured look to it, which when photographed could easily appear as though frosted in my opinion.

One in similar high grade went for £7250 plus premium in London Coins Auction last June. Sadly, mine is just a GF to NVF and that cost enough!!! This is one of those coins where the differential between the low grades and the high is disproportionately squeezed, so that collectable low grades go for far more than they should relative to the price of a high grade example. I guess it's because the number of people willing to buy an EF upwards example is fairly small, whereas any collector of the date run must have a 1841, and so will stretch their wallet to a low grade one to fill the gap. The result is that the low grades get inflated more than the higher end - good news for those with fat wallets I guess. Not such good news if the coin is regarded as an investment, as it probably won't appreciate as much as it should.

Not sure about that. Show me a 1689 in EF and I reckon I'll faint with a rush of blood to the head. Not EF, but you do get 2 for the price of 1. THUD (sound of head hitting floor).

Not sure about that. Show me a 1689 in EF and I reckon I'll faint with a rush of blood to the head.

A good example of how well the NHS actaully performs, despite what politicians tell us. At the risk of this becoming the medical corner, I went to my GP for the first time in years on Monday at 10.00 am with an eye problem. I had a call from the local hospital at 4.00pm offering me an appointment the following day at noon. Attended, given a load of tests, after which the consultant announces that I've got a torn retina and he'll fix it in a jiffy with his laser. Walked out of the hospital at 2.00, good as new. So all of 30 hours from initial visit to the GP to diagnosis and treatment. Could I have done better in the private system? Doubt it. So, I take with a pinch of salt all the tales of woe about the NHS that we keep hearing about. It ain't like that round here.

Looks like the squashed centipede variety to me. I'm not sure about whether this occurred at the Mint. Some of the legend appears to be struck into this 'blob' which would kind of suggest it was, but............ Some people will do anything to try and create a market and generate some money from the unsuspecting. For me, if a Mint 'error' then I'd maybe pay a fiver for it, but not 200 times that.

In answer to The question i'd say because it's relatively cheap and an Icon of Victoria coinage. Perhaps The buyer is another Scott and does'nt have The 4 figures required to ever scratch a large itch. It is ugly though It must be a different mindset to mine, it might fill the gap but I would never want to look at it again! Each to his or her own!! Every keeper I have must be pleasing, and that includes some coins with obvious problems! I can sympathise with this view and yet, if you are a completist, as I am, then on occasions you have to fill a gap with a coin that isn't good enough. If money is no object then I guess waiting for the best example there is is a decent strategy, but for mere mortals sometimes the only way to fill the gap is to go for what is available and in your price range. In this case, the buyer presumably wasn't, and might never be, able to afford a nice example, as he maybe hasn't the means and knows that prices for better pieces are unlikely to come down. So what does he do? Wait to afford one at 4 or 5 times the price and that may well be years off or go for it and at least have an example? It's all right for the non-completists, but for those of us afflicted with this obsession with an empty gap the temptation to fill can be irresistable. So, I've just completed my date run of Victoria halfcrowns with the purchase of a 1841 example, in halfway decent condition. But my 1839 is horrible - Poor/clear date at best, and still about £400. One day, when funds permit, I'll upgrade it, but until then there's other coins to consider.

I guess sometimes you have to accept a really poor specimen in order to fill a gap, or because there aren't any others available, but in the case of a gothic crown there's always plenty of them. So, as you say, why would anybody want this one?

Or Edward I for that matter! There's a lot to be said for the William IV series.

It depends on the criteria I suppose. If you consider the differing overseas varieties (like Canada), or are taking all the commem portraits into consideration as well then probably. With regards to the UK regular issues only - The two monarchs now tie. Queen Victoria Regular issues Young Head 1838-1887 Gothic/Godless Head 1847-1887 Bun Head 1860-1895 Jubilee Head 1887-1893 Old Head 1893-1901 Elizabeth II Regular issues Gillick Head 1953-1970 Machin Head 1968-1984 Maklouf Head 1985-1997 Broadley Head 1998-2015 Clarke Head 2015- True, although judging from the Victorian bun series I'd say that Victoria has been more touched up and made over than Liz has.

Re-post - surely these boxes don't even go for a tenth of that (I haven't checked!)? Made in the 1950s I believe by Hearne. Certainly not a 1893 Proof set case (are they all black, does anybody know?) and maybe worth 100th of the asking price i.e. £11.75.

The numbers of the date are clearly less worn that the rest of the legend, so almost certainly a forgery. But then it's my old mate of 1882 no H penny fame. Given his attempts at fraud on both me and ebay I'm not surprised he's at it again.

I like the line stating you should avoid 1866 and 1871 halfcrowns, as these are forgeries. OK, thanks for the info..Quoting his eBay blurb here "Victoria's Half Crowns were struck from 1839 to 1901, none were struck between 1851 and 1873 because of the striking of the new decimal coin the Florin which was struck in its place. " Since when did decimalisation come into effect between 1851 and 1873? Here's another one - 'only' £29.99 on a BIN. Apparently it's now a pattern! Somebody's knocking these out somewhere. Strange thing is, they are worn to differing degrees, and the first one really looks as though it's circulated? I wonder if it did? The milled edge on the BIN one is pretty good isn't it? It's pretty obvious that the date has been 're-engineered' so I guess it's possible that somebody is using worn specimens of more common dates and is re-working the date. That's probably cost effective if you can sell to mugs at £100, but surely not at £29.99 - most worn Viccy halfcrowns will get close to that without too much trouble without all the extra work.

I like the line stating you should avoid 1866 and 1871 halfcrowns, as these are forgeries. OK, thanks for the info..Quoting his eBay blurb here "Victoria's Half Crowns were struck from 1839 to 1901, none were struck between 1851 and 1873 because of the striking of the new decimal coin the Florin which was struck in its place. " Since when did decimalisation come into effect between 1851 and 1873? Here's another one - 'only' £29.99 on a BIN. Apparently it's now a pattern! Somebody's knocking these out somewhere.

I happen to have 3 of these coins at the moment and each one differs, so there are at least 3 types. Firstly, there is the correctly struck one, with no 'blobbing' and with even lettering. Secondly, there's the 'blobby' type, which seems to have double struck, but even lettering. The third one is interesting as the two 'U's and the 'N' in the inscription are larger than the other letters and the 'S' is pretty much an '8.' Whether there is also a 'blobby' type with the uneven lettering and the '8' for an 'S' I don't know, but I'll keep an eye out.

Thanks for that. I'll keep an eye out in the shop where my other half works.

Which year is the WW2 variety and what am I looking for?

The perceived wisdom is that just about £150 worth of shillings were struck by the Duke of Northumberland, meaning there were only ever 3000 of these coins in existence. How many dies would be needed to strike this number - I'd say just the one, unless something went catastrophically wrong with the first die and a second die had to be cut. I'd have thought somebody would have found this in any records if it had happeend, so I'm of the view that anything unusual that deviates from the 'normal' is likely to be a fake. But, I stand to be corrected.

It's not just ebay that has its share of fraudsters. Here's a 1917 sovereign that's so rough I can't imagine that anybody willing to spend 3,999.99 Euros is going to be fooled by it. But you never know.... http://www.muenzauktion.info/auction/item.php5?id=2591372&lines=75〈=en

Ho, ho!!!

Interesting perspective on photographing a coin!! http://www.ebay.es/itm/20-pence-1983-/171660034493?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_186&hash=item27f7bc41bd