Coinery

I have emailed him twice. The first time telling him it was a pewter replica. The 2nd time asking him why he hadn't added this to the listing. Reported to ebay who do diddly. I reported it this morning too! He's a 'top' seller with a lot of feedback, bet they ignore it! What really annoyed me about this one was the blatant 'what is it'? You mean he couldn't actually read ELIZABETH on the edge of the coin and, putting two and two together (ie the date), realise it probably isn't Elizabeth II? I've messaged him: "INTERESTING COIN DATED 1562 - WHAT IS IT?" - it's a replica coin, composition uncertain, but the thickness tells me it may be lead or pewter. I used to be a dealer and was taken in by one of these in the early days, and had to refund the sale price to the buyer. Since then I've become expert at spotting them. Yours is almost identical to the item I had. I'd recommend you either withdraw the item and relist it, or amend the description to reflect the fact it's a replica. Hopefully he will take the hint, but don't hold your breath... I'm turning blue already, Peck! We should definately have a dedicated thread for OBVIOUS ebay fakes, which has all members emailing simultanteously! From a specially dedicated ebay account, goes without saying of course! I think the fake-meisters would soon tire of it! I actually got a polite, but rather incoherent reply, to the effect it was too late to change the listing with only 12 hours to go!!! Looks like eBay are going to turn a blind eye and let some sucker get suckered! Over 5000 feedback, forgone conclusion really!

The obverse is better than the reverse I think!

I've recently aquired this HA-2:b Sixpence. Does anyone have any thoughts on the reverse legend? Is this IPOSV, or just die rotation, possibly explaining the rounded O-like bottom of the P? My other thought was a broken foot on the P punch, and a botched attempt at repairing it on the die? Anyone?

Not quite sure how the story goes, but the Caesar coin Jesus held up and asked 'whose head is on this, let Ceasar have what is his...'! That would likely be the world's most valuable coin (I wonder what the Vatican could cough-up for that?), and to think one of you might have it in your collection.

I have emailed him twice. The first time telling him it was a pewter replica. The 2nd time asking him why he hadn't added this to the listing. Reported to ebay who do diddly. I reported it this morning too! He's a 'top' seller with a lot of feedback, bet they ignore it! What really annoyed me about this one was the blatant 'what is it'? You mean he couldn't actually read ELIZABETH on the edge of the coin and, putting two and two together (ie the date), realise it probably isn't Elizabeth II? I've messaged him: "INTERESTING COIN DATED 1562 - WHAT IS IT?" - it's a replica coin, composition uncertain, but the thickness tells me it may be lead or pewter. I used to be a dealer and was taken in by one of these in the early days, and had to refund the sale price to the buyer. Since then I've become expert at spotting them. Yours is almost identical to the item I had. I'd recommend you either withdraw the item and relist it, or amend the description to reflect the fact it's a replica. Hopefully he will take the hint, but don't hold your breath... I'm turning blue already, Peck! We should definately have a dedicated thread for OBVIOUS ebay fakes, which has all members emailing simultanteously! From a specially dedicated ebay account, goes without saying of course! I think the fake-meisters would soon tire of it!

I think you're missing a very important point here! I've just entered the number of the 1902 florin into the PCGS website and found nothing other than, simply put, 'yes, there is a Matt proof 1902 florin out there somewhere that's been authenticated by us'! Nothing more! It doesn't mean the one for sale here (and I'm not saying it isn't) is the one PCGS are talking about. So, hypothetically speaking here, I've just smashed open my lovely, top-graded, Victoria Gothic Crown, and put the crown in my collection because I like it, and then photographed the slip, which I've now got on an A4 sheet duplicated 100 times, all with the same number on it! I've already been in touch with Mr Pachouli (known to his friends as Dave), and he's got me a hundred nice Gothics for £10k and thrown in a hundred hologrammed PCGS slabs for good measure! I've already got good feedback and, hey presto, another 100 satisfied customers have just left me some more, each having checked the number on their slab against the PCGS database! ££££££££££££££££££££££ As I say, what's needed is TOP quality photography, which actually allows people to check that the coin in their holder is actually the one that the TPGC put in there! I don't mean photographs for the purpose of buying the coin, or making it easier to sell in the future, I mean photos that are clear enough to make a positive identification of the coin in your slab against the one on the database!

I have emailed him twice. The first time telling him it was a pewter replica. The 2nd time asking him why he hadn't added this to the listing. Reported to ebay who do diddly. I reported it this morning too! He's a 'top' seller with a lot of feedback, bet they ignore it! What really annoyed me about this one was the blatant 'what is it'? You mean he couldn't actually read ELIZABETH on the edge of the coin and, putting two and two together (ie the date), realise it probably isn't Elizabeth II?

WHAT a cheeky bugger! http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/INTERESTING-COIN-DATED-1562-WHAT-IS-IT-/180954468623?pt=UK_Antiques_Other_RL&hash=item2a21ba110f

That is the big problem with slabbing companies that don't insist on good quality images! CGS are as bad, a lot of their images are just token gestures, totally underexposed and blurred at times, as good as useless. Any 'jasmine' slabbers would surely be trawling the TPGC sites looking for the unidentifiable images and using those slab numbers on their own slabs, wouldn't they? I think slab buyers, and slabbers, should begin insisting on quality images, especially when dealing with milled coinage!

Stunning coins, I so wish I had enough time and money to get involved in everything...I'd love a decent greek and roman collection too!

Hello! Thanks for the response, appreciate it. Figured out a way to compress a couple of pictures of the date and posted them a few moments ago. As mentioned in the prior post, we are waiting on a USB magnifier. Once it arrives we will take better pictures of the date and post them. Yes, we also agree with you on Rayner over Spink. Since we are new, is the upload limit per picture or is it an overall per account? Have a great evening! Neither. The limit is per post, irrespective of how many pictures. For each new post the 150k applies again. No limit per account. It's an "erb".mannnn. If you like Oriental/Asian food you've had some. Ahhhhh sooooo, Stuart thinks the 1850 shilling pic i uploaded is Chinese? Very cryptic, but i'd love to hear the theory why..... Stuart may be mistaken... patchouli oil was the hippie fragrance of choice of the 1960s. Now if he'd said MSG or jasmine or lychee or egg foo yung, I could have understood it! Hey dudes, what's going on? Patchouli is still a hippie fragrance of choice, I think it's amazing! It's still very much used, blended with sweet almond oil, as a slippery soup to rub all over your beloved in the loving hours! Rumour did have it, Dave, that you were yourself partaking in said slippery rubdown, pre your image post! I think I might just have to join a circus, nobody gets my humour on here!

I personally thought the fast cycling was useful as an aid to spotting the differences in a more dramatic way. Though I also agree with Peckris, that a slower cycle would then be beneficial for a closer look! So maybe one of each would be the very best kind of presentation for these things? A second big welcome to the forum, Numidan, some interesting new approaches to looking at things, superb!

I can smell patchouli!

Sure. If only CGS slabbed hammered coins you could have it population listed too! Oh, the prestige of it, just imagine those immortal words..."finest known 1/1"

Great stuff, that software would be excellent for issues like the positioning of the 4 in a recent post, what's it called? Back to thread...the denticles look unchanged to me, the rim gets thinner however! I think it's rim wear! IMO NO! It IS the denticles! The relative position of the 'Y' and the inner rim doesn't change! Good spot!

Great stuff, that software would be excellent for issues like the positioning of the 4 in a recent post, what's it called? Back to thread...the denticles look unchanged to me, the rim gets thinner however! I think it's rim wear! IMO Changed my mind, see below!

Ah, but the use of contraction marks (by which I mean the ' bit of the normal ! that divides the legend abbreviations) instead of the normal stops ( . ) on the reverse on this series is a different thing from using multiple stops near the privy mark. The latter I believe is decoration, or a way to identify dies .. for some purpose. The former I believe(d) was a die maker's whim. He couldn't find the stop punch and decided to save time by using the ' punch as an alternative. Same as using an inverted V instead of an A. And yes, I had only seen two coins like this before, both the same reverse die. If this die quirk was just for expediency, it would make sense there would only be one die. The existence of a second one is .. a bit odd. Thanks, Richard! I don't suppose you can remember where you saw the example of the other contraction reverse? Yes. It belongs to one of the members here. Isn't it odd, when you consider the depth at which these coins have previously been studied, that there has been no mention of this peculiarity anywhere! So two dies at least! Can I claim a finest known for this particular reverse then?

Ah, but the use of contraction marks (by which I mean the ' bit of the normal ! that divides the legend abbreviations) instead of the normal stops ( . ) on the reverse on this series is a different thing from using multiple stops near the privy mark. The latter I believe is decoration, or a way to identify dies .. for some purpose. The former I believe(d) was a die maker's whim. He couldn't find the stop punch and decided to save time by using the ' punch as an alternative. Same as using an inverted V instead of an A. And yes, I had only seen two coins like this before, both the same reverse die. If this die quirk was just for expediency, it would make sense there would only be one die. The existence of a second one is .. a bit odd. Thanks, Richard! I don't suppose you can remember where you saw the example of the other contraction reverse?

I think this is a very logical conclusion. The stop variations seem to occur on similar coins so it's not as if they are to show different trial versions of a die. I suppose there would be an advantage to know how long a particular die has been in use and a differing combination of stops would make identification easier, but I am inclined to think the variations are more related to die makers rather than quality control at the Mint. A contemporary document detailing such features would be brilliant but I don't know of such a thing. And given that my impression is that the workings of the Mint in those days was kept under wraps, if not actually secret, it's likely that we're stuck with conjecture. With your original thoughts being upon 1 die, wouldn't that preclude this idea? If it was down to individual workers, wouldn't there be more than just a passing die? Just out of interest, is this really only the second reverse die of this class that you've seen with contraction marks?

Top answer, Dave, it really is the best that any of us can do! We'd still all be queued up now if we attempted to read every bit of small print in life, they can't surely expect that we do? All the smallprint that goes with software, PC updates, banks, life insurance, etc. Let's stick to coins!

I mean evidence of your FINANCIAL loss, not loss of the item itself! Namely, your receipt for the purchase of your crown, which is hopefully less than you sold it for. I think you may find that this is the amount you can claim, not the £10K someone was silly enough to pay for it! I would imagine in the £46 category they ask few questions, it wouldn't be commercially viable to follow up all the claims (probably a random sampling to meet the insurers criteria, possibly) but, in the £500+ bracket, they'll be checking I bet? If i insure for 1300 quid, thats what i'd expect to recover. Evidence is evident where it was sold, not where bought from. That's fair enough, I'm of the same thinking...but have you ever got from your car insurer what you insured it for? Don't they put all kinds of smallprint into their documents to avoid payment where you believed there was cover? We probably have half a dozen policies and insurances of every which kind, which we believe are protecting us in some way or other, endowment policies, loan protection, pensions, etc. It's payout that counts, and few deliver!

I mean evidence of your FINANCIAL loss, not loss of the item itself! Namely, your receipt for the purchase of your crown, which is hopefully less than you sold it for. I think you may find that this is the amount you can claim, not the £10K someone was silly enough to pay for it! I would imagine in the £46 category they ask few questions, it wouldn't be commercially viable to follow up all the claims (probably a random sampling to meet the insurers criteria, possibly) but, in the £500+ bracket, they'll be checking I bet?

I think you'll find you still have to provide evidence of your loss, whether you paid £13 or not, but don't quote me, it's been a while since I looked. The whole system would be open to endless fiddles otherwise.

Not sure! Another thing worth bearing in mind is, the post office doesn't reimburse what the coin 'actually' sells for. In the small print somewhere I read (a long time ago now - could be worth going back into it) that they, in effect, only refund the financial loss to the sender, which you'd have to provide proof of. So, in affect, that Gothic Crown that you bought for £42.75 and sold for £2k...if they lose it, guess what, you get £42.75! So, unless she is selling at a loss, she would've been covered at £46 easily!

I've bought a few good bargains from this seller (probably from errors like this one), until I had a disagreement about postage! I bought two coins separately, about £20-30 each (Recorded postage charge on each)and, when I came to pay...Special Delivery charges for combining! I said, then please post them separately at Recorded Delivery, that would be much cheaper for me! I couldn't make them understand that I should BENEFIT from buying lots of coins from them, not be penalised, grrrrr! They did get sent SD, I didn't pay SD though! A shame for them, because a fair number of their coins would have burnt and died in the past, but for my enthusiasms (?spelling)! That's what you have to remember when you upset an ebay buyer, they could be making you money, even when they lose! I've used that seller.Never had a problem.If you didn't pay SD why get upset? I used that seller a lot so, in part, that was the issue! I could understand how the charge seemed logical for them initially but, in the context of my repeat custom, and email suggesting that it would be MORE logical for me if the items were posted separately (as I bought them separately, in the knowledge I'd be paying RD), in light of their desire to levy me 'additional' charges to combine! I'm sure if anyone bought a book from amazon, thinking the postage costs were fair, and then later went on to buy a second book, only to find they will now be paying nearly double postage on BOTH books, simply because they now weigh over a kilo when combined! Even if you argued the point and rightly only ended up paying the original charge per individual book, you'd still feel more than a little grumpy with the company principle, particularly if you'd spent a lot of money with them over the last couple of years! So, not upset, really, just irked by the tick-off on the invoice, and their general philosophy on the matter! The problem with the postage charge is, if a coin is over 46 quid, or you have bought 2 coins going over that price ebay and PP urge sellers to insure anything over that amount, its there to protect the sellers from ongoing fraudlent claims. I had 1 guy last week ask where his coin was, it turns out i had uploaded the wrong track number for the coin but still had the correct receipt for his coin, i checked it online and he had signed for it 4 days previously. I wrote back to him and said that it was my fault, i'd uploaded the wrong number and gave him the correct one and asked him why he tried to rip me off as it had been signed for 4 days previously, needles to say i never heard from him again and he's now been added to the arsehole list I know what you mean, but one coin was £24 the other £48, postage £1.75 on each, fair enough! I'm just saying send them to me separately if you don't trust either me or the postal system (bearing in mind I've probably spent £1000's with this seller over the years), not bill me £6.35 for the privilege of saving them the cost of extra packaging and the effort of packing my coins separately! I've definitely been the underbidder on probably a couple of hundred+ of their coins (worth quite a few thousand to them)! Ahh, well...their loss, for slapping my wrist on their invoice, and being bothered about a bit of post!