Michael-Roo

Its been taken down.

Me too. Item reported to Ebay and seller messaged.

His previous sale: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/122598565708 25 bids!

Reported. His item description: "Not much more info except these are garden finds. House is old but not pre 1550 I think. Listed these a few weeks back with many comments that they are fake but I also had positive feedback from some that were genuinely interested. The truth is I don't know. Just have had them for 10 years or so just lying there & will take a chance on selling them at whatever price. Not looking for a windfall! Let's see?" His garden continues to offer up its treasures…...

Does anyone here know why so many people have it in their minds 1971 decimals are valuable? I find this baffling.

I visited last night for the first time in ages. Early Milled has become a shop front for sellers of replica coins as too, along with people hoping to make a small profit on bullion sovereigns, has Victorian. This on top of all the usual washers and damaged tat, very depressing. Look at these: https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/bitsandbobs.etc/m.html?item=282596793063&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2562

Why 'sadly'?

Agreed. William & Mary tin halfpence are always available and I have five or six which I've bought along the way simply because I like them. I don't have any James halfpence though, just three of his tin farthings. My 'Wow' comment was with regard to it being a 91/92, which is very rare indeed, and how lucky DP was to find one while mettle detecting (Sorry Rob, couldn't resist ).

I too gave up looking sometime ago. So much tat. My only visits these days are via the links provided here.

I do find his listings quite entertaining…. http://www.ebay.com/itm/house-clearance-finds-VERY-RARE-OLD-5-POUND-NOTE-INCLUDED-/162610736782?hash=item25dc5aee8e:g:EsYAAOSwA3dYNPH0

Wow. What are the odds. Lucky find!

I see he sold the 1562 sixpence for £54. Four bids, what is wrong with people? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/hammered-silver-coin-1562-Elizabeth-1st-Sixpence/263116385189?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140107083358%26meid%3D395c89b9d17c48de8b9c60bf5ebd526f%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D302402867730

And me.

Although our reports may have resulted in the original listing for this tat being pulled I see it has now been relisted with a revised, though non-committal, description. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/coin-old-1066-1067-william-1-the-Conqueror-unsure-of-if-a-copy-or-not/263128279821?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140107083358%26meid%3D68e3ee383c0b4fe88ea7a4b6da430eb0%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D263119103938

Listing ended. Three cheers for us.

...Though the liberal application of Brasso may have helped keep out the moisture.

My condolences. We all will be thinking of you at this sad time.

No saIe at the BIN price so the set has now been listed for auction. Declan, if you're considering them do note, as already mentioned by Peck, this set is not VF.

Yes, same seller who has the replica sixpence listed. I've reported both.

Yes, Dave, exactly. I've submitted the report too.

Agreed. The £1400 coin only Good Fine? Nah.

His description: 'coin exactly as it is in the picture - willing to take offers' Clearly, he knows it is a replica but has avoided saying so. Replica isn't mentioned in the listing either but 'SILVER coin' is. I suppose the daft bugger who has bid £28 could legitimately return it being 'not as described' when he sees it isn't silver after all.

Hi Declan, Its about half way down this page: http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&searchterm=Halfcrown+1905+Fine&searchtype=1 Peck is right IMHO, their grading can be over cautious at times. Comparing book value with hammer price realised for some of these half crowns suggests bidders also considered grades assigned were lower than they should have been. I think your 1905 is hovering around the near fine mark. Considering you bought the full set for £660 you did well.

If compared with the attached, which was graded as Fine by LCA, I would suggest your 1905 is nearer VG?

Had the damage been concealed in the seller's photos?