Michael-Roo

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?

From the same seller…. http://www.ebay.com/itm/jemima-duck-50p-coin-ERROR-/162610847421?hash=item25dc5c9ebd:g:9nsAAOSwl5dZcIu7

And on mine the die crack is just beginning to develop….

As well as the Anne I see lot 174 also includes a fake Cromwell.

I've looked at the larger images on the site, and though I'm always happy to be proven wrong etc. etc….. It could be that its a badly polished coin badly photographed, but the surfaces don't look right to me. http://www.frasersauctionroom.co.uk/current_sale

The entire item description is worth reading, highly entertaining. I'm particularly keen on: 'Extremely rare and SORT after'.

Why? The mint struck 1521,666250 pennies dated 1971. (Yes, that's more than one thousand, five hundred and twenty one MILLION.)

Now there's a mystery. Who the f**k is throwing these over the wall into his garden and, even more puzzling, why?….

I'm really pleased to hear it all turned out well for you in the end.

Act quickly Stu, make an offer as near to the BIN price as you can manage and hope for the best, you don't want to see it slip away!

Here's an example of a blocked die on a 1721 halfpenny. Although the ones and seven are boldly struck the two is all but absent. The condition isn't great but, as I've not seen another showing this anomaly, I think I'll keep it.

Contacted seller and told him we thought it unethical not to make (daft) bidders aware of this. With three hours to go the listing has been amended and the words 'superb copy' have been added. Very shoddy behaviour.

The single dot is where the upper one of a normal colon should be so a filled die on the lower dot is the most likely reason for it not being struck up.

Thanks Stuart, much appreciated. How about this pair of Canterbury jobs, could you ID these too please?

Ten bids and counting. I've informed the seller and given him a link to the Ebay WRL info page written by Lawrence Chard. Let's see…. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/COIN-HENRY-V111-GROAT-MM-ESCALLOP-/253011401441?hash=item3ae8a79ae1:g:Ae4AAOSwyWZZT48B

Here is the last of my trio of '99s recently acquired. Common below Fine but harder to find in better grades so I'm quite happy with these. Scott, when you say from 1699 the quality goes downhill I assume you mean quality control, as evidenced by the number of legend errors seen? I've always found the portrait and Britannia dies to be superior to those of the first two issues. The portrait, particularly, is better rendered and stands in bold relief compared with the first which is somewhat flat by comparison.

Could be. Good point, and something I'd not considered.