zookeeperz

Well I just stabbed in the dark really. I thought the O looked strange like struck over another O sideways or and O over a numeral 0?

well they ain't the prettiest ever seen but £20 wasn't a bank breaker

This is where Ebay is at fault and is blatantly breaking commerce & trading standards practices. This guy and his rust bucket crap of misleading and fraudulent BS detecting finds has been reported by a whole host of members from this forum and yet he is still allowed to extort decent folks money. The closest that piece of garbage has come to dirt was if he dropped it from his pocket. Disgraceful and sadly a growing force on and off line in auctions. I remember posting before when I entered (rare error) in ebay search and it returned 48,000 auctions you can bet your life 99% of those are bogus.

Is this the R/E Variety?

you would notice straight away if it was lacquered it's kind of like looking through a thin film of water and very very shiney just as an old piece of varnished furniture looks. From the pic it doesn't look it . I don't know if you can see on mine that glisten look. Thats the lacquer against the light. Sorry crap photo but I have my investigating microscope on lol

Picked this up. Unlisted EBRITANNIAR 1881 sixpence. Although very subtle I hope you can see the underlying E beneath the B it's a little offset tilting anticlockwise

Take a cheap shot at them I do. I wouldn't trust an LCGS grade or CGS which is one and the same . Any TPG that slabs their own coins for resale cannot be trusted. Conflict of interest,there would also be a huge bias towards overgrading the coins. Which has become more apparent if you look at the stark contrast in coins of said grade with one being so much higher than it should be.

LCGS would body bag that. I saw one on ebay beautiful gothic florin with a really small dig on the cheek the rest of the coin was flawless. They details graded it as field damage . I have also seen a few rarities wrongly attributed and this seems to be a common failing for NGC and PCGS but that's a good thing for buyers

£90 registration still apply?

We have for quite a while now and was the reason for the thread been actively reporting anything suspect or misleading bur ebay answer only to their shareholders. In fact they actively support fraud as premium ebay sellers have protective feedback ratings. So even if you did give a 0% rating it would never show up. I have reported at least 50 fake sales and all are still trading the same garbage. It needs a big concern like watchdog to swoop on them

If that's not a jeckle I am long john silver Its cast mushy toot IMO

Yes i looked at the other pics after I posted . On the headliner it looks so much like DED but it also looks like its been cleaned with a brillo pad sadly

Almost fooled me but not quite clever lil devil me thinks Must remember to tell the chinese it's DEF not DED ? looks wrong to me https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/13-Shillings-Silver-Coins-1871-1905-15-16-19-21-23-26-28-29/312061102167?hash=item48a84a8857

Ah I am with you now

I am still confused. Looking at those 2 pictures I assume are the same obverse 2's can you explain to me why the colon alignments after F:D: are different> as in the Jelida's pic the top colon is pointing to the gap and the bottom to the tooth. In santa's pic it is the other way around also the last A in victoria Jelida's points to a gap and santa's points to the tooth?

Well I doubt they would of kept records of ungraded coins back in 2007 as they were returned with a standard comment like porosity or verdigris spot . This was before they did details grading. Which was my argument to start with. Not that it made a lot of difference in the end as all were sold on but it aids a sale if it more than just my opinion on what is on the coin. Some variety types esp overdates can be so subtle even the best picture cannot show what the eye and a loupe can unless you are fortunate enough to own a stereoscope. I would Imagine there are probably only 4 from the original batch that are still on the site.

0003797-SH.V1.1856.01 if you see the pic it also is the conjoined A type which is variety 04 if I remember but as it stands a mis attributed unlisted variety. Kind of annoying when you shell out that amount of money and not get what you ask for.

Hi guys further to my story posted somewhere about my dealings with the CGS team. I was prob one of the first batch to be graded back in 2007 when their opinion on what is a variety and what was not was personal and not factual. After a few emails back and forth I was glad to see that they agreed with me it is not their job to say if a coin is worthy of being a variety. (back then they recognised already known varieties only). They graded £500 worth of coins and I was less than happy as the coins that were in today's grading would only be details grade were specifically sent for variety attribute only as they were unrecorded. Needless to say they bodybagged them sent them back with no attribution other than (ungraded porosity). Forget the fact that it was 1675/3 farthing o/o sideways. Also the coins they did grade also had no variety attached to them as in their opinion it would add little to the value (really in what century do you inhabit). So basically I got stiffed for a monkey by three monkey's Here is one I still have that they would attribute the correct grade initially. Although after my heated emails they did offer to regrade all the coins I questioned. But I didn't take up the offer as I was so angry. Here is 1856 01 standard shilling. As you can see it is far from it. first 5 is small 5 over large 5 and last 6 is over 5. I even had the impression that the 1 was struck over a roman I but as it is in the slab I cannot get clear enough pic to confirm and 10 years ago I forgotten what I put on the ticket.

Well yes true it is a bit of a what you see is what it is kind of coin but to me the line is straight and doesn't dive up at the left end but as it is so worn i cannot see if there is a sig below the foot either. If anything it would have to be E as there isn't a 1860 with rev G

is that not obverse 3 bust looks much closer to the border than the picture of obverse 2 with the gap? or is it a trick of the light ?

Anyone know die pairings on this. I am assuming it is 2+D ?. Thanks

That's what I was trying to describe see the ribbons where they leave the bow obverse 2 are very close and the gap is very small. obverse 5 has that loop looking gap distinctly wider distance from ribbon to ribbon