Ebay's Worst Offerings

[Colin G.]

Trench art maybe? Let's face it, you'd cling on to anything you thought might be lucky in Passchendaele.

Definitely, keepsakes were made for loved ones before departing to the far flung corners of the world fighting for the Empire!! I have a few on farthings which I collect. Not many of them about, sign of a cheapskate I suppose

[scott]

i have one on a penny, its just interesting.

no 1's?

i see 1 one and a 7

[1949threepence]

Trench art maybe? Let's face it, you'd cling on to anything you thought might be lucky in Passchendaele.

Definitely, keepsakes were made for loved ones before departing to the far flung corners of the world fighting for the Empire!! I have a few on farthings which I collect. Not many of them about, sign of a cheapskate I suppose

The ones with initials on are often love tokens. You can just imagine the Barry White of his day grunting "Of course I luuuuuurv ya girl - look I've inscribed a whole week's wages with our initials on."

OK, thanks gents. I suppose the drilled holes were for stringing a load together and wearing as a necklace for safe keeping.......well it's as good as any other theory

[SionGilbey]

I can never get over what some people do to coins. In my early restarted collecting days (1995), I was ferreting through a tin of old coins in a local antique dealers only to find to my delight a pratically uncirculated cartwheel tuppence. No edge knocks, no problems, except some idiot had drilled a fuc*ing great hole right through it - aaaaagh!!!

Why have so many coins from around that era, got bloody holes drilled through them ?

There must be a reason

Not only that, why are there so many with initials & such like stamped on them ?

Money too tight for real jewellery and engraved/holed has a personal touch.

[Accumulator]

Not a laugh at all....

Please, please tell me this poor sandpapered penny isn't the Gouby X that I'm looking for! Even for 99p I think I'd rather keep an empty slot in my coin tray! :(

As far as I can judge, you are quite correct. That sad and sorry specimen is indeed the Gouby X or hollow neck type. In that condition for wear, worth £30 -£40 based on recent sales. As it is, well £0.99 looks about right if you can live with it.

Well, I bought the penny for £3.20 and guess what? It arrives and it's clearly not the same penny as in the photo! The received coin is so worn/buffed up with a wire brush that the majority of the teeth on the obverse no longer exist. So I emailed the seller (a Polish gentleman it would seem) and he states that there can't have been a mix up because he only had the one coin dated 1911! Yeah right! Anyway, he eventually refunded my money and, even though I told him the coin was one of the worst I had ever seen and worth nothing more than scrap, insisted on having it back! I should have known he was a waste of space. My search for a Gouby X continues.

[argentumandcoins]

Not a laugh at all....

Please, please tell me this poor sandpapered penny isn't the Gouby X that I'm looking for! Even for 99p I think I'd rather keep an empty slot in my coin tray! :(

As far as I can judge, you are quite correct. That sad and sorry specimen is indeed the Gouby X or hollow neck type. In that condition for wear, worth £30 -£40 based on recent sales. As it is, well £0.99 looks about right if you can live with it.

Well, I bought the penny for £3.20 and guess what? It arrives and it's clearly not the same penny as in the photo! The received coin is so worn/buffed up with a wire brush that the majority of the teeth on the obverse no longer exist. So I emailed the seller (a Polish gentleman it would seem) and he states that there can't have been a mix up because he only had the one coin dated 1911! Yeah right! Anyway, he eventually refunded my money and, even though I told him the coin was one of the worst I had ever seen and worth nothing more than scrap, insisted on having it back! I should have known he was a waste of space. My search for a Gouby X continues.

Just an observation Steve but they are clearly 2 different Pennies in the same picture (the lines in the background are unbroken as is the light reflection), so the obverse you were looking at did not belong to the 1911 reverse.

[Accumulator]

Just an observation Steve but they are clearly 2 different Pennies in the same picture (the lines in the background are unbroken as is the light reflection), so the obverse you were looking at did not belong to the 1911 reverse.

You're right John. I never noticed that! The coin I received was the 1911 pictured on the left then. I wonder what the other coin was then? I've not had a chance to check but didn't think any other George V pennies had Gouby X look-alike obverses?

I'm really not that upset. The purchase was more about saving a scarce coin from further ignominy

[argentumandcoins]

Just an observation Steve but they are clearly 2 different Pennies in the same picture (the lines in the background are unbroken as is the light reflection), so the obverse you were looking at did not belong to the 1911 reverse.

You're right John. I never noticed that! The coin I received was the 1911 pictured on the left then. I wonder what the other coin was then? I've not had a chance to check but didn't think any other George V pennies had Gouby X look-alike obverses?

I'm really not that upset. The purchase was more about saving a scarce coin from further ignominy

According to Michaels website it is only KNOWN on the GoubyX. I suppose that means that it could exist on other dates and not have been discovered yet (I don't even check my 1911's never mind any others). Having just seen that he wants £85 for a Fine example maybe I should start though!!!

The other thing to consider is the camera used in the sellers picture. It is clearly a cheaper model that struggles to focus in a flat plane gving the picture a strange curvature, this could distort our perception of the coin? I have bought many coins over the years under the impression they were rarer types due to camera autofocus failures (mainly 1863 open 3's).

[ski]

The other thing to consider is the camera used in the sellers picture. It is clearly a cheaper model that struggles to focus in a flat plane gving the picture a strange curvature, this could distort our perception of the coin? I have bought many coins over the years under the impression they were rarer types due to camera autofocus failures (mainly 1863 open 3's).

as a photographer who knows a little about cameras all i can say is

[Peckris]

The other thing to consider is the camera used in the sellers picture. It is clearly a cheaper model that struggles to focus in a flat plane gving the picture a strange curvature, this could distort our perception of the coin? I have bought many coins over the years under the impression they were rarer types due to camera autofocus failures (mainly 1863 open 3's).

as a photographer who knows a little about cameras all i can say is

Me too! (No camera without Macro mode should be used to photo coins ;-)

[Gary D]

Not a laugh at all....

Please, please tell me this poor sandpapered penny isn't the Gouby X that I'm looking for! Even for 99p I think I'd rather keep an empty slot in my coin tray! :(

As far as I can judge, you are quite correct. That sad and sorry specimen is indeed the Gouby X or hollow neck type. In that condition for wear, worth £30 -£40 based on recent sales. As it is, well £0.99 looks about right if you can live with it.

Well, I bought the penny for £3.20 and guess what? It arrives and it's clearly not the same penny as in the photo! The received coin is so worn/buffed up with a wire brush that the majority of the teeth on the obverse no longer exist. So I emailed the seller (a Polish gentleman it would seem) and he states that there can't have been a mix up because he only had the one coin dated 1911! Yeah right! Anyway, he eventually refunded my money and, even though I told him the coin was one of the worst I had ever seen and worth nothing more than scrap, insisted on having it back! I should have known he was a waste of space. My search for a Gouby X continues.

Just an observation Steve but they are clearly 2 different Pennies in the same picture (the lines in the background are unbroken as is the light reflection), so the obverse you were looking at did not belong to the 1911 reverse.

Look like an observe 3 so probably a 1922 with 1927 reverse

[azda]

Not sure whats happening here, a scam perhaps, who knows. 2 different sellers selling the same coin, or at least the pictures seem the same, also their ebay texts are identical

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160566345231&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.co.uk%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp4712.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D160566345231%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180652284731&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.co.uk%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm570%26_nkw%3D180652284731%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

[SionGilbey]

Certainly fishy, especially with both of them being 100% positive sellers with much feedback.

nriches rings a bell...

[azda]

Certainly fishy, especially with both of them being 100% positive sellers with much feedback.

nriches rings a bell...

1949 bought a coin from him last week, an 1871 penny

[Gary]

Not sure whats happening here, a scam perhaps, who knows. 2 different sellers selling the same coin, or at least the pictures seem the same, also their ebay texts are identical

http://cgi.ebay.co.u..._fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

http://cgi.ebay.co.u..._fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

have saved both under prefered buyers and will keep an eye out to see if they are pushing each others prices up.

[argentumandcoins]

Not sure whats happening here, a scam perhaps, who knows. 2 different sellers selling the same coin, or at least the pictures seem the same, also their ebay texts are identical

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160566345231&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.co.uk%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp4712.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D160566345231%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180652284731&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.co.uk%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm570%26_nkw%3D180652284731%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

The second seller has no coin feedback at all as either a buyer or seller. Account jacked?

[1949threepence]

Certainly fishy, especially with both of them being 100% positive sellers with much feedback.

nriches rings a bell...

It is fishy, I agree. The fact they have exactly the same text, definitely implies some connection between the two. Precisely what that is, has yet to be determined.

Weirdly, the only item "dsrasiah" currently has for sale, is that sovereign. Maybe, as John indicates, the account has been compromised in some way. The feedback shown indicates that he normally sells computer parts.

1949 bought a coin from him last week, an 1871 penny

Yep, very pleased with it as well. Nice item.

Edited April 16, 2011 by 1949threepence

[VickySilver]

And the same "coin" is resurrected in yet another sale.....

[azda]

Certainly fishy, especially with both of them being 100% positive sellers with much feedback.

nriches rings a bell...

It is fishy, I agree. The fact they have exactly the same text, definitely implies some connection between the two. Precisely what that is, has yet to be determined.

Weirdly, the only item "dsrasiah" currently has for sale, is that sovereign. Maybe, as John indicates, the account has been compromised in some way. The feedback shown indicates that he normally sells computer parts.

1949 bought a coin from him last week, an 1871 penny

Yep, very pleased with it as well. Nice item.

Have you posted an in hand pic Mike?

[azda]

And the same "coin" is resurrected in yet another sale.....

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180652284731&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.co.uk%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm570%26_nkw%3D180652284731%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

relisted it or what? Getting stranger by the day, oh wait, listing has ended.

Edited April 17, 2011 by azda

[1949threepence]

Certainly fishy, especially with both of them being 100% positive sellers with much feedback.

nriches rings a bell...

It is fishy, I agree. The fact they have exactly the same text, definitely implies some connection between the two. Precisely what that is, has yet to be determined.

Weirdly, the only item "dsrasiah" currently has for sale, is that sovereign. Maybe, as John indicates, the account has been compromised in some way. The feedback shown indicates that he normally sells computer parts.

1949 bought a coin from him last week, an 1871 penny

Yep, very pleased with it as well. Nice item.

Have you posted an in hand pic Mike?

No Dave, I haven't ~ unfortunately, not being a seller, I don't have the wherewithal to take coin pics.

[Nick]

I know that 1867 shillings are pretty scarce, but this one seems a bit much. Especially as it is not the rare S.3906A that it claims to be. It is the more usual S.3905 type A4 second head.

1867 shilling

Might be worth it if you knock a zero off the £1100 asking price.

[Peter]

I know that 1867 shillings are pretty scarce, but this one seems a bit much. Especially as it is not the rare S.3906A that it claims to be. It is the more usual S.3905 type A4 second head.

1867 shilling

Might be worth it if you knock a zero off the £1100 asking price.

This isn't an Ebay laugh

However any specialised shilling collector should know his subject.

It would be an idea to contact the seller or even give him a link to the forum.

[azda]

I know that 1867 shillings are pretty scarce, but this one seems a bit much. Especially as it is not the rare S.3906A that it claims to be. It is the more usual S.3905 type A4 second head.

1867 shilling

Might be worth it if you knock a zero off the £1100 asking price.

The A4 type doesn't have an inverted axis, if you look at his 3rd picture taken in the mirror his die axis is inverted

[Nick]

The A4 type doesn't have an inverted axis, if you look at his 3rd picture taken in the mirror his die axis is inverted

As far as I'm aware, all type A4 shillings are usually die axis inverted. I know that the 2011 Spink catalogue shows otherwise, although it was correct in the 2010 edition.