Ebay's Worst Offerings

[Martinminerva 293]

On 2/2/2024 at 12:29 PM, blakeyboy said:

This 1849 would fool me- how can you tell is a wrong 'un?

The date digits are not quite in the correct font. True for all of these copies (probably to do with how the dies have been CAD generated, I guess, as these are not pressure casts from genuine coins, thus the discrepancies with border beads and bust details). Worth adding that info to your page, Richard??

[secret santa 2,136]

6 hours ago, Martinminerva said:

The date digits are not quite in the correct font.

Thanks Martin - I'll take a detailed look at all the replica dates and add that information.

[Rob 3,106]

Not necessarily a worst offering, just mis-described by NGC and the vendor has followed suit.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/126326106682?itmmeta=01HPP1PAKM29E6B28M1EVHGG5E&hash=item1d699f6a3a:g:NV4AAOSw2tZlxS33&itmprp=enc%3AAQAIAAAAsLKd0l82XvnuaGrzJO%2FHcJBV3x52qzjv7EFUyGtuDfrY3BiF%2BgCLs%2F0oAPx%2Fn0SCC3RYgwRYFrRUDPMG%2FjfGZzu2ShMHdF58OPVYNlD%2BPndD4YGTqM7lC1YVglfmlKPDqzbdsYoAG6L1bd3CV68Ofczf280EJOyzDBDpNBXB5YeOESC2tfazyh2oR4M4VNnnR8bnBs8D5P1Ga873l60L2fb0i9cBE9XtVSCS1gVpihmJ|tkp%3ABk9SR_6p2cG1Yw

I have messaged him might be worth others doing so too.

 

Makes the blurb with the listing pretty redundant. I wonder what the real numbers are? Bet there are errors both ways with a few mules thrown in to cover bases.

Full sharp UNC details and fully Satiny Lustrous. Very scarce "Beaded Border" variety and of the only 26 known by the major grading services only 1 graded higher!!!

Edited February 15 by Rob

[Paddy 1,617]

I messaged him too and have just had a reply acknowledging the error and saying he was cancelling the listing.

I see it has now been ended - fair does.

[jelida 1,243]

1 hour ago, Paddy said:

I messaged him too and have just had a reply acknowledging the error and saying he was cancelling the listing.

I see it has now been ended - fair does.

Likewise, so job done. He did say it didn’t look like a beaded to him either; perhaps a little more research would have been in order, but his response is fair and honest;  I dare say we all make mistakes. 😮

Jerry

[Martinminerva 293]

On 2/15/2024 at 10:13 AM, Martinminerva said:

On 2/2/2024 at 12:29 PM, blakeyboy said:

This 1849 would fool me- how can you tell is a wrong 'un?

The date digits are not quite in the correct font.

Here's a close up of another COPY 1849 in un-doctored condition. The digits are just not "quite right" - hard to explain, but clear if compared to a genuine specimen. Also, I've noticed the small WW on the truncation are also the wrong font (and a bit too big).

 

Edited February 18 by Martinminerva
Additions.

[alfnail 811]

Here is a date close up on a genuine coin, which shows spacing compared to the above coin.

There are a few different date styles on 1849 pennies but, to my knowledge, all of them have a numeral 9 with a different font to that seen on the fakes. The top loop on the genuine coins are always more oval (elongated) shaped, whereas the fakes are circular. This is probably the easiest way to spot the fake.

Also, on genuine coins I believe that the 1 is always over an underneath 1 (to a greater or lesser extent, as more than one die like that), and sometimes the 4 is over an underneath 4.

The 4 itself is also different (but not so easy to spot) in that genuine coins still have a small part remaining of the tail pointing upwards.

The attached picture demonstrates some of these features

 

  

[terrysoldpennies 733]

The one thing I have noticed that seems to be present on all genuine Victorian copper pennies, is the wider tooth under the 4 in the date , which shows up very nicely on your Picture  Jerry oops make that Ian 😁

Edited February 19 by terrysoldpennies

[secret santa 2,136]

Yes, none of the fake copper coins have that wider tooth under the date. Their teeth are incredibly uniform.

[Bruce 176]

7 hours ago, secret santa said:

Yes, none of the fake copper coins have that wider tooth under the date. Their teeth are incredibly uniform.

 

9 hours ago, terrysoldpennies said:

The one thing I have noticed that seems to be present on all genuine Victorian copper pennies, is the wider tooth under the 4 in the date , which shows up very nicely on your Picture  Jerry oops make that Ian 😁

Lucky that we can still have something to easily differentiate the fake at this moment.

[SilverAge3 57]

For now, but as stated by blakeyboy, I also still might easily have fallen for that. Stinks that the fakes are getting shrewd.

[SilverAge3 57]

On 2/15/2024 at 3:51 PM, Rob said:

Not necessarily a worst offering, just mis-described by NGC and the vendor has followed suit.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/126326106682?itmmeta=01HPP1PAKM29E6B28M1EVHGG5E&hash=item1d699f6a3a:g:NV4AAOSw2tZlxS33&itmprp=enc%3AAQAIAAAAsLKd0l82XvnuaGrzJO%2FHcJBV3x52qzjv7EFUyGtuDfrY3BiF%2BgCLs%2F0oAPx%2Fn0SCC3RYgwRYFrRUDPMG%2FjfGZzu2ShMHdF58OPVYNlD%2BPndD4YGTqM7lC1YVglfmlKPDqzbdsYoAG6L1bd3CV68Ofczf280EJOyzDBDpNBXB5YeOESC2tfazyh2oR4M4VNnnR8bnBs8D5P1Ga873l60L2fb0i9cBE9XtVSCS1gVpihmJ|tkp%3ABk9SR_6p2cG1Yw

I have messaged him might be worth others doing so too.

 

Makes the blurb with the listing pretty redundant. I wonder what the real numbers are? Bet there are errors both ways with a few mules thrown in to cover bases.

Full sharp UNC details and fully Satiny Lustrous. Very scarce "Beaded Border" variety and of the only 26 known by the major grading services only 1 graded higher!!!

I just made a thread on ngc screwing up the 1897 low tide designation, so badly that the only slabbed examples in ebay are both incorrectly attributed. this also isn't the only time I've seen incorrect 'beaded' or low/high tide on labels. Even more aggravating is it's an additional cost for variety designations. What a sick joke.

[Rob 3,106]

The problem is that if you mention it in the US, which is the main market, you either get pilloried for questioning the system, or completely ignored so as not to rock the boat. The US is too heavily invested in the label culture for many to raise a finger - and so standards change. TPGs have 'special knowledge' that allows them to get away with things nobody else is. Many things are incorrectly attributed, so all you can do is make sure you understand your field and exploit their mistakes. Anything cleaned which isn't will usually bring a good bonus. Anything repaired but passed as a straight grade will bring a good bonus when it shouldn't. 

It is well known they have variable standards across the board. In terms of British coins they are from 6 figure coins downwards. Norweb's Petition Crown has been noted as having initials and a date scratched in the obverse field for at least 170 years and in my view was pierced, or an attempted piercing made and subsequently filled. Graffiti has been nearly polished out, but anyone with any knowledge will know this. It didn't stop the TPG giving it an AU53. Presumably the large fee for grading outstripped the details fee? 

[SilverAge3 57]

Oh, especially because w/ the high priced coins the grading price hinges on a percentage of retail price estimate, it's not just a flat fee. Gee, wonder if there's room for insincere grades, and 'missing' cleanings, etc?

[Rob 3,106]

2 hours ago, SilverAge3 said:

Oh, especially because w/ the high priced coins the grading price hinges on a percentage of retail price estimate, it's not just a flat fee. Gee, wonder if there's room for insincere grades, and 'missing' cleanings, etc?

Unquestionably.

A gold halfpenny formerly in my possession had a large scuff to the cheek which was subsequently filled and magically achieved a proof 64 cameo grade 6 months after I sold it. It sounds better and sells better than unc details damaged, and adds to the TPG coffers.  

And it cost the US buyer in excess of $30K in 2010, but hey, he was happy as it had been certified as genuine and not tampered with. Doubles all round - everyone's happy.

If they are going to have variable standards for certain high price items, it would help their reputation if they introduced a special label to reflect that.

[secret santa 2,136]

There is a penny on Ebay claiming to be a 1922 F192A (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/315165500518?itmmeta=01HQ4BZS9A4NM7ZVFA9MG6MAZ0&hash=item496153e466:g:y9gAAOSwvNFl04mN&itmprp=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4N7kipPiTz0BCXQMgWC6iSMHj%2F5zvSQuQxWjY2cu6yNpjIZ%2F525P%2FMzwhnjKHRdVzwKOh6%2FxD6k4m96TMefoC3i%2FZ2un8azd78R6UEDf2IuGAYr0HhlODfACMlsManI4g1BRVpGQ5Sq39AMYB3bjQ5wmJK2xzvaT1gCcKIVsvA3uVJ8yJrk51DdWtXHwbQQI8xiym02pABGTJhbO165Zxo9HC4Zs5OB9xVhJ%2FunFcmFvno8bmwJUwd9jETHNc%2Bywt3%2Bkx7mF%2BLRWFiUYuLO2T%2FUNKhZ%2F9BZwQh8JWTUektfo|tkp%3ABk9SR96U_4u5Yw

but is the same reverse (same photo actually) as the coin sold by London Coins in September 2019 but with a different obverse photo - different colour, different background !!!!!!!!! (https://londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&searchterm=1922+Penny&searchtype=1)

I smell a rat.

Edited February 21 by secret santa
addition

[Martinminerva 293]

I smell a huge rat too.  He changed the rev. picture on 19th Feb according to the listing revisions - previously it was a normal early rev penny. But neither rev goes with his given obverse - that's a modified effigy, if I am not mistaken. Methinks he has been "borrowing" pictures from anywhere he can get them. And with a feedback only of 8 (and all in the last month), any bidder must surely be a fool to go with it. But already 13 bids and price of £310 with a few hours left to go.  But as we saw with that other seller recently selling "worn" Viccy copper pennies including an "1839 proof" and an "1860 over 59", and subsequent positive feedback from satisfied (but of course, utterly ignorant) buyers, there are an awful lot of fools out there.  Worth reporting this one??

Edited February 21 by Martinminerva
Additions.

[terrysoldpennies 733]

That coin has the modified head found on the 1926 ME and on the 1927 ?

[secret santa 2,136]

30 minutes ago, terrysoldpennies said:

That coin has the modified head found on the 1926 ME and on the 1927 ?

Yes, I got really excited last night when I saw it - a new die pairing !

Too good to be true, sadly.

[Martinminerva 293]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

but is the same reverse (same photo actually) as the coin sold by London Coins in September 2019

Although in the seller's blurb he says: "Perfect specimens sell for 3000 pounds this is not perfect it's a circulated 102 Yr coin not cleaned not kept in a case a find in a large sack of coins."

Maybe a sack of coins fell off the back of LCA's lorry... 😉 

The rat smells ever more pungent!

[secret santa 2,136]

I emailed the seller earlier. It makes interesting reading:

Me: Can you confirm that the obverse photograph is of the same coin as the reverse photograph ? They are a different colour and taken with different backgrounds.
Thanks

Him: It's the same I have a crappie phone all my items I removed because I take hundreds photos. I already sent a video to a lady and I did polish the front with a silver jewllery cloth. The lady offered to buy it off here last night need to remove it but ebay got massive fees

Me: You've been rumbled - That reverse photo is taken from London Coins website directly ! And who knows where the obverse is from.
Best to take it down before you're in trouble

Him: Well I've a video so no rumbled here lol I was asked for a live video which I sent the buyer they are happy and will be buying I've never once lied cheated so the fact you say that tells me your probably a scammer.

Anyone could ask me for as msy photos videos with today's news on and they'd have it no problem. Seems a smart lady dealer was the only one so watch for the review after. And I've found a buyer for the rest of the collection too. you'll see the other penny also the one I was told wasn't real thank god I don't listen

[Martinminerva 293]

There used to be a way of reporting an item to ebay for plagiarised pictures, I think.

The illiteracy of both his listing and his email to you reminds me of a certain marleybob and her numerous 1933 pennies!!

Current high (and repeat) bidder has a feedback of just 1.  Shill bidding going on??

[secret santa 2,136]

Sold for £450 (maybe ?)

[Martinminerva 293]

3 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Sold for £450 (maybe ?)

Which is nothing like enough for a genuine coin/sale. The "bidder" with 1 feedback "won" it.  What chance we see it again at some point in the future with similar cock and bull accompanying...? 😀

Edited February 21 by Martinminerva

[Kipster 194]

I hope it went to the shill and not a genuine bidder. Big red flags all over the place with this seller looking at his response.