Test Jump to content
The British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

Ebay's Worst Offerings

kuhli

By kuhli
in Free for all

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 11.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

PWA 1967
PWA 1967

Yes i use gloves to photograph mine.  

Diaconis
Diaconis

Here's a reply she sent to me last week when I suggested that she be careful not to give it away as it is an extremely valuable coin.   "Hello im not going to give it away I don't have to se

bagerap
bagerap

There's an area of Bournemouth called Boscombe which boasts around 10 "antique" shops, although the majority are selling high end tat. I visit one regularly because he knows nothing about medals and i

Posted Images

declanwmagee Newbie

declanwmagee

Posted
Posted

Cracking coin. I've been happy with the seller too, in the past. I'd bid £25 or so on that 1926 ME.

£41 so far.. :blink: That's over Spink's BU price! (2012)

Nick Newbie

Nick

Posted
Posted

And you know who "stampinvestor" is really, don't you?

Roy "1864 florin" ...

Indeed. I wish that eBay would provide a better way to exclude certain sellers (and private listings) from search results. I'd rather not see their tat full stop.

rpeddie Newbie

rpeddie

Posted
Posted

that guy a well known scammer or bad seller? or the total opposite? the more i know the better :)

Nick Newbie

Nick

Posted
Posted

that guy a well known scammer or bad seller? or the total opposite? the more i know the better :)

If you look at the thread about the 1864 florin fakes (in "Members only" section) you can make your own mind up.

Peter Newbie

Peter

Posted
Posted

that guy a well known scammer or bad seller? or the total opposite? the more i know the better :)

There are a couple of user names from Cornwall who have been named and shamed...plus their shill buddies.

Peckris Newbie

Peckris

Posted
Posted

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

Nick Newbie

Nick

Posted
Posted

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade.

Coinery Newbie

Coinery

Posted
Posted

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

And what about the reverses of the 1920 penny, does Britannia's bodice exist anywhere in a well struck-up state?

Peckris Newbie

Peckris

Posted
Posted

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade.

I can make out a complete eyebrow, but it certainly isn't better than EF I'd say. On the other hand I always distrust 'blown up' photos as they magnify any little tiny flaws and make them seem like horror stories which they wouldn't in hand.

And what about the reverses of the 1920 penny, does Britannia's bodice exist anywhere in a well struck-up state?

That's a well-known issue - the reverses of George V before 1921/2 are notoriously affected by the high relief of the obverse portrait 'sucking' metal away from the reverse (and causing 'ghosting' too). This is especially true where the reverse rims don't protect the design properly (pennies & halfpennies) or the reverse design is too shallow compared to the obverse (shillings, and to a less extent, sixpences). Where there are strong reverse rims and a strong reverse design - halfcrowns - you don't see the ghosting or weakly struck reverses. Interestingly, the 'recessed ear' 1915/16 pennies usually have Britannia fully struck up, so why the Mint didn't persist with the experiment further is a bit baffling.

Coinery Newbie

Coinery

Posted
Posted

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade.

I can make out a complete eyebrow, but it certainly isn't better than EF I'd say. On the other hand I always distrust 'blown up' photos as they magnify any little tiny flaws and make them seem like horror stories which they wouldn't in hand.

And what about the reverses of the 1920 penny, does Britannia's bodice exist anywhere in a well struck-up state?

That's a well-known issue - the reverses of George V before 1921/2 are notoriously affected by the high relief of the obverse portrait 'sucking' metal away from the reverse (and causing 'ghosting' too). This is especially true where the reverse rims don't protect the design properly (pennies & halfpennies) or the reverse design is too shallow compared to the obverse (shillings, and to a less extent, sixpences). Where there are strong reverse rims and a strong reverse design - halfcrowns - you don't see the ghosting or weakly struck reverses. Interestingly, the 'recessed ear' 1915/16 pennies usually have Britannia fully struck up, so why the Mint didn't persist with the experiment further is a bit baffling.

So did ANY, say 1920 pennies for example, get through unscathed, or would I be wasting my time looking for one?

Peckris Newbie

Peckris

Posted
Posted

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade.

I can make out a complete eyebrow, but it certainly isn't better than EF I'd say. On the other hand I always distrust 'blown up' photos as they magnify any little tiny flaws and make them seem like horror stories which they wouldn't in hand.

And what about the reverses of the 1920 penny, does Britannia's bodice exist anywhere in a well struck-up state?

That's a well-known issue - the reverses of George V before 1921/2 are notoriously affected by the high relief of the obverse portrait 'sucking' metal away from the reverse (and causing 'ghosting' too). This is especially true where the reverse rims don't protect the design properly (pennies & halfpennies) or the reverse design is too shallow compared to the obverse (shillings, and to a less extent, sixpences). Where there are strong reverse rims and a strong reverse design - halfcrowns - you don't see the ghosting or weakly struck reverses. Interestingly, the 'recessed ear' 1915/16 pennies usually have Britannia fully struck up, so why the Mint didn't persist with the experiment further is a bit baffling.

So did ANY, say 1920 pennies for example, get through unscathed, or would I be wasting my time looking for one?

Oh yes, the strike is not invariable. There are always cases where the obverse hasn't 'sucked' out too much metal and Britannia looks more or less ok. Especially if a new reverse die is in use but the obverse die has seen some use. You might have quite a search though.

Nick Newbie

Nick

Posted
Posted

I started to write a message to this guy pointing out the error of his ways, but then I though that would being cruel.

Sun grasses please

I like the typo in the description. "balzing" is definitely a good way of describing that monstrosity.

Paulus Newbie

Paulus

Posted
Posted

Here's an amusing one:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Battle-of-Trafalgar-2005-Commemorative-Crown-/200882237509?pt=UK_Coins_BritishComm_RL&hash=item2ec583b045&nma=true&si=lwoW94bIzNFaHgBs%252BW1cUSuae4I%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

The seller has sold silver proofs in the past and has described them as such, but in this instance described the item as an unwanted gift and made no mention of it being the gold proof edition, as described on the box, and offering recorded delivery only. The bidding sat at £30 with seconds to go and I decided to take a punt at just over a hundred, thinking that if I didn't get the hoped for bargain I could always return it as 'not as described'.

Anyway a sniper nabbed it for just over £525, so someone either got a bargain (the gold proof would be worth double that in bullion) or will be entering into some interesting discussions with the seller! Weird one.

Nick Newbie

Nick

Posted
Posted

Here's an amusing one:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Battle-of-Trafalgar-2005-Commemorative-Crown-/200882237509?pt=UK_Coins_BritishComm_RL&hash=item2ec583b045&nma=true&si=lwoW94bIzNFaHgBs%252BW1cUSuae4I%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

The seller has sold silver proofs in the past and has described them as such, but in this instance described the item as an unwanted gift and made no mention of it being the gold proof edition, as described on the box, and offering recorded delivery only. The bidding sat at £30 with seconds to go and I decided to take a punt at just over a hundred, thinking that if I didn't get the hoped for bargain I could always return it as 'not as described'.

Anyway a sniper nabbed it for just over £525, so someone either got a bargain (the gold proof would be worth double that in bullion) or will be entering into some interesting discussions with the seller! Weird one.

I wish somebody would buy me 'unwanted' gifts like that. :D

Paulus Newbie

Paulus

Posted
Posted

Here's an amusing one:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Battle-of-Trafalgar-2005-Commemorative-Crown-/200882237509?pt=UK_Coins_BritishComm_RL&hash=item2ec583b045&nma=true&si=lwoW94bIzNFaHgBs%252BW1cUSuae4I%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

The seller has sold silver proofs in the past and has described them as such, but in this instance described the item as an unwanted gift and made no mention of it being the gold proof edition, as described on the box, and offering recorded delivery only. The bidding sat at £30 with seconds to go and I decided to take a punt at just over a hundred, thinking that if I didn't get the hoped for bargain I could always return it as 'not as described'.

Anyway a sniper nabbed it for just over £525, so someone either got a bargain (the gold proof would be worth double that in bullion) or will be entering into some interesting discussions with the seller! Weird one.

I wish somebody would buy me 'unwanted' gifts like that. :D

Indeed, it would have cost a pretty penny if genuine, really is a strange one, I shall look out for feedback!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing





×
×
  • Create New...
Test