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

Rob Newbie

Rob

Posted
Posted
Seeing is believing, but perhaps not in this case....

Threepence auction

Up for sale once again (or still) -- at a new lower price...

a second chance

He must have some real gems. It is only 1mm thick instead of the normal 2mm. Perhaps someone should email him and point out that even his 2mm coin(s) are rare - so get it/them listed NOW!. Sadly, all my 3d's are 2.75mm thick. :(

HistoricCoinage Newbie

HistoricCoinage

Posted
Posted
take a look at this on sale on ebay

and i thought i was new to this

the listing is 1885

the description 1889

the coin looks to be 1886

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1885-Victoria-gold-f...bayphotohosting

take a look at this on sale on ebay

and i thought i was new to this

the listing is 1885

the description 1889

the coin looks to be 1886

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1885-Victoria-gold-f...bayphotohosting

The coins looks to be dated 1885.

is this the same coin ????

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...52BSI%26otn%3D4

No, this looks to be dated 1880.

Rob Newbie

Rob

Posted
Posted
take a look at this on sale on ebay

and i thought i was new to this

the listing is 1885

the description 1889

the coin looks to be 1886

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1885-Victoria-gold-f...bayphotohosting

take a look at this on sale on ebay

and i thought i was new to this

the listing is 1885

the description 1889

the coin looks to be 1886

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1885-Victoria-gold-f...bayphotohosting

The coins looks to be dated 1885.

is this the same coin ????

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...52BSI%26otn%3D4

No, this looks to be dated 1880.

And the first one is dated 1885. One is Melbourne, the other Sydney. The letters below the bust are clear. Both obverses are similarly not very good though, so I had to do a double take on them to be sure.

  • 3 weeks later...
Red Riley Newbie

Red Riley

Posted
Posted
An Early "George" III Crown

:lol:

It certainly is an "Early" George III Crown!

I have to say I feel a tad sorry for the guy. Other pointers seem to indicate that he has some idea of what he's doing - just lost the plot at the crucial moment.

Gary D Newbie

Gary D

Posted
Posted (edited)

Can I have some of what this guy is on :o

How much!!!!!

Firstly I don't believe a PR65 is a VIP issue and if so I'd better put my PR67 back in it's slab, must be worth some serious bucks.

Edited by Gary D
DaveG38 Newbie

DaveG38

Posted
Posted
Can I have some of what this guy is on :o

How much!!!!!

Firstly I don't believe a PR65 is a VIP issue and if so I'd better put my PR67 back in it's slab, must be worth some serious bucks.

Gary,

This is a subject I brought up many years ago, when the Royal Mint ran a forum, but then closed it never to reopen when some idiot started posting all sorts of rubbish on it. I have a 1937 proof set, the coins of which I understand to be standard proofs i.e. polished finish all over and not cameoed (not sure if this is a word!). The crown in my set is exactly like this one, i.e. it has frosted devices, as has the Scottish shilling, unlike all the other coins. I tried getting an explanation for this, but opinion on the forum was divided over whether mine was a VIP proof or whether it was a fact that the early proofs were cameo and as the dies wore, the effect was gradually being lost. I don't personally buy this latter explanation but have never been able to figure why my set has a combination of two styles, unless, of course, it was a re-constituted one. However, this would still imply that the mint was producing both standard and cameo coins at the same time.

Anybody got any ideas?

DaveG38

Rob Newbie

Rob

Posted
Posted
Can I have some of what this guy is on :o

How much!!!!!

Firstly I don't believe a PR65 is a VIP issue and if so I'd better put my PR67 back in it's slab, must be worth some serious bucks.

Gary,

This is a subject I brought up many years ago, when the Royal Mint ran a forum, but then closed it never to reopen when some idiot started posting all sorts of rubbish on it. I have a 1937 proof set, the coins of which I understand to be standard proofs i.e. polished finish all over and not cameoed (not sure if this is a word!). The crown in my set is exactly like this one, i.e. it has frosted devices, as has the Scottish shilling, unlike all the other coins. I tried getting an explanation for this, but opinion on the forum was divided over whether mine was a VIP proof or whether it was a fact that the early proofs were cameo and as the dies wore, the effect was gradually being lost. I don't personally buy this latter explanation but have never been able to figure why my set has a combination of two styles, unless, of course, it was a re-constituted one. However, this would still imply that the mint was producing both standard and cameo coins at the same time.

Anybody got any ideas?

DaveG38

A moot point. I am inclined to buy the frosted = early theory in general. VIP proofs can come in both frosted and unfrosted styles, so this feature is not specific to VIP proofs, nor is it an obligatory feature. I would suspect that for a year when there was a large issue of sets for the general public, a VIP set would be accompanied by a different box or some other notable feature. Human nature being what it is, VIPs tend to appeciate being identified and treated as such. Lot 187 in the April sale at DNW was a 1953 set in a roughly square box instead of the normal rectangular one and described as almost certainly a VIP presentation set. In the case of those years where no general issue sets were made, they must by definition be classified as VIP issues. Possibly it was a matter of chance whether the design was frosted or not, though there are notably more unfrosted examples amongst the smaller denominations and these seem to be the later issues.

Gary D Newbie

Gary D

Posted
Posted
Can I have some of what this guy is on :o

How much!!!!!

Firstly I don't believe a PR65 is a VIP issue and if so I'd better put my PR67 back in it's slab, must be worth some serious bucks.

Gary,

This is a subject I brought up many years ago, when the Royal Mint ran a forum, but then closed it never to reopen when some idiot started posting all sorts of rubbish on it. I have a 1937 proof set, the coins of which I understand to be standard proofs i.e. polished finish all over and not cameoed (not sure if this is a word!). The crown in my set is exactly like this one, i.e. it has frosted devices, as has the Scottish shilling, unlike all the other coins. I tried getting an explanation for this, but opinion on the forum was divided over whether mine was a VIP proof or whether it was a fact that the early proofs were cameo and as the dies wore, the effect was gradually being lost. I don't personally buy this latter explanation but have never been able to figure why my set has a combination of two styles, unless, of course, it was a re-constituted one. However, this would still imply that the mint was producing both standard and cameo coins at the same time.

Anybody got any ideas?

DaveG38

Dave,

My proof from a proof set is also frosted but by comparison to my PR67 which I beleive is a VIP, the frosting is not as distinct. Also little details are sharper such as the boarders around the shield. The proof has the occassional ding/roughness where as the VIP is perfect under the glass. The VIP books in Spink 2009 as £800 so I think the guy with the PR65 is being a tad over optimistic.

Gary

  • 2 weeks later...
Gary D Newbie

Gary D

Posted
Posted
wth? rare 2 p new pence 1971... 2 bids lol

link

The 20p seems to have set a trend, 2p are popping up all over. Everone seems to think that the words New Pence was an error, obviously from the 1983 mule.

Chris Perkins Grand Master

Chris Perkins

Posted
Posted

Yes, I've had lots of contact recently about the 20p and the NEW PENCE 2p's. And as ever, the public have got it all wrong and are trying to sell me normal 2p's with NEW PENCE on them that are not from 1983. Little bit annoying, I may as well make a recording and play it when people phone!

  • 4 weeks later...

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