Ebay's Worst Offerings

[Chris Perkins]

This has been brought to my attention recently as a fake:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...em=230360894117

Certainly looks a bit odd around the date, and the surfaces are odd too.

[Gary D]

This has been brought to my attention recently as a fake:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...em=230360894117

Certainly looks a bit odd around the date, and the surfaces are odd too.

The date numerals look a bit thin compared to the two I have, especially the loop of the 5

[Peckris]

This has been brought to my attention recently as a fake:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...em=230360894117

Certainly looks a bit odd around the date, and the surfaces are odd too.

The date numerals look a bit thin compared to the two I have, especially the loop of the 5

Yes, it's perfect in its design, but the field to the left of the lion looks especially suspect, and the 05 looks off colour too. Not to mention the suspicious flaking around the monarch's name. 1905 halfcrowns are especially notorious for forgeries, so no reason to suppose the shilling wouldn't also come in for 'treatment'.

Pity, it's a beautiful looking copy - but the current bid of £22 says it all really. That's maybe what I'd pay for a nice replica space filler too (if I'd had a drink or two...)

[Sylvester]

Please, PLEASE tell me that this one is a joke...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/UNDATED-20P-2008-ON-...alenotsupported

The amusing thing is this seller has been more honest than most, having put clear pictures of both sides up.

There's countless examples of 20p's with either just an obverse or reverse picture and the carefully worded 'no date on heads side' or 'no date on shield side'.

[Guest Purveyor_of_Fine_Coins]

This has been brought to my attention recently as a fake:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...em=230360894117

Certainly looks a bit odd around the date, and the surfaces are odd too.

The date numerals look a bit thin compared to the two I have, especially the loop of the 5

Yes, it's perfect in its design, but the field to the left of the lion looks especially suspect, and the 05 looks off colour too. Not to mention the suspicious flaking around the monarch's name. 1905 halfcrowns are especially notorious for forgeries, so no reason to suppose the shilling wouldn't also come in for 'treatment'.

Pity, it's a beautiful looking copy - but the current bid of £22 says it all really. That's maybe what I'd pay for a nice replica space filler too (if I'd had a drink or two...)

The 5 is clearly too high in relation to the 0. This is a 'tooled' coin and because of the damage is really only worth £2-£3 scrap value. The seller has been reported to eBay.

[Peckris]

The 5 is clearly too high in relation to the 0. This is a 'tooled' coin and because of the damage is really only worth £2-£3 scrap value. The seller has been reported to eBay.

That's a shame. The seller may have been in complete ignorance about this. It's the coin that should have been reported.

[Chris Perkins]

No, he wasn't. My sources tell me he'd sold it before for £370 and had it returned as a dodgy coin with a tooled '5'. He refunded the buyer then waited and has now listed it again. The original buyer and others have sent ebay messages to him, but last I saw it was still listed and still fraudelently described as a 1905. It is in fact a 1907.

[wybrit]

For your consideration is this auction from someone who is convinced that he has an undocumented rarity: an Elizabeth II piece dated 1952.

* The coin is so corroded that I doubt a SEM could discern the date.

* As best as I can tell, the positioning of "II" indicates that this is a post-1953 date (when BRITT : OMN was omitted).

* He must not have read the same letter for the Royal Mint that he has published in the auction.

* No return policy!!

Gee, there's nothing remotely wrong with this one, is there? Be steady, bidding finger!

[wybrit]

No, he wasn't. My sources tell me he'd sold it before for £370 and had it returned as a dodgy coin with a tooled '5'. He refunded the buyer then waited and has now listed it again. The original buyer and others have sent ebay messages to him, but last I saw it was still listed and still fraudelently described as a 1905. It is in fact a 1907.

Very nice catch. I just posted the results of your excellent detective work on CU as well. Everyone needs to know how the shillings are faked as well - it's just not as well known.

[Dg43]

For your consideration is this auction from someone who is convinced that he has an undocumented rarity: an Elizabeth II piece dated 1952.

He is certainly persistent, it has been listed and relisted for several months. Originally it was up for £15,000.00 - or best offer - unbelievably he had an offer!

[DaveG38]

For £500 I would want something a good deal clearer and better condition than this. Indeed, I paid less than this for my 1689 Halfpenny which is in better condition (and that isn't good!) and is a much more interesting coin than a threepenny bit.

[Peckris]

For £500 I would want something a good deal clearer and better condition than this. Indeed, I paid less than this for my 1689 Halfpenny which is in better condition (and that isn't good!) and is a much more interesting coin than a threepenny bit.

Would you buy ANY coin from someone who tells you that the "portrait of Queen Elizabeth" is "on the back" ??

As for the date - pffft - it's so obviously nineteen fifty squiggle. Doesn't everyone see that?

[scott]

that was up a few months ago

[wybrit]

For your consideration is this auction from someone who is convinced that he has an undocumented rarity: an Elizabeth II piece dated 1952.

He is certainly persistent, it has been listed and relisted for several months. Originally it was up for £15,000.00 - or best offer - unbelievably he had an offer!

Interesting. It's the first time I've seen it - maybe because I ignore brass 3ds nowadays. Not all the UK listings make it over to the US ebay site. In fact, it seems quite random at times.

[Coppers]

Anyone interested in a 3-digit penny with a four digit price?

Link

[Gary D]

It would be nice to see the other side, definitly not 1921, 1922now that would be interesting.

[Peckris]

It would be nice to see the other side, definitly not 1921, 1922now that would be interesting.

Pfft, the seller is not much of a detective. It couldn't be "1926,7,8 or 9" now could it? If it's the small mod effigy then it must be 1928 or 9, if it's the large mod effigy then it is most likely 1927 unless you're an optimist, and if it's the unmod effigy - break out the champagne !

[Gary D]

I asked him the question and it's definitly a ME. He put up the reverse for a short period but I didn't look close enough to see if it was small or large. My guess would be small. The problem with a lot of ebay pictures now is that you can't right click and save as.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Gary D

[1949threepence]

I asked him the question and it's definitly a ME. He put up the reverse for a short period but I didn't look close enough to see if it was small or large. My guess would be small. The problem with a lot of ebay pictures now is that you can't right click and save as.

No bids for it yet, I notice. Judging by the condition, which isn't too worn, I'd say it had to be either 1928 or 1929.

I wonder if it is a genuine anomaly, or if the last digit has been gouged off somehow ? Trouble is you probably wouldn't be able to tell until the coin was in your hand, and it isn't worth the risk.

It's suspicious that he added a picture of the obverse for a short time, then removed it again.

If you right click and "save picture as", which should be available on IE7, for example, you can place it in your "my pictures" folder, and then upload as an attachment to here, as I have done with the one above, which should give you a mild chuckle if you also look at this link where it is described as "almost mint" lol

I've not seen any where this is denied. Maybe it restricts the options on extra pics, for whatever reason.

Edited August 10, 2009 by 1949threepence

[Gary D]

Yes I don't know why he only put it up for a short time as he emailed me to tell me he had done it. I've notice that with the new style picture gallery that you often can't save from a right click. Sometimes it works and others it's not an available option. Couldn't be bothered to do a screen grab, wish I had now.

Gary

[Gary D]

Another fake halfcrown for sale

Link

[Peckris]

If you right click and "save picture as", which should be available on IE7, for example, you can place it in your "my pictures" folder, and then upload as an attachment to here, as I have done with the one above...

I've not seen any where this is denied. Maybe it restricts the options on extra pics, for whatever reason.

I think that's the point Gary is making. Not all pictures give you the option - when you right click there are only about two options available, neither of them Save As. I know something is wrong when I can't click and drag the picture onto my desktop, which in Safari I can do with any normal pictures.

Another fake halfcrown for sale

Link

Interesting - you're judging on the colour? In other respects it looks pretty good to me.

[Gary D]

If you right click and "save picture as", which should be available on IE7, for example, you can place it in your "my pictures" folder, and then upload as an attachment to here, as I have done with the one above...

I've not seen any where this is denied. Maybe it restricts the options on extra pics, for whatever reason.

I think that's the point Gary is making. Not all pictures give you the option - when you right click there are only about two options available, neither of them Save As. I know something is wrong when I can't click and drag the picture onto my desktop, which in Safari I can do with any normal pictures.

Another fake halfcrown for sale

Link

Interesting - you're judging on the colour? In other respects it looks pretty good to me.

If you look very closely at the R in EDWARDVS where the down stroke meets the loop there is a break in the loop. Both the fakes I own and have seen have this break.

[1949threepence]

Another fake halfcrown for sale

Link

Interesting - you're judging on the colour? In other respects it looks pretty good to me.

If you look very closely at the R in EDWARDVS where the down stroke meets the loop there is a break in the loop. Both the fakes I own and have seen have this break.

Yet the other R's seem OK.

What's the significance of the R in Edwardvs, that doesn't occur in the rest ? Why does this mark it as a fraud ?

[Gary D]

Another fake halfcrown for sale

Link

Interesting - you're judging on the colour? In other respects it looks pretty good to me.

If you look very closely at the R in EDWARDVS where the down stroke meets the loop there is a break in the loop. Both the fakes I own and have seen have this break.

Yet the other R's seem OK.

What's the significance of the R in Edwardvs, that doesn't occur in the rest ? Why does this mark it as a fraud ?

Perhap just wrongly jumping to conclusions but all of the known fakes I've seen have this broken R