Ebay's Worst Offerings

[Ukstu]

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CHARLES-I-SILVER-SHILLING-TOWER-MINT-UNDER-THE-KING-MM-PLUME-1630-1/292318084489

Reported! Take a look at his others . I don't like that Lizzie 6d at all it looks mushy. Emailed him about the above coin just to let him know it's a rep as he may not be aware. Could be genuine mistake as he mentions the R in the listing.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Ukstu

[hibernianscribe]

5 hours ago, Ukstu said:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CHARLES-I-SILVER-SHILLING-TOWER-MINT-UNDER-THE-KING-MM-PLUME-1630-1/292318084489

Reported! Take a look at his others . I don't like that Lizzie 6d at all it looks mushy. Emailed him about the above coin just to let him know it's a rep as he may not be aware. Could be genuine mistake as he mentions the R in the listing.

I notice he's pulled it - did you have a dialogue with him? Mind you, it's more difficult to call on his other stuff.

[zookeeperz]

1 hour ago, hibernianscribe said:

I notice he's pulled it - did you have a dialogue with him? Mind you, it's more difficult to call on his other stuff.

Difference between Guaranteed Genuine and R "old collectors mark" what is one of those when it's @ home  R for Replica I am surprised it never crossed his mind? But at least he pulled it @Ukstu Good job sir

Edited November 5, 2017 by zookeeperz

[zookeeperz]

Too many of these listing with ridiculous claims. "Hey matey Look at the feet one curls in one curls out that should be enough to tell you the both cannot be an R. Try broken B it's the honest claim"

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1817-George-III-Silver-Shilling-RRITT-Error/172924742263

[declan03]

I never knew there were any RRITT errors of this 1817 shilling. But with my limited knowledge on coins, i may well be wrong. So if his claim is correct,  this would make this coin quite an expensive purchase, not £15.

[Rob]

The RRITT 1817 shilling has always been considered a filled or broken B. I don't consider it a case of him making an unreasonable claim, rather a case of the wrong attribution having become accepted fact by virtue of the description, because collectors are the source of many 'errors'. It's no different to say a missing something which are clearly die fill and certainly not engraved on purpose. Pemember the 2005 £2?

Edited November 5, 2017 by Rob

[Unwilling Numismatist]

I'd be happy its a fair listinng, and price. There is another currently at £3 odd and some others from 75, 100 and more on there.

 

[zookeeperz]

1 hour ago, Unwilling Numismatist said:

I'd be happy its a fair listinng, and price. There is another currently at £3 odd and some others from 75, 100 and more on there.

 

That was only an example . I could of used the £100 one but that was early up in the order and by the time I saw the tenth rrit error that guys was just to link the sales pitch. The thing is 

 

1 hour ago, Rob said:

The RRITT 1817 shilling has always been considered a filled or broken B. I don't consider it a case of him making an unreasonable claim, rather a case of the wrong attribution having become accepted fact by virtue of the description, because collectors are the source of many 'errors'. It's no different to say a missing something which are clearly die fill and certainly not engraved on purpose. Pemember the 2005 £2?

But is there a genuine RRIT error or is that the classification for the 1817 Shilling because if I look for the RRIT I would look straight past those?

[zookeeperz]

2 hours ago, Rob said:

The RRITT 1817 shilling has always been considered a filled or broken B. I don't consider it a case of him making an unreasonable claim, rather a case of the wrong attribution having become accepted fact by virtue of the description, because collectors are the source of many 'errors'. It's no different to say a missing something which are clearly die fill and certainly not engraved on purpose. Pemember the 2005 £2?

Actually by all accounts the RM stated that the Pemember coin was not an error the  right leg downstroke of the R was masked by the reeding . Strange though that only this coin was chosen to be published. If you look at all the early silver Charles II most of the coins are of that type either standard B with the bottom or the top missing.Yet none of those were chosen for publication as an error type designated  as RR for BR or inverted RR for BR? Unless I missed anything thumbing through. But I understand the premise with F. being a broken E but yeas it does look like an F. Unbarred A or inverted V's look as the description I just feel that this particular error because of the way R,s are made doesn't really hold as much validity . It is the pretender to the throne error

 

[Unwilling Numismatist]

I agree, it's not an "error", it's a malfunction. It's definitely not in the same league as the later Vicky B/R RITT examples.

[Ukstu]

6 hours ago, hibernianscribe said:

I notice he's pulled it - did you have a dialogue with him? Mind you, it's more difficult to call on his other stuff.

Yes here's his response

Thank you very much for bringing this matter to my attention!

Although the item does look authentic to me, i.e., surface pitting, double strike, edge etc., and even it was bought some time ago from an e-bay seller with a good profile, I take your point and have just removed the item from sales. I shall give it another think and try to find more info on the forgery network. 

Kindest regards,
Alex

[zookeeperz]

2 hours ago, Ukstu said:

Yes here's his response

Thank you very much for bringing this matter to my attention!

Although the item does look authentic to me, i.e., surface pitting, double strike, edge etc., and even it was bought some time ago from an e-bay seller with a good profile, I take your point and have just removed the item from sales. I shall give it another think and try to find more info on the forgery network. 

Kindest regards,
Alex

Kudos to him fair play. Really that is all anyone wants especially when they don't realise what they have. Better than the standard GFY you normally face 

[Ukstu]

Hats off to him. I messaged him back and thanked him for pulling it. At least we know it's gone for now. I think forgery.net will second my opinion also so that should put his mind at rest and hopefully he won't relist it. 

[declan03]

Hi Stu.

I went to have a look at the forgery.net website and it said the domain with up for sale.

[Ukstu]

24 minutes ago, declan03 said:

Hi Stu.

I went to have a look at the forgery.net website and it said the domain with up for sale.

Really. I just googled it and couldn't find it either. I know it did exist previously because I've viewed it before. It wasn't very good because it relied on ordinary folk to submit coins they thought were fakes. I should of told him to post it on here for a second opinion. 

[jelida]

This one could catch some-one out. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bun-Head-Penny-1860-Beaded/122793415080?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

I did a double take, before I realised it couldn’t exist. He also has an impossible 1870 penny, which does clarify the situation. ?

Jerry

PS I see he has now corrected the listing, shame, I was hoping for a bit of fun.

Edited November 5, 2017 by jelida

[declan03]

Hi Jerry.

Could you elaborate for us beginners by what you mean by it couldn't exist? Am i missing something obvious?  Apart from the uneven wear except for the date which is clear as day, i cannot see anything wrong with it make me suspicious, although i wouldn't pay a penny for it.  Why duplicate such a bad copy?

Thanks. 

[Ukstu]

Another bloody one! Reported it!. Getting fed up of seeing these now. 

https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/hammered-coins/162738646034

[jelida]

 

5 minutes ago, declan03 said:

Hi Jerry.

Could you elaborate for us beginners by what you mean by it couldn't exist? Am i missing something obvious?  Apart from the uneven wear except for the date which is clear as day, i cannot see anything wrong with it make me suspicious, although i wouldn't pay a penny for it.  Why duplicate such a bad copy?

Thanks. 

The first images he showed were of an 1860 mule toothed/ beaded penny, but the obverse was Freeman G, which wasn’t used until 1861. He had obviously mixed his images. In fact his 1870 had the beaded obverse. He has now been informed, and added the correct obverse image. He did meantime get a couple of bidders though.

A bit of a penny thing.

Did anyone see the F103 1881H early obverse penny that was on the bay last night, but pulled this morning, and sold (still much too cheaply) as a bin, presumably after behind the scenes discussions? I am going to have to start doing this, I have seen a couple of real rarities pulled in this way recently.

Jerry

[1949threepence]

8 minutes ago, jelida said:

 

The first images he showed were of an 1860 mule toothed/ beaded penny, but the obverse was Freeman G, which wasn’t used until 1861. He had obviously mixed his images. In fact his 1870 had the beaded obverse. He has now been informed, and added the correct obverse image. He did meantime get a couple of bidders though.

A bit of a penny thing.

Did anyone see the F103 1881H early obverse penny that was on the bay last night, but pulled this morning, and sold (still much too cheaply) as a bin, presumably after behind the scenes discussions? I am going to have to start doing this, I have seen a couple of real rarities pulled in this way recently.

Jerry

No, missed that one completely. What did it go for, and what state was it in?

[jelida]

2 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

No, missed that one completely. What did it go for, and what state was it in?

Really not too bad, approaching fine. Would have bid into four figures, so a little peeved. He did have a reasonable offer by the look of it though, as it was sold as a bin at £500. Making bin offers to these auctions seems  to have become endemic, I think I have to join the crowd.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GB-1D-1881H-VICTORIA-BUN-COPPER-47C-BY-COINMOUNTAIN-/382268761123?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=B5h3PvKqT3%252FWuBUFtwQ%252Fe7T12A0%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Jerry

 

[1949threepence]

57 minutes ago, jelida said:

Really not too bad, approaching fine. Would have bid into four figures, so a little peeved. He did have a reasonable offer by the look of it though, as it was sold as a bin at £500. Making bin offers to these auctions seems  to have become endemic, I think I have to join the crowd.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GB-1D-1881H-VICTORIA-BUN-COPPER-47C-BY-COINMOUNTAIN-/382268761123?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=B5h3PvKqT3%252FWuBUFtwQ%252Fe7T12A0%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Jerry

 

Yes, nice. Incredibly rare. I see it's on Richard's rarest penny site.

The one which was sold at the LCA in March this year, went for £750 hammer, but it wasn't as nice as that one. 

I'd have gone to £1500 for that, given how difficult they are to come by.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by 1949threepence

[declan03]

Not for us beginners. Way over my head Jerry!! I would have taken a fiver for it. Thats why it pays to know your stuff i suppose.☺

[mrbadexample]

Referring to Richard's site, he says that it's "distinguishable by there being only 5 border teeth from the upright of the R to the top of the I in VICTORIA".

How was example 6 identified please? https://rarestpennies.wordpress.com/1881h-f103/

[zookeeperz]

2 hours ago, jelida said:

 

The first images he showed were of an 1860 mule toothed/ beaded penny, but the obverse was Freeman G, which wasn’t used until 1861. He had obviously mixed his images. In fact his 1870 had the beaded obverse. He has now been informed, and added the correct obverse image. He did meantime get a couple of bidders though.

A bit of a penny thing.

Did anyone see the F103 1881H early obverse penny that was on the bay last night, but pulled this morning, and sold (still much too cheaply) as a bin, presumably after behind the scenes discussions? I am going to have to start doing this, I have seen a couple of real rarities pulled in this way recently.

Jerry

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I was waiting for that lmao. Bloody snipers