damian1986 Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1658-English-one-shilling-coin-Oliver-Cromwell-c-1662-1816-/171635646066?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item27f6481e72This would ordinarily be added to eBay's worst offerings - read his description of the coin! Anyway, just wanted to take a poll of how much you all think this is worth? I'd prefer a clean example in fine. Answers on a postcard. Quote
Peter Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 If I was going to spend £4k on a coin couldn't live with that.It would be worth nothing to me....although there is a guy in the states who does brilliant repairs. Quote
Peter Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Google 1658 Cromwell shilling and see what they have been going through London Coins auctions.You can get a nice one for less than £1k the guy is deluded. Quote
azda Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Shame about the scratch, but you get pick up a problem free example for that price Quote
Colin88 Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I cant quite imagine Charles II with his Swiss army knife making that scratch....if you compare what ordinary people used to do to Phillip & Mary coins in anger in their day...they well and truly f+++ed them up.... Quote
Rob Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Interesting how he has said a 1658 coin is dated between 1662 and 1816. The Chinese must have been busy earlier than was previously thought. Quote
jacinbox Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 "but that's the story he was told when he bought it in 1938 just before the war for the princely price of £2.8s"Wow some money for that story. He fails to say how much was paid for the coin though!!!Free English lessons on the forum Quote
damian1986 Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) In this grade, without the gash, £2,000 to £3,000 I am thinking. Not many have gone through London Coins lately as far as I can see but just in general. Heritage, they seem to be a bit silly but then the halfcrowns that sold last month were round about £5,500 and they were nice and nicer shillings have sold for less. Though the Eric Newmann MS65-graded shilling sold for $10,000. Nice but actually I have seen better MS63s without the provenance. I figured with the gash it's worth less than £1,000 assuming it's genuine. Hadn't thought of repairs what do they cost? Because then maybe it's not so bad. But obviously not at 4 grand Retelling that story is an implicit attempted justification of the coin. And it seems everyone with a dodgy coin on eBay has had it in their collection for 30-odd years."OK so I know it's bullshit but there's an aura surrounding this coin and when placed in its historical context its a very interesting piece irrespective of the big f'king mark etched into his face" Edited February 2, 2015 by damian1986 Quote
scott Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 why would he gash the lip and not the neck? Quote
Paulus Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 why would he gash the lip and not the neck?Good point Quote
bagerap Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 A shilling with the same damage passed through my father's hands. I remember his bitter disappointment when it arrived, having been purchased through Exchange & Mart. Same one, can't tell. But for me to remember it, it would be between 1965 and his death in 67. Quote
TomGoodheart Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Meh ... I think it will depend on the coin and collector. For example years go I bought this: Not cheap, but reasonably scarce (I've see 11 others come up for sale in as many years) and an upgrade on what I had. I decided that the improvement to the grade was worth compromising on the dirty big dint and I could live with it. Then more recently I was browsing the digitised BNJs and found ... .. my coin! With the dint! In Grant Francis' 1918 article (which was used to classify Tower shillings up until Michael Sharp's comprehensive review of the series in the 1970s)! OK, it's still a coin with a dint. But it's a provenanced dint allowing me (well, Rob actually!) to track it back to the F A Walters collection sale of 1913 and forward to Lockett (Part IV). And to me, that makes a difference! . Edited February 3, 2015 by TomGoodheart 1 Quote
Rob Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I concur An early Royal Mint trial using steel (not cupro-nickel as listed in the Adams sale) with cancellation cuts as seen. Quote
TomGoodheart Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 As with the official piercings for early Great Recoinage pieces, in that case the damage is part of the history of the coin. Plus when you get into the realm of 'when will you possible get a chance to find another' .. . Quote
Sword Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I personally find the dint on the Charles I significantly easier to live with than the one on Cromwell. Sometimes I am annoyed with myself that I just can't help focussing on the worst part of of each coin in my procession (e.g. minor wear on key part of design, minor carbon spot or contact mark in field etc). I can't stand looking at that Cromwell. If I own it, I would either get it repaired or sell it immediately at any price I can get. Quote
scott Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 well if you buy it.. i'll give you a quid for it >.> 1 Quote
pokal02 Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Again, it's down to personal choice/availability. I had a 1746 crown in VF which had been mounted and had no visible edge legend. When I sold it it went for just under the price of an F which seemed about right - I'd rather have had it than a problem-free example in Fair, and F would have been close. Minor scratches I almost ignore (at any rate on pre-1800 coins) - if we are saying the Charles shilling with a scratch is GF, I'd possibly rather have it than an unscratched F, and definitely rather have it than an unscratched AF. Quote
Garrett Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I'd have that coin. Sorry.Charlie 2 didn't gash the neck on this one because he had a hundred of them, and missed the neck on this one, he was so furious.All bullshit aside, I'd have that coin *. It's just the price we're hagglin' over.cheers Garrett.* provided it's genuine. Quote
TomGoodheart Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) Again, it's down to personal choice/availability. I had a 1746 crown in VF which had been mounted and had no visible edge legend. When I sold it it went for just under the price of an F which seemed about right - I'd rather have had it than a problem-free example in Fair, and F would have been close. Minor scratches I almost ignore (at any rate on pre-1800 coins) - if we are saying the Charles shilling with a scratch is GF, I'd possibly rather have it than an unscratched F, and definitely rather have it than an unscratched AF.OK, just for discussion this is my old coin which the dinted one above replaced:Good provenance and (mostly) unscratched but ... personally I'm not disappointed with the upgrade.But it's a personal thing I think. In the end, we all have to decide whether we can live with a coin or not. But when the number of coins known to exist at all makes finding a decent example a challenge it's either live with a gap or compromise. In this case I took a liking to the thing, dint and all. That someone else would find it difficult to live with doesn't really worry me. Edited February 5, 2015 by TomGoodheart Quote
pokal02 Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Yes, that bears out my theory - I'd rather have the scratched GF than the unscratched one (AF?). Quote
TomGoodheart Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Yes, that bears out my theory - I'd rather have the scratched GF than the unscratched one (AF?). My current scratched coin was graded Fine in the Grant Francis (1920) and Lockett (1956) sales and 'almost VF' when sold by Mark Rasmussen in 2004..... the earlier one .. Poor(ish) .. Unless you compared it to the Eddy VI shilling in the current Spink, in which case it might also make Fine! Quote
pokal02 Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Wow, Poor's harsh for the second one.. the reverse doesn't look bad at all. Perhaps my AF was a bit optimistic though. Quote
TomGoodheart Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Wow, Poor's harsh for the second one.. the reverse doesn't look bad at all. Perhaps my AF was a bit optimistic though. Well, OK. Let's say Fair/Good ... but not as nice as the newer one! Quote
azda Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Yes, that bears out my theory - I'd rather have the scratched GF than the unscratched one (AF?). My current scratched coin was graded Fine in the Grant Francis (1920) and Lockett (1956) sales and 'almost VF' when sold by Mark Rasmussen in 2004..... the earlier one .. Poor(ish) .. Unless you compared it to the Eddy VI shilling in the current Spink, in which case it might also make Fine! This was graded as VF by Glens in 1974 or 76 and again by Spink in their 2013 sale, its better than VF and i've upped it half a grade to GVF Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.