Leaderboard

I was looking at my duplicates and found this 1923 half crown although a common date a nice coin with the king's ear well struck also now an antique as it's a 100 years old.

Yes, well struck specimens of 1920-1926 are worth getting, as the shallow portrait isn't always well struck, and wears very quickly even where the reverse appears UNC.

I messaged him and said that it was "naughty" as such copies sell for a few pounds - must have tweaked his conscience.

"Recorded remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic with information and images provided by the finder." https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1015135

Seems to be - buyers fees and sellers fees together are now standard, though I have seen some auction houses pay you for the big ticket lots as VickySilver said.

Precisely. It hits you in the eye that it's a fake, even though he does admit it's a copy. But to ask £155 for it, is a complete insult. Yes, he is in any case very pricey, but I'm just surprised he's trying a stunt like this.

If the coin is valuable enough (possibly 5k pounds or above) they may not charge any at all - which is customary for many larger auction houses. I sold one of those "big ticket" coins, well two of them, and got back 105% of the sales price. In other words, they paid ME 5% of the buyer's commission. Contact them and ask what they might do for you.

Look at it a different way. It's either the 2021 coin that has been dipped, or what are the odds on the two dozen identical scratches, nicks, lumps etc appearing on two coins. Attached is an image from when this was discussed previously with the copy similarities highlighted. The resolution isn't wonderful, but the only matching item on the reverse appears to be the small mark on the right edge of the bottom shield. The obverse has numerous matching marks including behind the head, including the bigger scratches in the field. I'm still suspicious.

At page 407, Peck does make reference to "bronzed current pieces" of which the 1857 is one. Although at page 405 he casts doubt on the authenticity of the bronzing.

I actually bought the Copthorne 1874H F74 penny in 2016, which is an example of a "specimen" strike. Although I only went on what was said. In truth I'm not actually sure either way. For all I know it might just be a F73 in a decent state of preservation. There's nothing specific to mark it out as anything special. Although if necessary I've no doubt I'd still be able to pass it on as a specimen based on past acceptance. See what you think:-

I think the 1839 sets were produced on demand up to the mint refurbishment in 1882, because it's difficult to find another reason for the 1839 sixpence reverse combined with the final young head obverse which wasn't introduced until 1880. These are rare. It might also explain the minimal number of inverted die axis 1839 proof halfpennies (P1523*) and farthings (P1557) known. My 1839/41 halfpenny is inverted, but I don't know anyone with another inverted 1839 halfpenny to see if that is also 1839/41. Can anyone chip in here?

I still maintain there are many nice or "early strike" currency coins being wrongly passed as proofs, with the consequent massive uplift in cost for potential customers. I'd imagine these are a mixture of genuine error and deliberate cynical attempts to deceive. Virtually impossible to distinguish between the two, hence the fraudsters get away with it. Especially if they've also fooled NGC. My own rule of thumb is that some coins hit you in the eye as very obvious genuine proofs, as soon as you see them. I'd stick to them. Alternatively, some you know that cannot be anything other than a proof, such as the 1839 mentioned earlier, the KP31 1806 copper, bronzed copper and gilt proofs with the incomplete 0 & 1 in the date, and the R97 & R98 Taylor re-strikes with the tiny collection of rust spots at the base of the second A on the reverse. Slightest doubt, steer clear.

A genuine sovereign weighs 7.98 grams, so I am even more suspicious. Wonder if it is correct diameter, and, more significantly, thickness? Suspect strongly a lead-based core (the silvery stuff showing through) and then gilded. The fact it was with another pewter forgery also makes me very dubious. The only way to be certain is to take it to a reputable jeweller for proper appraisal including chemical testing.

The one at the Coinery just hammered at £2300😓