Chris Perkins

The vast majority are just worth the gold value, especially 1870s and later. If you click on the more options below, there is a thing to allow you to attach pictures. It is a bit fiddly though! My email is cp@predecimal.com

It will probably depend on how deep/serious the 2 marks are on it. Most of them are worth around the gold value. Perhaps you could attach or link to pictures of it.

I expect the same is probably true for the 2007 Slave trade £2 without the DG initials on it. It's a minor variety of course, and to most a DG coin from a pack will do the trick if you want UNC. The one without DG was the one that circulated in massive numbers, so I bet you can't find one (in UNC). Same for the large head 1992 20p. At first they were both pretty common, but as the large heads were the ones that circulated, they are rarer in UNC now than the smaller head coins from sets.

Hello, Shillingsrfun. I'd be pleased to have a look at them. You can email or post pics here, or just send them all to me. A lot will probably be bullion, but I will look at each one carefully. And thanks for the recommendations above.

It's a bit blobby indeed, like all modern coins, but I think it's attractive despite the blobbiness. The trident looks a bit small, more like a fork than a mighty trident.

I found this today, in my own forum, from a google search! I'd also be interested in pictures of the decimal varieties of 1p if anyone can provide some that I can use on the web and possibly in books.

I'm posting this in the hope that once indexed by search engines that it can be found quickly by new potential victims! On Saturday 7th February 2015 I received an order over the website for 5 gold coins with a total value of £1,525.50. One of the coins was mine, but the other 4 actually belonged to someone else and were being sold on commission. The customer chose the payment by cheque option. The details he gave were: james hughes331 greengairs roadairdrie, ml67teUnited Kingdomemail: jameshughes84@outlook.com Telephone number: 07570273029 He sent a cheque on Monday, it was received on Tuesday and paid in on Wednesday (11th Feb). On Wednesday he called and asked for an update on the status of his order. I thanked him and said that the cheque had been received. I wasn't sure if it had been paid in as my stepmother was tasked with paying it in. He said that he urgently needed the coins for Monday (16th Feb, today) and I was made suspicious by this urgency, especially after emailing him after he made the order to say that if he wanted to pay with a bank transfer that it would be a bit quicker than a cheque. He called again on Thursday. I doubt his real name is James Hughes and I suspect the address probably belongs to someone completely innocent. He has a very broad Scottish accent, that I had to tune my Southern brain into before I was able to properly understand him. He asked again about the status of his order. I told him I'd check and email him an update. He repeated that he needed the coins for Monday and I told him that even if the cheque had been paid in Tuesday that this probably wouldn't be possible as it wouldn't be properly cleared. He said that if he can't get the coins for Monday that he might have to cancel the order and said that he would have to find the coins elsewhere (which made me very suspicious because where would you find 2 Victorian and 3 GV sovereigns of the same dates/mintmarks in the same grades for the same prices and for delivery within a couple of days!!??). I checked with dad and stepmother and the cheque was paid in Wednesday, so I emailed 'Mr Hughes' but said that it wouldn't be completely cleared in time for me to send the coins in time for Monday. I told him that I can send them to a different address if he's at another address after Monday. I didn't get a reply. The only phone number he provided is a mobile (which was also the number he called from) and the email address is a web-based email, so neither are much good for confirming identity. The cheque actually showed as cleared funds on Friday, but from previous experience I knew that this wasn't always the complete truth. Today the cheque has been debited by my bank and is shown as CUI (currently under investigation). Nothing was sent out! So, in case you're reading this and have had any kind of order online or via any other means with the same address/phone number/email as above, DO NOT send it out. He's a cheque fraudster and the cheque will bounce!

Nothing to do with ebay. There are some people that sell things without ebay!

This 'James Hughes' or whatever his real name is seems to have been busy lately! I've just heard from another customer/dealer friend of mine. He received an £800 cheque that bounced and then found this topic via google.

I find GV a pig to photograph. I think it's possible that the coin we're all talking about may well have original lustre all over, even on the weak bits. It's possible that it is therefore UNC, but obviously with some strike problems etc. Weak strikes are not as attractive and I understand people that class weak strikes the same as wear, but if that has full lustre, then technically it's UNC! We'd all have to see it in the flesh. I personally can't see anything on it that I could say was definitely wear and not weakness.

And I'm not sure if the cheque book is stolen. I should have got dad to do a copy of it before paying it in. Sound, is the name on the cheque book also J Hughes? I suppose it's likely to be a cheque book that belongs to the real J Hughes who is completely innocent.

Really! He/they are obviously targeting coin dealers at the moment. I'll let the BNTA know with a link to this page.

Yes, but more trustworthy is someone@btinternet.com (as they have a BT account and somewhere a real address) or someone@bbc.co.uk (as they use a company account and that tends to also mean that they are genuine - assuming the domain name and website are genuine!). Better than someone@gmail.com or someone@outlook.com etc.... just another free web based email address that anyone can setup in minutes without giving any real data. Of course there are genuine honest people with such accounts and just mobile numbers!

No, It's a real mob number Dave, but I suspect it's a pay as you go. Shall I report it to the police? Is it going to help anyone? Is it even illegal to have a cheque bounce - I suspect not if no goods were received.

I remember InvestCoins2003, yes! Whenever I accept cheques I always wait for them to properly clear and also attempt checks on the person's name, address, email and telephone number. Usually fraudsters always have a web based email address (as opposed to something @btinternet or a company one) and usually also use a mobile number. I know that these days there are people without land lines, but I find that genuine buyers are only too happy to provide further details, or write from another email address etc. Often an IP address lookup can also assist to make sure that the person is in the country where the coins are to be sent to (although there are also genuine reasons for this not always being the case).

I'd found the 2011 thing, but surely there has to be a specific mention of a coin with £20 face value somewhere? That it (and the £100) had been made current by a proclamation under section 3 of the Act. It concerns me that it's value new and it's re-sale value are all bolstered by the statement that they are legal tender coins, but that even if they are legal tender they admit that you can't spend them or exchange them at banks. They've made huge numbers of them. What would happen if there was some kind of economic stimulus in the future that led people to want to cash in their £20 and £100 coins at face value by the thousand, or by the hundreds of thousands?!

But has the Queen said so? Surely if the Queen had given her seal of approval to the £20 and £100 coins, then it would be recorded somewhere. As for £50 notes, I think those are not accepted everywhere because of the risk of them being forgeries. Actually that's another hot potato because strictly speaking merchants are legally obliged to accept payment in BofE banknotes for all debts.

Yes, I thought that was a good price. Obviously Pam probably has a customer that buys round number notes and she'll make a bit on it, but I wouldn't have thought an unreasonable amount.

The whole concept of legal tender is taken rather loosely nowadays. They make silver £20 coins (with £6.50 silver content) and £100 coins (with £22 silver content) and sell them for 'face value' but I am confused about how these large denominations are all of a sudden legal tender just because the RM marketing dept says they are. As far as I can tell there has been no amendment to the laws to make them legal tender. They sell like hot cakes, £20 for £20 or £100 for £100. Shops don't take them, even a lot of banks/post offices won't take them. They sell on ebay for up to £30ish because people believe that they are proper currency. Is there anyone here with better legal knowledge on the current coins that actually are legal tender, because I'm quite sure the process is a fairly complicated one.

Pam said she'd pay £60 for it. And Pam is always very fair.

Those shown in "English Paper Money" only have 6 digits, but I suppose it's possible that they went over 1000000 with the serials. Unless it's 100,000? Be interesting to see a picture. Obviously if they only went up to 1m then started again with C40C then 7 digits is literally one in a million. I can ask Pam West if you like Mike? I was emailing her over the last week about something else.

Yes, looks like Beale, having gone through EPM for the other cashiers. I think the OP should speak to Pam West about it. Condition will obviously play a big part, but I really don't know what premium a 1000000 serial has over higher or lower, less round numbers.

Which chief cashier signature does it bear?

I don't think the modern Pistrucci St George is struck as nicely as the older ones were. The newer coins seem to all lack detail. Another excellent cheap way of getting a larger St George is to buy a 1951 Crown.

I had to buy all 3 of the different £20 coins so far to do pics of for the next CC Decimal.