hibernianscribe

I'm so relieved that I had misgivings about it and did to blindly go for it!

The thing about Bulgaria is that in that country one cannot be held to account for selling fakes. This is why it has become the international hub for counterfeit antiquities. Frank

Thinking about it, perhaps a separate thread in the 'Free for All' would be appropriate to warn all to be cautious of Catawiki coin auctions.

Declan, your post is most interesting and explains a lot now to me why my messages to Catawiki asking about provenance of the Newark ninepence in their coin auction on Xmas Eve (it sold for £595) were met with silence. As detailed in my previous post, I also mentioned to their "expert" (Marcel Spijkerbosch) my concerns that the seller (going under the name "anglosaxonandviking") was based in Bulgaria. It would seem that my concerns were justified and Catawiki's silence speaks a thousand words!

I've just acquired a rather nice, nearly EF, Briot second milled-issue sixpence on eBay (from a reputable seller) and am currently awaiting its arrival. It is slabbed by PGCS (AU55) so I should have reasonable grounds to believe it's not a copy. In my view, the obverse scratches do detract from the AU classification somewhat, but despite this it does look "right". However, I now notice that the reverse legend is CHISTO AUSPICE REGNO and not "CHRISTO" and there is no such variation listed by Spink or North. Could this be an unknown variety or maybe a contemporary fake? Obviously PGCS did not think the latter and for a contemporary fake I believe the die detail is too authentic. Before purchasing I, of course, checked the slab reference number which is genuine for a Briot sixpence of this description. My thoughts on this is that maybe it was a die mistake that was only noticed after coin(s) had been struck then presumably would have been withdrawn. Any expert views on this would be welcome.

Thanks

I've always wondered about "adjustment marks" for the Briot issue, and having never seen them believed that they were applied to the rims of the coins. So they were made across the face of the coin then?

Thanks Rob, that reassures me - unless I'm mistaken, strange that North omits any mention of this. Frank

I've just acquired a rather nice Briot second milled issue sixpence on eBay and am currently awaiting its arrival. It is slabbed by PGCS so I have reasonable grounds to believe it's not a copy - indeed it looks "right" in this respect apart from the fact I now notice that the reverse legend is CHISTO AUSPICE REGNO and not CHRISTO. There is no such variation listed by Spink or North so would appreciate comments regarding this. Could this be an unknown variety or maybe a contemporary fake? Obviously PGCS did not think the latter and for a contemporary fake I believe the die detail is too authentic. Before purchasing I, of course, checked the slab reference number which is genuine for a Briot sixpence of this description.

I see it went for £595 - a nice price for a genuine one - we shall never know for sure. It looks as though more than me shied away from it.

Actually, I reckon you should be able to pick one of these (F-VF) up for under a thousand at auction on a good day so they've pitched the estimate in the right ballpark (unlike some of the silly asking prices on eBay that normally exceed 3K and they never seem to get sold) but as you say if there are doubts, steer clear. If the seller wasn't in Bulgaria I'd have more confidence and this is not helped by the silence from Catawiki which sucks! Frank

Your mention of Bulgaria brought this to mind currently on Catawiki - I've been toying with the idea of going for it but, problem, the seller is based in Bulgaria. It looks authentic but I think alarm bells are ringing.What makes me shy away even more so, is that over the past week I have sent three messages to Catawiki, to the numismatic expert in charge of this auction, requesting info on any provenance while also mentioning that since the seller is in Bulgaria it would be a reassurance if there was provenance, and Catawiki have been stony silent - not a confidence booster for an online auction house that pushes its professional expertise. I know this isn't Fleabay but any thoughts on this? https://auction.catawiki.com/kavels/15523379-united-kingdom-newark-9-pence-1646-siege-money-charles-i-silver

I agree, this is so ridiculous! Yet no more ridiculous (although perhaps in general normally less extreme) than many, many other inflated asking prices on eBay. Such is the nature of this 'beast'.

Well spotted!

Sorry Rob, I disagree with you. Some of these fakes are very realistic - have a look these hammered ones: http://alphaofficium.weebly.com/store/p137/Elizabeth_I_Groat.html http://alphaofficium.weebly.com/store/p176/Charles_I_Half_Crown.html http://alphaofficium.weebly.com/store/p60/100_Charles_I_English_Civil_War_Siege_coins..html

I found this site by accident and think this is extremely worrying, and the guy running the show is so *****g cocky about it! He views it as "artwork". http://alphaofficium.weebly.com

Me too, it's horrible!

Thanks - yes, I think you've 'nailed' why they don't look right. The rubbish cleaning has taken away any attractiveness.

...and this one: https://www.ebay.com/itm/132430889345?ul_noapp=true Any opinions?

Not my area of expertise but this looks a bit too sharp and pristine: https://www.ebay.com/itm/132430889189?ul_noapp=true

It would certainly appear so.

I've just dug this up, interesting reading.... https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/distance-sales/internet-auction-sites-and-marketplaces

Very good point!

Interesting, so in other words are you saying CCF as a US forum has more "pull" with eBay?

It's precisely because Ebay are so frigging useless in this (motivated no doubt, by self interest) that I reckon some regulatory or policing authority, with powers, needs to be involved. Apart from a perceived "duty of care" to customers which is much more tenuous to enforce upon eBay and easier for them to wriggle out of, if there is perceived complicity in fraud because of their inaction, and a third-party authority warns them because of this, then maybe they might start to be effective in this respect.