wybrit

Two conclusions : 1. That incomplete 6 is a known flaw on 1860/59 pennies 2. The person responsible saw the CC coin and 'doctored' another date to look similar Like everyone who has posted here, I am not convinced that this is a genuine article and would not entertain a bid. That said, I have yet to see anyone definitively prove to me that this piece is not what it says it is. I can see things in the pictures that I want to see (ie tampering). Or it might just be a poor picture of a real piece. All of the conclusions thus far are merely speculative. I don't think this is as "cut and dry" as that 1905 shilling was. Real items do pop up in this fashion from time to time. Earlier this year I took a gamble and bought a raw 1871 halfpenny on ebay, bad washed-out picture and all, for a price that was "too good to be true." It turned out to be genuine, uncleaned and mint state (probably gEF by Brit standards).

I'd be more apt to pass judgment if the coin didn't look somewhat like this one (from CC):

The Colin Cooke one still has a photo up on the site and its clearly not the same coin. On the face of it, the CC example has a definitely got a weak 6, whearas the one on eBay looks doctored to me. That 6 looks remarkably like the upper part of a 5. Its clearly angled at the top, so my guess is that someone has seen the CC specimen and has done a little creative work on a 1850's specimen to make it look like a 1860. It's definitely not the same coin - I only indicated that it does look similar. The main alarm bell for me is: why is it on ebay and not in a major auction? Since no other copper penny date ends in "0", that number would have to have been altered as well...

Any thoughts about this 1860 copper penny? It does look similar to the one sold on Colin Cooke's website.

I should have waited another day. The feedback "fair ebayer refunded with no problem" was received.

I didn't hear about this so thanks for posting. I'm looking forward to seeing what farthings will be offered.

Has anyone heard about how that fake 1905 shilling sale turned out? I see that no feedback has been posted yet...

There was no price noted in the "prices realized" report, so the coin did not sell.

That's a nice find. I couldn't see the same overstrike on any of mine, but I did find this: the C in "Victoria" struck over another C:

No doubt in my mind that it would fetch in excess of any catalogued amount. 5,000 quid or more, perhaps?

I posted this over at CU back on Aug 3rd as well. I sent Stack's a respectful message (also on Aug 3rd) about their error and have received no reply and see that as of this morning they have made no attempt to correct the listing. It's totally unacceptable on their part. Edited to add: at least no one has bid on it yet.

In my opinion, the proposal is an excellent "going out of business" plan for CGS. Few outside of their operation will know what the heck a 78 means without the more traditional coin grading terminology accompanying it. This reminds me of when Coca Cola changed its recipe in the 80's - Pepsi took over the #1 cola spot as a result (although CGS isn't even the "7-Up" of the TPG industry just yet...).

He is certainly persistent, it has been listed and relisted for several months. Originally it was up for £15,000.00 - or best offer - unbelievably he had an offer! Interesting. It's the first time I've seen it - maybe because I ignore brass 3ds nowadays. Not all the UK listings make it over to the US ebay site. In fact, it seems quite random at times.

Very nice catch. I just posted the results of your excellent detective work on CU as well. Everyone needs to know how the shillings are faked as well - it's just not as well known.

For your consideration is this auction from someone who is convinced that he has an undocumented rarity: an Elizabeth II piece dated 1952. * The coin is so corroded that I doubt a SEM could discern the date. * As best as I can tell, the positioning of "II" indicates that this is a post-1953 date (when BRITT : OMN was omitted). * He must not have read the same letter for the Royal Mint that he has published in the auction. * No return policy!! Gee, there's nothing remotely wrong with this one, is there? Be steady, bidding finger!

The most expensive is £15,000........or best offer! One sharp blade has listed one for a million quid. I tip my hat to those who have sold them and made the big money now, but in my humble opinion, there are simply a lot of suckers (and possibly shill bidders) about. This is only an R4 or R5 piece (Freeman scale)! I remember the hysteria in the US not long ago about "Beanie Babies" when people lined up for hours to get the latest ones and they fetched astronomical prices on ebay. Now, you can't hardly give them away. Maybe this is one of the few things a government could actually do to turn around a bad economy: "accidentally" mint an error, put in a recall request and then sit back and watch commerce take over. They just need to make certain it doesn't happen too often.

Ditto here. I just received this 1876H halfpenny NGC stated was "small date." I guess since the H makes the date shorter that it's a small date, right? Get a copy of Freeman and ESC, guys!

Thanks folks. It appears that I really did miss an interesting discussion. I'd have to agree with those who disagreed with Ron. I think he's fighting an uphill battle redefining beads vs using the generally accepted practice of defining a beaded border as one that is beaded around the entire periphery.

Does anyone have a link to that claim? I must have missed that event. I did a quick search on coinking's posts at CU (he is Ron, who is at PCGS) and found no such claim. Granted, it could have been deleted later. I know that just about everyone and their dog who has a toothed 1860 thinks that he/she has the mule. I have a mule farthing slabbed by PCGS (but not a red one) and it really is a mule. The funny thing about that one is that is was called a penny!

Does anyone posting to this forum have a good picture showing the 6 over 8 overstrike for an 1861 ½d? Having never seen one, I'd like to know what the features are to help ID a piece being posted on the CU forum. Thank you in advance.

I think he might have wiped it with an angle grinder. Believe it or not, to the naked eye, the coin looks "good." The camera hates it though!

Don't clean your coins!!!! Don't wipe your coins either - that leads to unsightly hairlines. As for ultrasonic cleaners, we had a jewelry cleaner once. I tried an old, junky halfpenny and found that it came out worse than it went in. I repeat, don't clean! Here is a nice 1895 threepence: And here is an uncirculated 1894 3d ruined by some idiot who wiped it:

When I saw this 1962 penny there were only a few minutes left to bid. Wow, what a bargain.

I think this topic is probably themed on the quite wide gap between the collecting habits of those barmy Americans and the more reserved nature of the British gentleman collector, so it stays right here. Not all American collectors go for slabs or differentiate one grading point in the hopes of making a fast quid. In fact, I would put the barmy ones in a tiny minority. I attend a lot of shows here and see a lot of bargain hunters picking through junk boxes and half-price bins for their pieces. There are a lot of slabs too, but they seem to stay under glass most of the time. There are other silly habits here, though, such as buying rolls of modern coins at a premium as an "investment.' You see them resold on ebay all the time in hopes of making a profit, but after ebay and PayPal fees, the seller may as well just spend the coins! The MS 70 cent is a joke to me and many others. The business strike is less apt to get a spot on it, but think of all of the Gothic Florins you could get for that money!!!

I am posting a link to a CU thread (albeit one about US Coins) that shows how even a coin in a slab can be altered. It is a very sobering bit of detective work done by the folks over there. It's a good education for those new to numismatics and reinforcement for the slab critics. Enjoy!