Rob

Re the heavy flans, I think the only options are trials or struck on the wrong flans, i.e. a flan used for a colonial issue. The denomination specifications are stipulated in the proclamation document, so intentionally struck on a heavy flan for circulation shouldn't come into it.

I think a study based on current survivors is a non-starter due to the lack of ability to accumulate from circulation. For a start, once I get over 20 kgs together, I scrap them. Obviously I look for easy to identify rarities and anything that looks sellable is set aside, but with the best will in the world, I'm not going to trawl through piles of washers trying to identify them individually. Therefore, most low grade Victorian and the vast majority of 20th century pennies for which there is little or no market in less than unc, get melted. I'm not alone in doing this. Every 10kgs scrapped is a thousand coins. I see hundreds of kgs going for scrap every year. FWIW I did 60 myself last year.

Unless the rating in ESC is demonstrably accurate, they should all be taken with a pinch of salt. Obviously things that are clearly common (C-C3) isn't the problem, but at the R7 end of the scale there are numerous discrepancies, e.g. Roman I 1825 shillings (R7, I think not), or 1723 C/SS shillings which are given R5 both of which are clearly complete bs.

There was a printed catalogue of the pennies only. They might still have some copies if you ask.

I can help update your list. The F245 cost £6 plus postage from me in May 2020

To expand, here's another. From my notes. 1826 inverted die pennies with plain saltire (P1422 var) can be identified by a rim lump in front of the truncation tip by the stop on the obv and similar lumps by AR: and after DEF: on the reverse. My example is 18.77g. They are all forgeries as they all appear to have identical “circulation” marks on the neck. The die axis is about 160 degrees and not 180.

Do the marks on it match the attached? Die axis isn't accurately inverted.

It's a function of the buoyancy of auction sales in the current climate. Everybody and their dog are jumping on the auction bandwagon because people are paying silly money for average material, so it's a one way ticket to riches for the auction houses. You routinely see lots selling for multiples of similar items in dealers' trays. The volume of material means that auctions would take forever if lotted singly. This volume coupled with indiscriminate buying is also contributing to the sloppy cataloguing IMO.

Where is all this written on the actual site rather than a third party discussion board? Ebay don't provide a search bar in Help to improve obfuscation. Nowhere can I see new rules, just the existing ones.

If in doubt, leave it out. Simples. They've stopped sending out catalogues ('to do their bit for the environment'). In response, I for my part am also doing my bit for the environment by not spending a day going through each lot one at a time (processing power takes a lot of resources too). Now I just look at the thumbnails and see if the coin is potentially of interest. I know I missed plenty in the last sale, but I'm afraid there are only 24 hours in a day (still, despite technological advances). As for Thursday's sale, quite a few lots were self eliminating due to not knowing what I was bidding on. Sloppy cataloguing in recent times means trust nothing written unless you can verify it yourself, with various examples of incorrect descriptions and provenances that simply aren't true. All they had to do was consult the catalogues in question, look at the images and save writing bs. They are not alone.

Henry VI Pinecone-Mascle halfpenny of Calais. 1431-2

If it is ex Montagu III (1896) then it is lot 640, which was a lot of 2 shillings, with one uniface (possibly rubbed down, though could be genuinely uniface). Sold for £4/10/- but I don't have the buyer. The only other possible ex Montagu is part 5 lot 422, described as 1645 usual type (no final E?), another on a large flan and a third dated 1646 and gilt. Described as well preserved and cost £1/15/-. Bought by Weight, the dealer. The price of 42/- is close to half the cost of lot 640, so suggests the person who bought it at the sale. Thinking a bit laterally, RCCB's sale in 1921 had a lot of 4 Newarks including 1645 NEWARKE shilling struck on a large flan showing the original granulated marks on the silver, another with plain reverse (cf. Montagu III lot 640) and a pair of 9ds. None illustrated and no provenances given, but strangely coincidental that he should have a plain reverse. Looking in Eaglen, the N is very similar to those in CB16-3 and C17-1, both in RCCB's hand. It's a bit tenuous, but sufficient to pursue.

That makes life a bit clearer, as the above didn't appear when clicking the links in their initial email, but having sold something, it's at the top of the order page. First point we are still working on a wing and a prayer, as discussed. Second I've no idea what that is, but is why we have a collection only bulky item still in the orders list as awaiting dispatch two months after it was collected, with feedback left by them. Neither ebay nor buyer offered a 6 digit or QR code to 'allow' the item to be marked as collected, nor can feedback be left. Third item could be problematic for some given the only real authority on authenticity would be the OEM. Are they really going to refer thousands of pairs of shoes or handbags to the likes of Gucci? Methinks not. Fourth item I already operate my own personal buyer protection by not buying items shipped this way so as to eliminate un-necessary costs, and similarly do not offer it so that my buyers don't get shafted either. For those that do use it, presumably it will be the best option, but would still be subject to the caveat of point 1. Fifth item, which will cover the majority of crap on ebay, it's inconvenient, but bearable. It will also cover a lot of items in the first category. For international sales, it would be a real pain in the ass for signed for shipments as delivery time can be weeks. Some may be forever considered stuck in the local PO as per Stuart, and a buyer with a nervous/bloody minded disposition could easily claim a refund that couldn't be disputed. Given ebay can already recover funds from sellers for items not received/as described etc, the only advantage is to ebay themselves in the form of holding say 1 week's turnover in their bank, with sellers similarly disadvantaged. The dressing up of this change as enhanced Buyer Protection is complete crap, as they enjoy no further protection to that already existing. All things considered, it should restore ebay's lost income from FVFs given 4% plus 75p is mostly 75p for untracked items.

If you only get paid in full once the item is delivered, and as there is no compulsion for the recipient to say it has arrived, then you aren't going to get paid for many small value items that only need a second class stamp where it isn't worth getting tracking. Would ebay even consider feedback as proof the item was delivered? Adding a couple quid to cover tracking on something worth a fiver or less isn't likely to generate many (any?) sales. This looks like it's how ebay are going to substitute the lost income they gave up by abolishing FVFs. Alternatively, you can just add on 4% plus 75p to the price of every listing to cover lack of delivery confirmation for items of sufficient value to need tracking. I can feel a large 'I can't be arsed' reaction coming on. Just keep things simple and life works ok.

In the 1951 Abbott sale it was mostly ancients with some British gold and a handful of silver. The coins were noted on the catalogue as being consigned by a family member, but I don't know the relationship. He was Australian, so it's more likely that his English silver was the Abbott 'Australian' collection acquired by Spink in 1951 according to the appendix in Manville and Robertson. But that raises the issue of Lockett dying in 1950, which is obviously earlier than 51. Doing a bit of digging, it appears that he was born in 1867 and died in Sydney on 7/11/1942, so it appears that Lockett was offered coins from the collection after his death and prior to the sale to Spink in 1951. FWIW, the coin in question was the last coin in lot 163 (6) of Clonterbrook and one of 17 in Lockett II lot 2023, but no previous ownerships noted of any in the lot. That isn't very helpful I'm afraid.