Rob

Probably Godric at Stamford.

Yep. Not cheap, but invaluable. And no, not available online. The internet wasn't about in 1958.

That is the point of saleroom notices. It is very easy to make a mistake when cataloguing, and equally difficult to proof read, particularly on multiple lots. Let them know, and they will correct it. It doesn't serve any auctioneer to give a misleading description, as they will only get the coin returned.

It has been discussed at length on here since Chris started the forum. Do not read too much into estimates. This is a function of the reserve set by the vendor as you are not permitted to have a reserve higher than the top estimate. If you have a coin that will normally go for about £100, then the estimate would logically be say £60-80. If you have somneone who says I want to receive £200 for my normally £100 coin, then the estimate will have to increase to take account of the reserve. All it needs is one person to submit a bid and the coin sells - thus giving the illusion that a new base level has been set for that type. The auction house will charge a fee whether it sells or not. The high prices are likely aimed at US buyers who will pay according to the number, though £1200-1500 for an 1887 crown that isn't a proof seems a bit steep. Yes slabbing is more popular in the US than here and yes it did start there, but there are some on this forum who are UK based and also prefer slabs such as PWA and The Coinery (not Coinery). The attraction of slabs is assisted by those who just want to buy a product off the shelf. That in a way is why slabs could take off to a larger extent in the UK, but it is certainly not going to be highly correlated with someone interested in the study of coins, as your sample material is protected from serious examination by the plastic.

The thing is that all these numbers are relative because there is no way in any shape or form that you are going to be able to compile an accurate corpus for anything but the rarest items, and even then it isn't guaranteed. If Peck (author of the BM catalogue published in 1958, English Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins in the BM 1558-1958) assigned a rarity to a variety, it was always going to be loosely based on his personal experience over the years. The same goes for Alan Rayner and ESC where the rarities are way out in some cases. Nobody can be expected to find all examples of anything, not least because a lot of collectors hold things close to their chest, or maybe haven't looked hard enough at the coin in the first place. Some things are mis-atttributed. There is no failsafe method of catching all examples and rejecting all mis-attributions, just what you can work out yourself.

Scarce is more common than R. Also, if looking at Peck for example, a currency thing assigned as very rare can equate to multiples of the numbers for many patterns assigned VR. Do your homework and assign the rarity ratings you think apply. Every R, S, N or C and their subdivisions in whatever tome is simply a guestimate. Not everything that is written should be taken as gospel, but equally, everything that is written gives you a starting point that you can adjust along the way as your knowledge improves, so is still inherently useful.

Traditionally, it went from 1 to 5 Rs. The last is unique. Make your own definition up for the others because they are all uncertain numbers. A bit like the Freeman or ESC splits, where you treat the actual number with a pinch of salt, because they are frequently adrift from reality too, it's just that people want to believe in what they read and love to assign an absolute number to things, especially the ones that say unique, or nearly so. .

The VAT is only charged by the auction house on the buyer's and seller's premium, not the hammer price. The only additional VAT would be on an import from outside the EU where 5% is applied.

Depends on what the item is, the VAT scheme under which it is taxed, the seller's location and and and.... Anything which crosses borders has scope for different tax treatment because the VAT can be applied either in the country of sale, in which case it is deemed to be fully paid for intra-EU transactions, or if from outside the EU, is due on import, but the seller in the forein country doesn't charge VAT. Reatil sales to the public should be VAT inclusive, as they ought not to have any scope for reclaiming the tax element. For business to business it is optional, as you can reclaim the VAT with a VAT no, even if the price is not broken down.

If you are VAT registered you can reclaim input VAT in most instances.

I'm not aware of any recent changes to the fees. I think the last one was eBay charging a %age on everything, including postage. All that meant was the postage charge had to increase to reflect the fees. I can't stand ebay and their policies of indifference to sellers, but given the number of eyeballs do list cheap things on the wife's account. I gave up on my own account 10 years ago. Now I start something of nominal value or a piece of crap at a quid, and I'm happy if they go for that as it enables me to get a business card to a potential customer. Somewhere along the line a buyer will visit the site, look at something costing £2 and realise it is legible, not bent, not corroded, and ultimately cheaper in all probability than they paid. It is no good telling people that they are throwing good money after bad on eBay, they need to realise themselves. Postage is £3, which some people consider excessive, but after all postage, fee and tax considerations, it leaves you with £1.14 for an item starting at a quid. So as far as I am concerned, I am doing my bit for education, not ripping people off, adding contacts to the customer list, saving myself a trip to the scrapper. It's a win, win, win, win ... situation. The only negative is funding a company with indifferent ethical standards. Think dodgy dealers and tax receipts.

When it looks wrong and weighs wrong...............................................it is.

The problem is going to be finding someone close enough. I'm in Manchester, John is in the north-east. West of Scotland can go a long way west in terms of time to get there. I'm not sure if there are any Scottish dealers on here.

I'm going to be a contrarian and say yes. What is the question?

No, they are just generating income. The problem has been manufactured by people who have taken on the 'if you don't have it expertly verified, it could be fake' phrase, hook, line and sinker. A significant number of people where slabs are mentioned in the US seem more concerned about the coin being a possible fake, than they are about the fact that it costs more to slab it than the worn lump of metal would be worth - slabbed or not. It really is a marketing triumph over common sense. I'm not saying the slab isn't helping to protect the coin and that can be beneficial for high grade pieces, but for something worth around melt? Businesses only have a working model due to ongoing demand. Slabs have been around for 30 years, so the demand is clearly there. The blinkered people are the reason for their continuing success.

It's a contemporary copy. I've sent you a PM re images. What is the weight?

It's a bit whacky, but if it sells, good luck to him. It recycles something that would more likely be landfilled, unlike the previous item which needs to be recycled, but never will because the owner will believe they have something of value.

No, the obsession is with absolutes. Maybes are a definite no-no. They like to assign a number as it is quantifiable. That's why you don't have a draw in a game, which goes into overtime to force a result. Cricket poses something of a conundrum.

I'm struggling to identify the graffiti as it all just looks like contact marks from the pictures. I'm not sure that clarification makes much of a difference when you get down to these grades. This is melt or thereabouts whether graded or rejected. You might get a small premium for the recyclable plastic, but not for the coin.

That's as clear as a bell (sorry), so overmarks both sides. That narrows down the striking period a lot. Presumably to the weeks following the change of mark. You always need decent pictures to give a meaningful reply. (Those who just post a message saying 'I have a coin. What is it?' please take note.)

The reverse die is the same as Schneider 200, but the obverse is a different die. Schneider 200 obverse appears to be an anachronistic use of earlier punches, which he classed as IIb, the bust being 6a, as opposed to this coin's bust 7a, which became standard in 'Bell' and was used through to anchor. It is the commonest of the types. Looking at the picture, there may be a trace of a bell, but it isn't clear enough to confirm. The very close proximity of the stops either side of the crown would support the overmark, a bell being narrower. Sorry, I don't have a database of this type to compare dies, but it isn't the same obverse as Schneider 198. The value would depend more on condition than on marks for this period as there was a steady output of gold. With 204lb of gold in the crown pyx as opposed to half that for the two periods before and two after crown. It wasn't until triangle that the figure reduced significantly (to 41lb). For further reading on Schneider's Tower gold article see the BNJ vols.28-30. Nice coin.

Civil War period fakes are quite common. Most tend to be half-crowns, though shillings are also known. The Royalists went to great lengths to ensure that silver standards were maintained at their temporary mints from 1642-6, and there is no evidence to suggest Parliament attempted to debase the coinage either.

I would disagree. There is probably as much undocumented information as there is documented, so you can assume nothing. The vast majority of material in a numismatic sense relies on mint reports, pyx trials, the odd piece of documentary evidence from other sources and one hell of a lot of assumption on the part of auction houses, collectors and dealers. The last bit is where the problems arise. Fourteen years ago at Spink in July 2003, I bought a few of the Weyl pattern pennies at the Adams sale. Peck listed this group as nos P2137 - 2204. Specifically, I aimed for the aluminium examples because this was a precious metal until it became commercially available in 1883-4. Not paying too much attention to the description other than the metal type, I bought them. When I weighed them it quickly dawned that they were roughly 3x too heavy for aluminium ( I hadn't paid attention to the weight given in the sale catalogue) - so what to do? The answer was obviously to resolve the issue. i.e why was it too heavy; what was the metal type, as it clearly didn't match anything listed in Peck, and what else have I missed? So over the next two or three years, I bought a few more pieces from the Nicholson, Cooke and Wayne collections and at the same time, listed all I could find in past sales or price lists. Like Peck I found tracing examples difficult, but over time felt confident enough to arrive at a list of approximately 105 known examples of the series, most of which were unique. That extended the list of variants by more than two dozen, many of these were in a hitherto unrecorded material. The aluminium description had been taken verbatim from the Glendining sale on 15th Dec 1993, where the vendor had presumably thought - too light for silver, so the only other alternative looking like that is aluminium. Aluminium it is then! I published the results in the 2011 BNJ. Proof if you want it, that the auctioneers aren't trying to dupe, I think they simply don't know when it comes to esoteric material, because they don't have material analysis equipment to hand. Nobody apart from museums or nerds like me and others on this forum is going to take the time to get the metal analysed and prove one way or the other what the attribution should be. Same again in the Adams halfcrown sale where I bought the RM trial halfcrown struck from ship halfpenny dies. It was listed as Cu-Ni, but is magnetic. It transpires that it is about 87% iron with the remainder mostly chromium with a trace of manganese. Again, a case of total reliance on what has been said before without any corroborative evidence. You have to question anything and everything unless proven, because nobody has all the answers.

In token/medal terms, you can usually take tin to be the major component. A quick check of the weight should be enough to gauge whether tin is indicated.

Tin alloy. Usually with lead. The Moore pattern pennies of 1860 were listed by Peck as being struck in antimony, but an analysis of the metal by EDX gave a tin to lead ratio of approximately 2:1. That would pass as white metal.