Rob

Interesting that people always highlight what they consider to be OTT valuations, yet never raise the subject of the undervalued ones. There are significant numbers of coins with a super-low valuation. Certainly a lot that I would happily buy at the quoted prices if they were ever to become available. However, by definition there must be reasonable numbers of the slabbed ones circulating for them to be slabbed in the first place - so maybe your cynicism is justified.

You will get a better response if you post links to things that people can view. Given most of the world are not signed up to CGS, your audience will be limited.

Good luck with the 1947. It will come around again, just need to be patient.

It's unlikely to be copied in that state, but given your concerns, why buy it if you aren't happy it is genuine? Obviously you won't have paid more than a pound or so, but you could get a VF Roman for a tenner or little more. Also, if in doubt, buy from a reputable dealer who will refund you if there is a problem.

Looks like it (lucky there is the bottom of the W). It's York with the quatrefoil at the centre of the reverse, but the type will depend on what the mark is beside the neck - if you can make it out.

There are three coins. Top is the specimen, second the currrency, third picture is the top coin plus the 1879 proof. The first two were done on a scanner, the last is a photo. Can't compare the three at the moment in one image because my camera is playing up. The specimen is Freeman's coin that he used as the basis for his F329A, but I'm going with those who feel it isn't a proof when compared with others. Comparing the two 76s, one is obviously a much better piece and I can see why it might be considered a proof, but not when alongside a different date. Problem here of course is that there are no proofs for 76 which are comparable with the 79. The argument could therefore be made that Heatons couldn't or didn't make enough effort to get it right........... and so the argument rumbles on.

The left is the specimen. They are distinctly different in hand. I suppose it is like comparing the modern RM sets. I know the proofs today have frosted design whereas the uncirculated sets don't, but the fields are markedly more polished on the proofs and the detail is crisper. I don't think it is a case of a specimen being struck fewer times with the same dies because the fields are ultimately better on the proofs, something that would be unaffected by repeated stamping, whereas multiple strikes would ensure the metal reaches every nook and cranny. For the record, you can see your own reflection in all three of the above reverse fields (because they are concave), so prooflike or proof surface differences are down to polishing to a finer degree. The detail is progressively sharper.

But neither is as sharp as the 1879

And the other has quite reflective fields

OK. So one of these has reflective prooflike fields

Three out of five are acceptable outcomes. Not sure I could cope with the world ending or the heavens falling in. The other three I'll vote for all day long.

It's a thread standard - well you've certainly been screwed if you believe it. Sorry, I'll get my coat.

That is a vast improvement.

why not?

I was in that position, but service is now restored. Couldn't get on to say I couldn't get on. Chickens and eggs spring to mind.

Basically, VIP proofs were produced in very limited numbers for specific people and to a higher standard than the regular proof sets for general distribution. Some of these are seriously rare, others less so, though no accurate population statistics have ever been disclosed by the RM. For years other than the general issues you are very unlikely to encounter them. They stand out like a sore thumb with the frosted detail.

OK, not for the first time. Left to right - currency, 1953 set for the general populace, 1958 VIP http://

I thought we had all that. Must have got a job lot in.

thanks

This is a common but misguided complaint which I have itemised previously. I will do so again. For the seller to cover themselves against claimed loss is a minimum £1.85. You cannot reasonably protect the contents within a 5mm thick packet for most items, so large letter is required. It would only be 20p less in any case as signed for letter rate. Cost of a Jiffy bag is 15-20p. Cost of printing out the invoice is 5p. You are already at £2.05 minimum. If you are VAT registered you are required to charge it on shipping, so the cost is now £2.46. Is 4p over cost really that excessive? To cover your eBay and Paypal fees would actually require a charge of about £3.20 or so. alternatively you can cover your fees and take the risk on shipping, but either way these are expenses that need to be covered if you are selling. Nobody sells to help the buyer - they do so to make money and there are two sides to a balance sheet or set of accounts. As I have long maintained, people on eBay are unrealistic in their expectations, and frankly the place is best avoided.

If they made proofs that year and a brass 3d was normally issued, there will be a VIP proof version. My type example is a 1960. It's just like a normal coin except for the fields and sharper detail/edge/rims As someone unable to benefit from CGS images, what is the 1936? I assume not either Ed. VIII as they are dated 1937

Which is why eBay is such a drag. 99% of this material needs to be melted which would be good for the environment and good for numismatics. With everything priced at 99p it sets the bar for people's expectations on price. The world has a long way to go before there is a shortage of low grade material. I know I send tens of kgs to the pot every year and that is just a drop in the ocean. In fact, it makes you wonder at which point it is worth not melting. A while back I acquired a virtually full run of bronze pennies (missing 1869, 1870, 1926ME and 1950), mostly in fairly dire condition with the best Vicky no better than fine. Given the undesirable state of most, I bulked them up with a load of across the board 20th century to get rid of a few kilos, it had no bids despite only asking for scrap + fees + shipping + 10% as a starting price. My scrap man was happy to do a BIN with no time wasting eBayer to worry about. I would have no hesitation in limiting things to one relist before scrapping, or just cutting out eBay altogether as future policy. Sure I'll check for the odd obvious rarity, but that aside it really isn't worth the time and effort. A washer for 99p including postage is a waste of time for everyone. With the cheapest shipping method possible, after fees it leaves 11p to be divided between the scrap metal value, packing and cost of getting it to the post office. The cost to the environment is considerably greater than 11p.

Good. You're all doing very well. It helps if your starting point is where only a single die is known. Two dies is not impossible, but the job is a lot harder.

Good. You now have a starting point for extending the die pairs forwards and backwards. Next job is to find the reverse die(s) previously paired with the earlier obverse, and then any reverse(s) paired with the later obverse. Then you are on a roll and can take it as far as the evidence allows. You also have to bear in mind there was more than one press in use at any one time, so the potential for crossover is also present.