Rob

That's a crappy image and best avoided unless he can supply ones with the contrast eliminated. Over or under contrasted images can hide a multitude of problems. If in doubt, leave it out. If he says it is a faithful image of the coin then it has been cleaned.

Yes it is. It depends on what dates you want as some would need a 0 on the end, but coins are available in the period/price bracket indicated. A few of us have a table, some more regularly than others.

Nice cut out Rob. Are you moving towards my territory? No, it's one I have listed for sale.

I've got a couple of coins that would do, but you wouldn't like the images.

This might be due to ebay's default settings. When you can get a refund through paypal for items 'not as described' as a right, it isn't a great leap forward to set the default to 'returns accepted' or even do away with the option. The cost of exposure on foreign ebay sites is a good reason for restricting to uk only, even if you are willing to sell abroad.

It's a pity it comes from a smoke-free home, otherwise it might have restored a bit of toning to the coin. Or is that just wishful thinking?

Yes it is.

or you could go for something really interesting, like this , shame he doesn't post to the UK Maybe it's a listing mistake. Perhaps $65K is the mintage of the error and not the price asked. It's amazing that 3 people decided to slab. That in itself is the rarity. I'm not surprised he says thanks for bidding though, as even the most uncharitable seller ought to recognise the outlandish windfall this would represent if sold.

He also says he is not too sure of its age. Does anyone know when these were made? If so they could answer his question and point out it is a modern copy at the same time. Just a thought.

They allegedly started at the beginning and were working forwards chronologically. Unfortunately, when I was looking for Ed. VI profile groats, most of those designated as Ed. VI were in fact Ed.IV facing bust. I let them know, they said thank you. The tickets are all messed up too, so you can't rely on the accession data either. This was obvious when a 'Montagu' coin according to the accession data was illustrated in the Huth catalogue (1927). Had to put them right on that too. Again they said thank you, but it basically means you have to cross check any data with the coin.

My favourite Scottish is a Linkwood.

forgot about that one. still desirable though

Rob, In a situation like you mention (coin was received, and positive feedback left for you), you should be able to call eBay and they will remove the "item not received" notation. I had a lady from England leave negative feedback, because she had to pay VAT fees, but when I called eBay, they removed the negative feedback, since VAT is the responsibility of the Buyer. You might give it a try, and call them. He opened the case because he didn't want to pay signed for postage. I just told him to reduce his maximum bid by the difference. I was happy with the reduced sale price because I explained my a**e was covered against him claiming the money back and getting the coin. US customs aren't the quickest out the blocks. She could ask ebay, but trying to explain to someone from the Indian sub-continent I don't hold out much hope. Being a seller won't help our case.

It's a pity they haven't updated their seller ratings to provide a more equitable playing field for both buyers and sellers. Just looked at the wife's 'Seller's Dashboard' and see that she is in danger of not being compatible with the Global standards required. It doesn't help when one of the so-called defects is 'Item not received'. That was opened by a US buyer on the same day as he won and paid for the item. What are you supposed to do, when you couldn't even have delivered it in time using Concorde? He stil left positive feedback after it cleared US customs a month down the line, but didn't withdraw the item not received claim. Another was because someone was p'd off that they had to pay postage, then because he decided in the end to pay including postage objected to the BU coins he received. Sadly there is no seller protection against t**t buyers other than moving the items for sale up market - which might just happen (says he wishfully thinking).

I quite like the Australian early issues. I picked up this well done openwork shilling reverse recently. http://www.rpcoins.co.uk/c20%20pics/03730.jpg

It is a steady upwards progression of prices where desirable pieces are concerned. If you look at the past 12 or 13 years you had £138K for GC's petition crown, then the Coenwulf mancus at over 200K, the Glenister petition crown at a similar amount and the Glenister Reddite crown at £400K, now the Ed.VIII sovereign at over half a million. All have set new highs, but then, all are highly desirable and not in ready availability. The commonest being the petition crown, still in single figures for private collectors, the others less common. Is it any surprise with the amount of money sloshing around the system?

You may rest assured that I do not have, nor have I ever had a narrow date 1877 penny. However, should I inadvertently acquire an uncirculated example, I will have to consider what to do with it............

You've correctly identified the variety, now you have to grade it correctly.

Vietnamese pot-bellied elephant?

The points that made me think it could possibly be a Taylor piece are as follows: The obverse edge is extremely worn, merging with the beads on the left hand side, but given that level of wear the remainder of the rims look really good and flat with the exception of the lump of excess at 12 o'clock. This is consistent with the rims having been polished. The raised lump on the rim is similar to that seen on a number of restrikes I have had in the past and the thin raised outer line on the edge from excess metal is consistent with Taylor's work. The collar on his press was in a dire state as evidenced by the number of coins seen double struck and rotated between strikes leading to a lot of ghostly legend remaining. The collar would frequently open between strikes leading to a series of vertical lines on the plain edges (normal for restrikes). This damage being done at the time ofmanufacture should not be confused with post-mint damage. In the case of the 1807 proof halfpenny, the rim was reduced in diameter leading to a less than perfect circle coupled with traces of the original beading merging with the edge, and the new beads were partially cut before a decision was taken to accept the changes, at which point the beads were fully recut. The ship is considerably simpler in design when compared to other ships. Taylor did not do a very sophisticated ship! The jury is out on the lettering. The shape of the G is similar to those on the restrike halfpennies. On the Soho pieces the G has a rounded bottom profile, whereas the coin above has a small spur pointing down. Unfortunately the pennies are not so consistent with Peck clearly illustrating both types of G on Soho coins. The profiles of the E and other letters is similarly not as clear cut as on the halfpennies.. Counting against the likelihood of it being a restrike is the weakness in the obverse legend. I have long thought this to be due to a build up of rubbish on the die from prolonged use, with the worst cases rendering the legend almost illegible in places. As Taylor struck pieces individually for sale to collectors, there would be no reason to make a coin with this striking weakness as it would represent poor quality control. The exception could only be if an old die was used to make a trial striking. So on balance I think it is most likely to be a Soho piece.

Fine or a bit better. A bit weak at the centre, but stronger in the legend.

I hadn't noticed, but on the face of it, sounds good. The fundamental problem is that there is an awful lot of crap sitting in people's homes on which they are trying to get some sort of return. As long as buyers are there for the rubbish, it will be listed, even if the volume reduces. More intractable is the problem that everyone expects things for a quid, so it's unlikely to result in an uplift in prices for sellers. Plus the starting price will have to be upped to take account of the additional ebay fee which again will deter early bidding. I still think eBay could maximise their returns by having two parallel sites - one where it is free to list which would accomodate the rubbish, only being charged if it sells, and the other where you pay a listing fee, but have a minimum starting price. The latter become a shop to all intents, but at least it will deter 99% or more of the junk, apart from those deluded souls who think they have a valuable piece of sh**e.

If no better than fine, then value will be minimal. In the 1960s people stashed away the 'rare' varieties leaving them more common than the 'common' types in grades found in circulation.

And the guilty party is?

Why bother? Just learn to grade properly such that you can do it without feeling you have to pay to gain an opinion on grade. I haven't seen your coin but I will give it genuine, with a little bit of wear - That will be ten pounds please. If you want a number on it, that will be another tenner. Thanks. If you want the slabs for protection there are some that can easily be opened, or you can put them in capsules.