Rob

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.

Trace of a previous die, i.e. one before it was bell marked - so portcullis or even harp. You would need a really good hi res image to sort though. Maybe the rounded bit is the bottom half of an S? The die would not need to be recut in the same orientation as being hand held, the die axis is a lottery.

Shouldn't that be £200-300? I've heard of setting the estimates low to draw in the punters, but £20 is ridiculous.

Presumably because the description contains the words gold and coin. Talk about learning the hard way.

It's the only logical strategy when dealing with eBay and eBay buyers. Both want to screw the seller so you have to look after no.1, because eBay sure as hell don't do customer service.

Just don't list anything of value. List for 99p or £1 and only include those items you would willingly sell for that amount. Make sure they are only listed when it is free and by automatically relisting when free, all you need to do is a couple of mouse clicks and top up the gaps when items sell. Even with that strategy you will probably only sell 5-10%, with most selling at opening price. This provides benefits all round in that it gets rid of shi*e you don't want, without risking the loss of anything valuable. This is good for the environment. It helps collectors of washers to adequately source material for their collections whilst enriching yourself in the process. As a seller of crap you will probably make a considerable profit on a few pence worth of scrap metal. The poundshop mentality of your average eBay buyer means they will be equally happy paying a pound for something worth pence as something worth a couple quid. Don't pretend you can educate people about quality - buyers have rose tinted spectacles meaning if the book says something is worth £1K FDC, they by extension have a £1K washer as it is the only number quoted. The race to the bottom will attract more due to the (outside) possibility of finding a valuable item than it will ever convince the same that they are throwing away good money. Saying something is UNC or FDC is meaningless as nobody believes an eBay seller anyway. Make sure you include an adequate amount in the postage charge to cover eBay's FVF and Paypoo fees. Cover your own backside by getting everything signed for even if it sells for only a quid. That covers you against eBay's bias in favour of buyers. If people complain that the postage is three times that of the item, explain that if eBay didn't bite the hand that feeds them, you might be more amenable to trust others. Success breeds an arrogant attitude. Most businesses eventually go tits up because they don't listen to their customers. I confidently forecast that eBay will be no exception to this rule. Once the initial work has been done, ongoing maintenance is relatively untaxing and you convert something you don't want into a modest amount of cash, occasionally hitting the jackpot when Mr Thicko pays many times an object's worth.

More likely 6 over displaced 6 or even a 6 of different size.

I can't help wondering about 151291722044 which looks like crown on the obverse (I can't see any trace of a tun), but listed as Tun over Crown over Bell on the reverse. A combination of marks would be most unusual, so the question is whether the reverse shows some artefact which appears to be a tun, but isn't. If the obverse had been a clear tun I might have been interested but I need to be convinced of the reverse.

I suppose you could always list Dinky Toys in the car category?

One from eBay themselves now. Just looked at the wife's eBay account and she has 100 free listings in the Motor Car category only available to private individuals. How many non-businesses would conceivably have 100 cars to dispose of? You wouldn't get to 100 in a lifetime, let alone on the 1st of May.

Aren't all these external backup systems run by governments so they can keep tabs on everyone and have all the info in one place? i.e.run by the last people on the planet you would trust.

Obviously not a Time Machine or Dropbox user... oops. Not all of us have access to Dr. Who's Tardis. For this mere mortal, time is a steadily advancing non-reversible thing unless someone can invent something that genuinely works.

Jolt his memory and remind him that the post office gives you a receipt for tracked items. Tell him if he asks the PO to send you the coin by signed for/special delivery he will find this is true and that you aren't bs'ing him. Oh, and while you are on, tell him he's a t**t, but could alleviate the situation somewhat by sending you the coin that you won................... by tracked mail.

If nVF, then £27.50 is a bit steep. Your coin certainly isn't good VF. Tickets can also get mixed up.

I think they are by the same hand. The split line under Charles, the shape of the 3, T, the Roman 1. The earlier ticket certainly looks like the one attributed to Rayner in the BNJ. The use of Spink no 2785 would place the later reading to the period 1978-2005, with his retirement in 1989 implying it was written in the first 10 years. The price of £80 is in the right ballpark for a VF or a little better in the 1980s. He left Seaby in 1973, so if the earlier side was written by him whilst at Seaby it must be immediately post-decimalisation. Perusing Seaby's Bulletins for the period, there was a gFine on the books for about a year @ £10 reduced to 8. A really good fine at £12, and what may be the same as the ticket here, a VF with a good portrait @ £30 in Jan 1973 no.6162. There was however, another given as good VF very sharp Portrait @ £33 in April. This could be the same coin and a case of hype, trying to improve the selling prospects. There was also a nVF @ £16.50 with a stain on the obverse in Dec. 1973.

In a parallel universe. There appears to be many people who only buy on eBay and ignore dealers' lists and sites. Very few of the buyers I have sold to on eBay have returned via the site. They want their 99p coins - everything else is a rip-off.

Presumably use a cyrillic alphabet from the symbols bit in word

If you rationalise the list a bit, you will find you don't want too many. The following are either non-existent or for practical purposes unobtainable: 1960-54, 1952, 1943-41, 1933, 1925-23. That leaves you needing only 10 pieces from the 20th century - 1903, 1909, 1912, 1926, 1930, 1946, 1950, 1951, 1953 & 1961. In low grade, 1926, 50 & 51 will be the most difficult, the others most of us could pull out of a bag in fine.