Rob

Spink can only sell what they are asked to. As you point out, the frankly vile sixpences were depressing. I ploughed through them all to see if there was an overmark in the hammereds that would have ticked a box, but no. Nothing esoteric and little of quality. Even when one coin in a lot was half decent, it was usually mixed with others that you would have difficulty selling. It isn't a new problem. Most collections are run of the mill material, and have to be because low and middle grade coins make up the vast majority of coins extant - it's just that they don't usually go through Spink, so people who regularly buy through them are going to be disappointed when these appear. Even Walter Wilkinson's collection had a few dogs in there (a few of which I bought), but sometimes that's all there is known of the variety. The point I take from recent sales is that there must be a new cohort of buyers who have no experience of what some coins can look like based on the prices paid for indifferent material. Maybe a decade or more of dross on ebay has reset standards in what people perceive to be quality?

We had this discussion a while ago. Dave Greenhalgh was here saying you only had one blow with the hammer, which is unquestionably true for small coins (he does this all the time). The hammer can bounce leading to double striking, but I think the question of more than one blow could apply to larger modules. I used my type 5 halfcrown as an example, see below. There is unquestionable double striking by the horse's rump and by the S on the obverse, and the N & H on the reverse. The relief of the obverse has a significant change of angle which is obvious with the lighting, and a similar profile change in the diametrically opposed part of the flan. I couldn't see how a bounced strike could produce such a large change of angle whilst still producing what is quite a well struck up coin. Looking to pick holes in my thoughts, the only way you could get this profile with a double change of angle would be if the die was cut with the angles as seen, which isn't impossible. Although it is counter-intuitive to presume the die was engraved on a deliberately non-planar surface, I suppose an angled profile such as this would constrain movement along the 1 o'clock/7 o'clock axis, but the lower and less angled profile on the 10 o'clock/4 o'clock axis would allow some lateral movement. The double striking seen on this coin would agree with the above, so maybe I'm wrong in thinking it was struck more than once. Don't have a ouija board to find out.

Yep, it was absolutely bonkers. Safe to say my collection is the same today as it was yesterday morning.

It's rotated between strikes. The A is seen twice, but the other doubled letters have been erased. You can tell there is a displacement from the state of the inner circle.

I've been looking at this too and am wondering if it is a trace of a former die that hasn't been polished out. There are plenty of polishing marks which suggest it had a former life and some of the residual lines are wider than file marks being the same width as seen on the shield quartering, such as that by the harp.

Quite common across all flan sizes. The number of double struck coins implies that they did not reject them for this reason. The only important criteria was the weight, as each silver coin was supposed to have it's value equal to the silver content. It may or may not detract. A screwed up portrait such that you can't make out the features or an illegible legend will count against it.

Oh, I see now. Didn't read it fully as I usually struggle to plough through the drivel, and wouldn't buy whatever it was in any case. I think it has to be a design issue, because anything to do with spelling or grammar doesn't come within her capabilities. To quote the listing without amending in order to convert it into English. 'Have a read because. these will soon be extreamly expensive as I will be soon letting the cat out of the bag ..and informing sellers that's when they go up in price believe me I did try to tell you ..yes for a small fee but for the information. .one pound is a bargain I know error coins ...take for instance the brexit 50p A LOT don't know it's an error but fact is ..it is Prosperity don't have an Oxford comma on the end as it should ...but the coin I talk about will be worth much much more don't miss out it's a stonker of an error coin'

There was a number of mind boggling prices today. I guess the first sale at midday set the scene with hammer prices at twice the estimates across the collection. It's always depressing to think you might have a bid at 2 or 3 times the estimate, only to see it sail off into the distance. I thought lot 259 looked quite an attractive proposition in the 2-3K bracket against a 500-800 estimate, but 8 or 9K? The same could be said for any number of lots. It will be interesting to see the final totals. The last couple of years have played havoc with my purchasing.

Won't be that as it's up for a quid and free postage. The £2 with the four legged tripod would represent a loss. After fees it has to be a 10p or smaller, unless the blunder is to list something at a loss?

All this specifying the VAT rate by sellers is irrelevant for exports, as the only VAT applied is on importation. i.e. the vendor would be required to know and upload the rates for each item in each country they sell to. Items listed on ebay by business sellers are required to be VAT inclusive as far as I know, because it is deemed to be similar to a shop, the reason being the public see the full price inclusive of all taxes as they are unable to reclaim any of it. Businesses have to ask for a VAT receipt and claim it back if registered. The rate of VAT in the country where the item is listed is not important because ebay doesn't collect 20% on internal sales. Nor should it.

I suspect it operates under the same system as for shipping to certain states in the US whereby sales tax is payable by the purchaser and is automatically added to their invoice, though as a seller, the money doesn't actually land in the vendor's account. As a seller, they won't charge the VAT personally, and let's face it, most sellers of coins are private individuals, many of whom don't believe VAT is due on any transaction, nor that HMRC should be in any way involved. Ebay are therefore acting as a tax collector at the point of import to get around this issue. What's happened here is likely to be a half baked operating method, whereby ebay only apply 20% VAT and call it quits because the number of 5% items is minimal in the context of imports. I suspect the only way around it is to get payments out of ebay's control working again in whatever way is possible. You will lose buyer's protection (if it means anything), but given most people on both sides are honest, it should work for much of the time if the will is there. Making a separate Paypal payment outside eBay and ensuring the seller puts the right description on the customs label will work, but for low cost things, say up to about 75 quid, a 20% payment to ebay will be cheaper than the Royal Mail or courier admin fee plus the import vat which will become due if not already paid. Alternative is to veto it, because they are unlikely to listen to reasoned argument having already agreed terms with HM Gov. Ebay applying the right tax would be the cleanest and most equitable way forward, but don't hold your breath. I'm also wondering how the Royal Mail will know that import tax has been paid? Their default position has to be charging tax unless there is proof of prior payment. I don't know if the code that seems to be included in the address of every purchase is connected to this? Anybody? Edit to add that if you are going to get 5% VAT applied on coins, then the vendor will somehow have to communicate the eligibility of the item for treatment to ebay. As we know, not all coins are equal, so differing rates apply and this will almost certainly be beyond the ken of a foreign vendor who is likely to be as au fait with tax codes and the finer points of the VAT regime as the man on the street is here. There is also another potential issue in that people may start describing items as those in lower tax bands and claim ignorance, which I'm sure HMRC have considered. Taxing at the top rate for imports and the buyer reclaiming excess tax is therefore likely to be the best option, as you will have both parties with the required knowledge and it protects all interests.

That's a joke Gove looks like he has pencilled eyebrows, so at least he's trying to act the part.

Who said 'Things can only get better'? Schoolgirls were much nicer when I was there. Anyway, the one on the left in the middle row still looks too masculine.

Eighth coinage, 1603 quarter merk. Spink 5499. I don't know anything about them, but the weight is about right for a slightly clipped coin (a full weight merk is 104.75 grains) and the metal is 916 silver. The price in the last Spink book is 125 fine and 425 VF.

I haven't seen one, but haven't looked. All those I have images of are 1+A.

Correct. In common with most other people, neither of us win the lottery. However, many 'rarities' known only to that man in the pub or on social media are found on a daily basis.

Everywhere's in lockdown at the moment, so I doubt there will be many people around as the BM will be closed. I'm not aware of it being on line. I do have a copy here, but not for sale.

I don't recall having difficulty with either reverse for either 1895 or 1896. I'd wait.

Taken over by CNG 1991-2

It could well be the Batty coin, with the 9 altered to a 0 by removing part of the loop and closing the circle at the 9 tail. The join at 10 o'clock suggests that is one end of the added bit, but the bottom is a bit blurred. That coin was in Peck's collection, but I can't find any reference to it being sold by Spink out of the Circular, nor an article in the Bulletin if HAS bought it from Spink.

It could be an issue with the metal supplied for the dies as documented by the mint, just as it was 12 years before when the halfcrowns managed a mintage of 91872, mostly struck from recycled 1846 dies together with a few new 1848 dies. The same problem was probably the reason for the number of 1848/6 & 1848/7 pennies as the bar used for the dies was presumably the same for both denominations. The metal stock used for a particular die would probably come from the same bar and be made as a job lot, not singly, so a wholesale failure of a particular reverse or obverse would be expected for that group. I'd go for that over a particular die being a trial because the basic design had been approved, so slight changes in the finer detail would be down to new punches, not the overall design.

The overmark doesn't have to obliterate the old mark. If they had to do this then the old mark would be polished out - it just needs to be superimposed so that the mark for the pyx period is confirmed. The different marks are not all the same size, and even within a mark there are different size punches for the various denominations. The profile of each mark can help identify an overmark, but you do need a modicum of detail to differentiate between them. In the case of your coin it was the right hand lump which leads me to think it is trefoil over tower. Sometimes it completely covers the old mark, which means you have to identify a die from the previous mark in order to say it was changed.

That's worse than useless! Try and tease some detail out of the obverse mark. It might have slightly more rounded petals than the attached (which is from a 6th bust coin), but the general shape will be the same with a wiggly tail. There's definitely a tower there.

Certainly 5th bust and not 6th. Could be trefoil over tower. Reverse pic?

A pity the only face on image or clear image is the museum picture - but perhaps not surprising. If it stays low enough it might be worth buying just to leave crappy feedback.