Rob

Doesn't get any better. Hi. You simply don't get it do you? Your listing says do not make offers off ebay i go buy ebay policy and only sell on line . I will not answer any emails that are bullying me to get it cheaper. I will send the information to the buyer where it was brought, i described it as in the auction i brought it from they have handled the coin too ! i will get a copy from the auction house if requested for the buyer . if the buyer is not happy i will except a return if not as described i will send futher information only to the bidders not people got nothing better to do then second guess something they have not handled or want try get cheaper ! No collector is going to make you a serious offer for a modern copy as no collector is likely to want it (certainly not at £30+ when you can buy them for £1), but most collectors also do not like to be taken for a ride, nor for other innocent people to be taken for a ride. However, since you were informed it is a copy, you have updated the image to a fuzzy one so that the WRL is not visible. This is an undisguised fraudulent action under the sale of goods act and therefore a criminal offence. If there is a problem with the item, you have a case against the seller. You do not have the right to steal money from an innocent buyer. I note you posted the question regarding the diameter. How about posting to the effect that its authenticity has been called into question? If you would do the honourable thing and either advertise it as a copy or end the listing and re-advertise it as a modern copy, then everyone would be happy. Nobody is against copies being listed if advertised as such. The same goes for your 'guinea'. You have been told it is a brass forgery and even what reference it has. You told me it is a shilling size too, so you cannot claim ignorance. As the guinea was last struck in 1813, this is also problematic for your argument. I therefore ask you to remove the two items and relist them with the proper description. (you do not know me so do not judge me i have been nursing for 40 years i have never done anything dishonest but i meet many dishonest poeple i rang up ebay i was advised to relist the coin as i had conflicking views regarding coin dealers and pornbokers they buy coins of poeple as cheap as possible i brought coins in a auction secondly my son took the photos so why say i did the photo on purpose that way you are making slander remarks which is incorrect i tried my best to describe the item i even offered a full refund if not happy if you a coin dealer if i took a coin to y0u for £300 i bet i be lucky to get £50.00 of you i have not if anyone is dishonest it the auction as i getting it checked tomorrow so i have the auction back me up so if someone tells you the world ends tomorrow you beleve them well it not brass) sic The brackets are mine. Might have a word with with one of those pornbrokers - if they are genuine.

Is there any way to explain to ebay what he is doing? All I could find was a list of options, none of which were appropriate. The communications went as follows. This is a modern copy. The WRL under the shield stands for Westair Reproductions Ltd. Value? £1 if you are lucky. WELL i brought it with the gold gunnia is that okay if not i been ripped of buy a top auction That isn't a guinea. It's a sixpence or a shilling depending on diameter. Shillings are about 24mm its a shilling then Allowing for a reasonable interpretation of the replies, I believe he is fully aware of what he is doing.

Talented coin

So they acknowledge the existence of Cabinet Friction, they just mark it down for wear, which we all would do! Can anyone further clarify the 6 thing as, comparing Paul's to Rob's, it isn't leaping out at me? Nor me. The most obvious thing to my eyes is the broadening of detail arising from the cast made. If any imperfections are tooled out in the resulting cast, the detail would broaden further.

Comparing Paulus' with one that predates the Chinese pieces, the most striking thing is the porosity seen on the modern copy. Another consistent factor is 'bulkiness' of the characters, crown jewels and pearls and the lack of any 3D relief on the tops of letter. The border teeth are usually a bit indistinct on the copies too. http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l530/paul_whittingham/1763_Shilling_Rev03_zpsed292dc0.png

Interestingly the 85 bank token was noted by Steve Lockett in passing as 'Ooh, the finest known', but as a coin was in worse grade than the quite heavily toned ANACS slabbed 64 that I also had listed at one point and about which disparaging remarks were made by him. On balance I don't think that one had AT and certainly had less wear than the 85, but it did have a 2mm mark hidden in the legend, so sadly also had to go. One day I'll get a mark and wear free example to fill the 3/- denomination spot.

Wouldn't you want your coinweight heavy, so you can tell people 'oh, I'm sorry, your coin is a bit under so I'm only giving you 11d for it'? Or have I misunderstood how it works? This weight (according to the listing) is 5.67g (87.5gr) so quite a bit under the 5.96g 'ideal'. And below what in practice I've found is a more common weight for a shilling (about 5.8g). Correct. Faulty thinking on my part. CR should refer to Charles(?), so a contemporary shilling would be 92 grains. The weight reduced to 5.67g (87.5gr) in the recoinagage of 1816 and stayed there afterwards. Maybe the weight post-dates 1816?

A shilling should be 92 grains, so if the coin weight is kosher, 92 grains would be right. If not official and contemporary, you would think it might be slightly under to extract an income from the 'excess' silver.

Correct. This is a thread where I acquired an 1839/41 proof halfpenny. 39 over 43 is also known. Both must post-date 1839 by definition. Clearly a third head sixpence would potentially be much later than a recut 1841 or 1843 halfpenny, but there is no indication as to when the latter was recut - i.e it could have been 1880 or later.

I would agree that the 39 sets were in production up until the 1887 sets and even after 1887 would they still have been available via the mint? It is conceivable that the dies could have been used up until the death of Victoria as the sets were "made to order" for want of a better term and the Una £5 would probably have been as desirable then as it is now. Which explains the number of varieties of the Una £5, whereby a new die would be engraved as there were no corresponding currency dies to recut. Have we just reinvented the wheel or does anyone have documentary evidence from Mint Records etc to back this up?

Interesting. I just bought an 1839 proof sixpence in the London Auction: Sixpence 1839 Plain Edge Proof NGC PF64 I will have to look closely at it when it arrives. Unfortunately, unlike the halfpenny, the date is on the wrong side. Otherwise it would have been possible to give an earliest possible terminal date for the sets. I note that the die axis is upright on the 3rd head in Heritage which is unlike the early pieces. Similarly the 1839/41 proof halfpenny has an inverted die axis compared to the normal upright for the series. I wonder if they are contemporary?

"Victoria Proof Sixpence error 1839, Young Head, S-3912/3908 type, reeded edge, medal-rotation die alignment, "Mint Error PR65 Muled w/KM-757 Obverse" NGC, amber-gold iridescent toning over a silvery gray base. First one we have encountered, dated 1839 on reverse but struck from an obverse die used for the 3rd Head style (of 1880-87) with really crisply engraved hair. Very rare." This description of an error doesn't take into consideration the later production of 1839 proof sets. This coin has to parallel the 1839 set halfpenny where they are known as a straight 1839 and recut 1841 & 1843 dies. The use of a third head die would suggest that the 1839 sets may have been produced up to the introduction of the 1887, and interestingly therefore may have both preceded and succeeded the 1853 sets. I don't think it is an error.

The hair curl might be due to die polishing. The two that I have listed are 1812 and 1814. The first shows a full head, but the later coin shows a similar feature albeit not as accentuated. On the full head, the hair to the left of this curl is in lower relief. There are quite a lot of gren spots on your coin. Is it plated copper?

Rare coin. Most never saw the light of day.

Certainly not the same obverse die as the cross on top of the crown doesn't touch the inner circle at the same point on a bead, the Z of ELIZ is misaligned on one and not on the other and the A of REGINA is further/closer to the outer circle. I think it might be over portcullis too, but isn't as obvious in the hand as the reverse.

The first one might be unc or thereabouts, but it is difficult to say with the image provided which is too bright. Certainly no apparent wear on the rampant lion or the ear lobe. The second is a rarer date, but don't get carried away with the rarity values as these really only kick in in high grade. That one is best avoided as you should be able to find one in at least fine for a modest premium over melt.

Too difficult. Collections are assembled to provide a nice aesthetic mix where one coin complements the next. Much easier to say which coin you would remove to improve the collection, but that's just a reflection of the ease with which you can fill gaps as opposed to finding the right (nice) coin.

This should bring you back to earth. 1566 3d, i.m. Lion (over Portcullis rev)

Like most collections it has good bits and bad bits. It's a mixture of mostly EF or better milled with some barely legible gap fillers too where the ideal coin will not be available to buy. Hammered are similar, but with many VF or better. Again there are a few dogs, but we can't always get what we want.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion! The changing of EF75 to AU75 by CGS a few years back was no big deal. It is the same grade if the number is the same and the seller of an EF75 coin will be quick to point out it is the same as AU75. However, adding new numbers such as 58 and 59 will cause problems, as coins previously graded 55 might be the same as the new 59. I think it is very important to maintain consistency. And where do you stop? The same argument can be used for AVF 19 and 18, AFDC86,87 etc. Using a finer scale will probably also increase the time it take to grade accurately and consistently and hence cost. You'll progressively get more inconsistency the finer the divisions between grades. If you or I can look at a coin on several occasions and see or miss bits here and there depending on the lighting conditions, the state of your eyesight that day, or even if you had a skinful the night before; then I am certain that the same thing can happen to anyone employed as a grader. They are only human and subject to the same failings as anyone else.

Millions of bytes on their way to you now.

This is not for sale. It is the representative example of the acorn over ermine mark (seen on the rev. only) for the collection.

Testing, testing. It appears to copy but doesn't say so any more? I presume this means that everything is working as before, just nobody realises.

Rob, you can still easily paste the pics into the Forum ... with the coin selected, simply click in the IMG code field (it will say 'Copied' when you do this) then Ctrl+V in to your post It used to say copied, now it doesn't say anything - so presumably doesn't work any more or at least not with my computer.

I got confused when I tried the other day. You used to be able to copy the link and paste it in a reply on the forum, but now it doesn't copy any more if the lack of message is to be believed. Gave up and moved on. I might return to photobucket when I have a spare hour or two and try to work it out. Why take something that works and render it inoperative? What drives programmers to do this? If they must fiddle with the program, at least have the decency to pin some revised instructions to the login. Grrrr. Edited to say that I haven't a clue how to use Photobucket with ebay listings anyway. One problem is enough.