Rob

I take an average of 4: CCGB 2011 (about right) Coin Yearbook 2012 (too low) British Coins Market Values 2012 (way too low) Spink 2012 (way too high) I then use a sliding scale based on grade to determine what I'd pay: F 20% of book average VF 42% of book average EF 67% of book average UNC 92% of book average ...and every intermediate grade in between, of course. This biases my successful bidding towards the top grades, which has to be a good thing. Lower grades I only tend to win if they are dirt cheap, which again, is what you'd want to happen! sorry, but you did ask! Apart from the assessment of the Coin Yearbook (which is a mixed bag, I find - some prices too high, some about right, some too low), I'd agree with Declan's assessment. I'm not sure I'd go so low as 20% of a Fine coin if I really wanted it though! Or 42% of a desired VF. There are coins that are rare but usually found in low grade, and rarely or never featured in guides - 1911 'Gouby X' penny, 1903 'Open 3', 1915 'BRITT' farthing, etc - what do you pay for them? What you can afford, if you really want it. And that's the key, I think : we are generally willing to pay a higher price for items we really want, and that's not a bad guiding principle. Rob's advice is very sound. One of the best ways to do research is to attend your nearest auction - they are attended by a mix of dealers and collectors, and with one or two exceptions (where a couple of collectors fight over a particular item) give a realistic idea of what to expect to pay. Bottom line? If you use Spink as your reference, you WILL pay too much. (Been there, done that, got the T shirt..) Not necessarily. Modern things definitely, but once you go back to Victoria or earlier, then the results are more mixed. Godless florin £450 in UNC - overpriced, 1848 pattern £1600 FDC - if only. The last one I bought (3 years ago) cost me £2500. The FDC price then was £1100.

I think all publications are subject to errors in various departments. The only way to know the market price is to do your own research.

I haven't seen one, but confess to not having specifically looked for one.

And this one is very highly graded. So highly graded in fact that it is indisputably overgraded by even the most abstract definition of high. Peck, you might want to reassess your viewpoint on this seller. Caveat emptor, particularly any beginners reading this.

Sounds like it. It really boils down to what grade you are happy with. At the bottom end of the collector market many people tend to accumulate as many coins as possible without too much consideration of grade as long as the coin is cheap and they don't have an example. In the middle you find a large number of people who are willing to pick up things that are cheap relative to the prices quoted in the various yearbooks, whilst still making the odd purchase of the more difficult items at a price closer to book. The collection also tends to become more refined. The higher the grade sought, the fewer times these opportunities arise because the large surplus of material over the number of collectors at the bottom end is eventually reversed to the extent that the number of collectors outweighs the material available. The result is that prices take off in high grades for many things. You also find that high grade collections tend to be focussed as a result because the pot of money available for coin purchases is not infinite.

Your taste invariably changes to some extent with time. The more you see, the pickier you become as you remember what looked better compared to other coins. People whose experience is mostly via ebay frequently think they have a gem becuae they have been sold a coin which was described as full lustre. That lustre may be due to the coin having been polished as the number of mirrors for sale will testify. Only by handling a range of coins in all grades can you appreciate the full range of (natural) colours that can be found. The higher the grades seen the less environmental damage these coins are likely to have suffered and in all probability will offer the greater eye appeal. Well circulated coins will mostly be grubby with lashings of finger grease and dirt. This will not normally enhance the eye appeal.

Collecting is all about eye appeal. Whatever floats your boat is what you should be buying. You are not buying coins to satisfy other collectors' tastes. I am surprised you are unable to upgrade your copper coins, as most dates are obtainable up to mint state with full lustre if you have the patience and are prepared to spend an appropriate amount of dosh.

They must charge £50 because people have proved in the past they will pay this much. Harrogate is £2 on the Friday. York is free. Most regular fairs have a nominal entry fee, but £50 is prohibitive. Having said that, with such a high entry charge it clearly states they want to give the big spenders priority. But the big spenders are well known to the dealers and so would normally be offered a 50K coin based on past spending patterns irrespective of an impending fair and not just coincident with Coinex. The small collector is unlikely to be affected by missing out on a £50K coin.

That's just plain stupid. You virtually have to leave planet earth to avoid contact with 1887 shillings, though the large JH type are decidedly rare, sorry, non-existant. I've always thought that particular seller was one of the better ones. It just goes to show.. No different to the vast majority of eBay sellers. High grade/uncirculated/choice, occasionally the adjective used to describe the coin and the actual item for sale concur, but mostly not. From what I've seen it is mostly your typical marketing bullsh*t, and this is just an example of it. Any reputable person would say changed date and point out the obvious problem, but that might limit his returns. We all complain about pewter copies luring in and ripping off the ignorant beginner, but this is no better.

That's just plain stupid. You virtually have to leave planet earth to avoid contact with 1887 shillings, though the large JH type are decidedly rare, sorry, non-existant.

Nothing to suggest it is anything other than an I

Today was quite interesting with a fair number of passed lots too. Some of those shillings were reasonable, some OTT and some about right. The prices paid for the two 1850s was just a reflection of the absolute rarity of the date.

A more accurate description of the item purchased would have been 'a collage of threads'

There was a thread recently by Mongo on exactly this topic. Can somebody link to it as I'm on my way out.

I had a woman on the phone a few weeks ago getting all excited about an 1877 penny, which had Britannia on the front(sic) and it was a rare type cos she's got a thin neck and would I come and value it for her because she has seen they sell for £3500. After a few minutes explaining that the type was determined by whether the date was either wide or narrow but I would happily give her a valuation at my normal rates, I asked which it was and the phone went dead. Wasn't the first, won't be the last. It is just a case of the ebay mentality where every other coin is the rarest type.

I'm intrigued as to how he determines a fair price that he is happy with given the other numismatic item is a coin weight and is described as a coin, unknown denomination. Just let him carry on.

Now what do we do? Presumably go into frenzied posting to make up for yesterday.................. unfortunately I've nothing to report

Hooray. Sorted?

Yes

Depends on the coin and whether there are two or more people desperately seeking the variety. 6 or 7 years ago I had a nice Elizabeth 1 shilling pencilled in for a bid of 5 or 600 which was about right for the prices at the time, but it went to over 2K because two variety collectors were competing. The greater the number collecting a series, the greater the likelihood that prices will exceed expectations.

Yes. It is your picture and you own the rights. The new owner only possesses the coin, just as you would own the rights to any image of a picture you took in a public place. A building may have belonged to many people over the years, but any images of it are only copyrighted by the person who took them. If not, you wouldn't find many images in newspapers, magazines, on the tv, or anywhere else.

Same dies as Brooker 300

I have slabs with no bar code, barcode and no legend, barcode with NGC and barcode with the full name. The earliest two which I have to hand are the green label without barcode. The highest number is 195xxx. The double florin falls between this number and the lowest number I have with barcode to hand. That there is no image is not surprising because the number is an early reference number (which is supported by the early hologram on the back which is the same as my green label slab ). Images are not provided unless paid for by the submitter and at the time indicated by the reference, I'm not sure the service was even offered. I have a few 'Cheshire Collection' NGC slabs which are numbered 1846720 to 727. These can be accurately dated to the beginning of 2005 as we know this was when the coins were sent to NGC. At least one of these coins in my possession was unslabbed in Nicholson, so there can be no argument as to the dating/label no. correlation. The label on the double florin would date to the early 1990s at the latest being only 6 figures. I still don't think there is anything wrong. There is no compulsion to have the coin imaged in the NGC reference section. A few months ago I commented on an NGC slabbed coin previously in my possession that had been tooled to remove a large scratch on the cheek prior to submission. That was a $30K coin in a St.James's sale, but there was still no image on the NGC site. That I knew the coin had been tooled was due to my having intimate knowledge of the piece which I could confirm was genuine on account of the untampered with tiny surface marks. Not everybody feels the need to pay extra to have the image taken. Many of the images appear to be the result of a personal desire to show off an individual's registry set, or to provide a virtual collection.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. The reverse hologram is as used on the early bulky slabs. The two examples I have with this type have reference numbers 162612 and 195437, but have the early insert without bar coding. The earliest slab I have with a bar code is 308500 which is obviously later than the coin listed, but the double florin appears to fit into the sequence ok. Those with a bar code can have NGC, Numismatic Guaranty Corporation or nothing below, and there are several types of hologram. Here the various designs of both label and hologram are shown.

You would be best asking the American posters on here how they ship coins outside the country.