Rob

Luckily for the people living in the following countries - Africa, Russian Federation, Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, Ukraine the seller is not willing to flood the market with the copies. Leaving aside the question of NGC's competence which it appears is a given, I actually wonder about the seller here. We have a listing that is priced in US$. The location of the item is Paris. The ebay id has a stop in the middle of the name which is very reminiscent of a number of Yorkshire and Lancashire based purveyors of this crap who ebay refused to deal with. Can't help wondering if there is a connection. Lots of things have been bought from China too. Given the coin has been physically handled prior to submission and they obviously feel and look wrong, any person submitting a coin will know that a pitted flan will lead to an environmental damage label, so the only reason to submit to the TPG is to accord the coin a genuine status - something which the Negligent Grading Committee have duly obliged. It now has an official seal of approval. I always wondered why the American TPGs withdrew their guarantees on world coins, but I thought they would still guarantee a coin as genuine. Methinks a large pointy hat with a big D on the front is appropriate. Why has he submitted this to NGC if he's in Paris, PCGS have an office in Paris now, why not send it there? Is he actually Fu Man Choo posing as a Frenchie?UPDATE..........Coin has been taken down I had absolutely no idea the American's had withdrawn liability! Joe and his Aunt could slab on that basis! Taken down? Now that would be something extraordinary if that was eBay led...I just can see it, with TPG's being their future baby? BONJOUR IF YOU ARE READING THIS THREAD! I thought that both NGC and PCGS had restricted their liability to a nominal sum and the limit of the guarantee was that the coin was genuine. I may be wrong about the fine detail, but I know that there was a severe cutback in guarantees. This was discussed a while ago if anyone can find the thread.

I've done very well in the past from their incompetence. They are alright as long as you do your homework, and as a bonus frequently screw up to the advantage of the observant. Mine's a pint.

Luckily for the people living in the following countries - Africa, Russian Federation, Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, Ukraine the seller is not willing to flood the market with the copies. Leaving aside the question of NGC's competence which it appears is a given, I actually wonder about the seller here. We have a listing that is priced in US$. The location of the item is Paris. The ebay id has a stop in the middle of the name which is very reminiscent of a number of Yorkshire and Lancashire based purveyors of this crap who ebay refused to deal with. Can't help wondering if there is a connection. Lots of things have been bought from China too. Given the coin has been physically handled prior to submission and they obviously feel and look wrong, any person submitting a coin will know that a pitted flan will lead to an environmental damage label, so the only reason to submit to the TPG is to accord the coin a genuine status - something which the Negligent Grading Committee have duly obliged. It now has an official seal of approval. I always wondered why the American TPGs withdrew their guarantees on world coins, but I thought they would still guarantee a coin as genuine. Methinks a large pointy hat with a big D on the front is appropriate.

According to E C Linton in the BNJ vol.29 p.192, item 6 in the facts known notes that there is a gap in the mint records for 1848-52. The article concerned halfcrowns, but if the same holds for all denominations it seems unlikely that it would be possible to resolve this question conclusively. A query to the RM museum ought to clarify this. What we do know is that there was an overhang of spare dies for halfcrowns and shillings dated 1846 due to the occurence of the 1848/6 in both cases. The existence of the 1848/7 and 1849/7 halfcrown show that some dies were prepared for use in 1847, but not required unless a straight 1847 turns up. With no known 1847 shillings and just a solitary sixpence, any output must have been minimal. The existence of the 1848/7 sixpence lends credibility to the sole 1847 example being genuine. For what it is worth, during 1848 a total of 91,872 halfcrowns were struck and based on the numbers extant, most must have been struck from 1848/6 dated dies. Only 1 or 2 dies at most were 1848/7 which had to be from the 16 obverse dies cut during 1847 but presumably mostly undated. The 1848 without the overdate ought to be from the same batch of 16 cut in 1847. At the beginning of the year, a total of 13 1846 dated dies were available but not all necessarily used. Knowing that 22 dies dated 1846 were consumed in 1847 and that a total of 367,488 halfcrowns were struck in this year, an average of just under 17000 coins per die can be derived. This low figure can be explained by the known fact that the mint was concerned with the sort life of a die at the time. It therefore implies that about half a dozen 2/6d dies were employed in 1848. I would assume that any data available for the life of penny dies dated 1847 and 1848 could probably be sensibly compared to the halfcrown, as the steel bar used from stock would probably be from the same batch given the similarity of dimensions for the two denominations. Additionally, it may well explain the number of overstruck dates 8/7 and 8/6 which may have been brought into use to counteract the short die lifetimes experienced. Moving to 1849 and 1850 shillings. If the mint outputs are known for these two years and the relative abundance of 1849 1850/49 and 1850 shillings is documented, by combining those figures with a life expectancy guesstimate for the dies it may be possible to arrive at an approximate figure. Any resolution of the die lifetime problem would reduce the number of dies proportionately and probably in equal measure for the two years as the large output of Godless florins in 1849 suggests that on the whole they had overcome the problems to at least some extent. As to the question of rare dates being held back in greater percentage terms than common dates, I would think it should be possible to use the survival rates of the 1848 halfcrowns from a known quantity struck as a reference because these are also known to be the rarest of the early halfcrowns along with 1841. Hocking doesn't list anything useful in the RM museum for these dates. Thoughts anyone?

Oh dear

In the period 1847-50, silver issues were a bit screwed up. This was probably due to contuinuing indecision regarding a change to a decimal currency which had been mooted in the first half of the decade. If you look at halfcrowns for example, there were a good number of unused dies left over 1846 following a large issue in the previous two years. A handful were struck in 1847 and some in 1848. Dies were prepared for 1847, but not apparently used until 1848. No shillings are known for 1847 and only a solitary sixpence. It wasn't until 1849 that a large quantity of silver was struck. The quantity of Godless florins produced probably meant that fewer shillings were struck in 1849 than was originally intended when the anticipated output was decided. The number of dies presumably proved to be too numerous for the achieved output meaning that most shillings in 1850 were using the previous year's date, while a handful were cut to see out the year end. Politics also came into it somewhere with some people favouring decimalisation with others against.

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