Rob

Being too new to this site to have taken part in the previous heated discussions, and holding back a bit, I would like to say that as a collector I hate them with a passion, for many if not all the reasons eloquently articulated by others. The first one I bought that was slabbed was immediately broken out of it (carefully I might add, with the aid of a hammer and chisel). But I can see the point for sellers, investors and dealers, if their integrity survives ... From a collecting point of view, a slab is just to bulky. You get say 20 or 30 coins in a slab box. That's a lot of boxes for a typical collection. Scott would probably need three figures if his were in slabs! Maybe if you had only the finest known examples you would toy with the idea of slabs based on the preservation argument, but for many people in the US in particular, slabs are a way to play the registry set game. Why anyone would want to submit, and then frequently resubmit a coin in the hope its attributed grade would be increased at the second attempt in a vain attempt to be given the highest average score of third party opinions on a group of coins' grades, and pay someone handsomely for the privilege is beyond me. Selling in the States means almost invariably higher prices for a coin in plastic because many people buy the label and not the coin. It has made picking up decent examples very difficult in this country. A nice coin sells for £100 here, but makes £200 if in a 65 or higher slab in the US. The number on the label often sets the price. A year ago a 1901 penny made $600 simply because it was the only one graded at 65RD. My 1901 penny cost me £2.21 including postage about 8 years ago. Prices have gone up, but you can still get a nice red unc for less than £50 as the date is common. That is a mentality I have a problem with. Investors wouldn't have a problem with slabs because all they want is to make a profit. Dealers don't care if a coin is in a slab or not. If it comes in one, you sell it in the same condition and let the buyer crack it out if they want. One of the great benefits of slabbing is that the US TPGs in particular are crap at identifying the type, year, variety etc. Here the collector can use their knowledge to recognise a good bargain.

Do a search for slab threads on the forum. You will find that a few people like them, but the vast majority don't. Then we all get very heated preaching to the converted. It's not a monthly event, but the same arguments come round at least once or twice a year. Talking of which, we haven't discussed slabs for a few months..........

I think it is a Peck 563, though I would question whether it's a proof as per Peck if Colin Cooke had a corroded example and this one too would imply currency. I don't have a tin example, but do have the double striking from the dies on a Charles II halfpenny (see Peck p.155 footnote), image below. It is rare and even in that condition worth a punt if you collect farthings.

Gone.

It's an evasion halfpenny. Galata437. Obv; S.r BEVOIS SOUTHAMPTON Rev; *NORTH**WALES* I wonder if it was anything to do with the Bevois Castle pub in Southampton? It isn't the commonest of names.

Oo er. For all the misapprehensions that exist about the golden age of a bygone era, you have to admit that life was a lot less complicated growing up when we were young. The only boy guides were those at school open days and scouting for girls started during adolescence. Much, much easier then.

A pattern penny attributed to Adolf Weyl at the end of the 1800's. Struck in Tin, this metal wasn't recorded by either Peck or Freeman. Ex-Adams lot 192 with a milled edge, this was described as being in aluminium but the weight being over x3 too heavy for this metal led me to analyse the content. Interestingly, there is no added zinc to act as a scavenger thus preventing oxidation as s normally the case with tin. These pieces were made in sets of three; penny, halfpenny and farthing and the other two piece I can confirm exist because I have them. This piece illustrated was pictured, erroneously stated in Wilson & Rasmussen to be aluminium and is illustrated there on page 445. The only known P2141 is in the BM and confirmed from the same dies. The following lot in the Adams sale (193) was the plain edge version also in tin and confirmed by analysis. The 1887 dated pieces by Weyl also exist in tin in both milled and plain edge varieties. The two Nicholson "aluminium" examples (lots 388 & 389) are the halfpennies from these sets. The Colin Cooke sale lot 173 was the milled edge 1860 farthing. Thus there are a total of 15 confirmed new varieties including the 3 date 1887 pieces struck in lead. The other 6 pieces not confirmed by me and making up the corresponding sets can be presumed to exist. The obverse: And reverse:

Hus's hosting site told him a short while ago that they would stop hosting in 6 months, but then shut it down fairly promptly. That is why the account suspended page came up. It was based in Egypt apparently. According to an email he sent me a week or so ago, he is trying to get the forum contents onto another hosting site with all the data intact. That is why it disappeared.

Don't be hasty. Do you know how much tap washers cost these days? Tap washers are designed and made to fit your tap. That is not fit for purpose, original or maladjusted.

Rob, There is no picture with it, but there is a 1893/2 for sale at: Boulborn Collections LTD Jan issue of Coin News, page 34 Cost 1,995 Pounds Is that a fair price? He would probably send you a close up pic, if he thought your were interested in the coin! Thanks Bob. John sent me a picture, so problem is sorted.

Unlikely becasue that would risk having predated coins in circulation which by definition should be rejected by the person paid if they are half awake.

Talking of dings, my wife had an accident whilst driving my car in 2010 which was her fault so the claim went on my insurance. Come renewal last year and I dutifully fill in the details when applying online. 1 claim for me, 1 accident for her. A price is quoted which sounds ok so I accept. The insurance company rings up and says is it 2 accidents? I clarify and say no, only the one, but named driver had the prang, so my claim. They say, ok we'll knock one of them off and requote. 10 minutes later after consulting the underwriters the premium has increased by 37%. Anyone on here involved with insurance and who would like to venture a possible explanation? It's a pity I hadn't had half a dozen accidents, as by extrapolation my premium should have reduced to the point where they were paying me to drive. Or maybe it was just that I wasn't a valued customer because I didn't use their facilities as much as expected. Plain stupid.

No, but definitely fewer than the 685,000 figure that is stated in ESC and Davies. It is by far the rarest date of the Victorian shillings. Anyone like to make an educated guess how many are left? 2 or 3 dozen perhaps with the number in high grade in low single digits?

Generally speaking they are gaming tokens and worth a minimal sum. There are a lot of variations in the legend to differentiate them from currency guineas and halves which they imitate. Yours appears to refer to George III regaining his health which may or may not be a gaming token as for once it refers to an historic event. I don't know where you would read up about them as there are no articles in the BNJ relating to this type of material. I know there is a token society and they might be able to help.

The tabloid interest in screwing only works on a personal level or a menage a trois at the most. One person screwing tens, hundreds or thousands doesn't have the same appeal. If I had worked for Murdoch, it would have been all over the papers by now - officially.

I suspect that ebay would wonder how the buyer found out that the item had been reported; given that such things are confidential. And if the buyer complained that they had only subsequently found out, without knowing the ebay had been told the coin was dodgy, ebay would probably just tell them to claim their money back from the seller. ebay after all, always have the recourse of saying that they are not experts on coins (or any other item), merely provide a platform for sellers and buyers. Probably they would argue that they didn't misrepresent the item, the seller did. And therefore any complaints the buyer has should firstly be presented to the seller (who from experience will probably just refund the buyer immediately to avoid problems and negative reporting). Afterwards ebay might choose to take action, but as usual, are unlikely to agree to tell anyone what form that action will take. Rob might choose to chip in at this point as he has a little experience in this area .. If it is fraud on ebay, they will do nothing because they refuse to deal with members of the public, only the Police - that was from the horse's mouth as I managed to get a phone link to someone at eBay. And in reality the Police will only get involved if someone has had been hurt or suffered loss through a criminal act. Basically you are on a hiding to nothing. In the case of a well known fraud about 5 or 6 years ago, I got a friend in the local force to do a bit of digging, but there were no open cases against the individuals involved and so nothing to pursue. Presumably because embarrassment ruled where the losers were concerned and nobody reported it as a crime despite the whole world knowing what happened. Simply put, crime pays. In the case of dodgy items on eBay, so many have been reported by so many people and so little done to remove them, that we all know where we stand on that one. Trading standards don't want to know, so again it would need to be a case of criminal loss to get the ball rolling despite everyone knowing the perpetrators.

That will just be copy and paste from the 1934 listing which wasn't too long ago. Relist an item and change the particulars, I think a lot of people do that and only worry about the category when it is completely at odds. Cuddly toy an 1850 shilling is, not. Most people will search in the general category, even as diverse as country to see what's going off in the near future, and as long as shillings appear under coins, probably any sub-category will do. For me the bigger question is still the short list of items sold.

Hmm. 3 British coins sold or on offer in the last 5 years. An 1850 shilling, a 1934 wreath crown and a 1933 wreath crown. The first two are as rare as they come for type, the last one is flagged in Spink as there being copies circulating. I for one wouldn't consider bidding. If a cast copy, the original has to look similar as far as the date is concerned. I'm not sure the date is the problem, more the location and the selling history. If I had to have 3 British coins for sale at random, I'd certainly have the first two, no question.

Of course, you do all realise that I will shill your bids and win by that all important penny. Actually, it will go in time because I bought it for resale and for the decent obverse strike which tends not to be a feature of later YH bronze. I only gave the reverse a cursory check, but, c'est la vie.

But its 3/2? Yes.

Thanks Gary, that's wonderfully inconclusive as it quotes rates of both 5 & 20% without differentiating which should be which. Little wonder there is so much confusion. I had assumed that with Spink et al charging 5% for years that was the rate, but clearly it depends on which line is used from the list. So folks, if you get charged 20% VAT, refer customs to commodity code 9705 00 00 20 and then 03001 and point out this is what all the auction houses use and have done so for at least 10 years or whenever the rate was enacted. As it refers to gold and silver coins, there is a danger that copper/bronze/tin etc could be subject to 20% import VAT.

Sorry chaps, not lucky enough to get it for a fiver, but it is unc.

Thanks John. I think I've just had an unexpected bonus.

I think it is false economy to think small in terms of reference material. Unless you are determined to only collect within a fixed range in perpetuity, having books which only cover the existing collecting criteria means any expansion will result in you having to buy literature which in all probability will also duplicate your current books. An added advantage of having literature outside your current field is that you can do a bit of reading and maybe find that it gives you inspiration to broaden your collection. Very few collections can ever be completed. Currency issues over a narrow range possibly, but beyond that you will in all likelihood struggle to find a few rarities. I can almost guarantee that you will see things outside your current range of 1816-1936 which you find atttractive and wouldn't mind collecting. Post 1816 there are a few killer dates for whichever denomination you choose. For halfcrowns it is the 1839 currency issue, though a decent 1828 will be problematic too. Shillings come unstuck with an 1850, florins with 1854, sixpences you are stuck with the solitary 1847 - so which lucky person is going to be the one that completes the series? For the moment it appears to be quite easy to say that only 1816-1936 are collected, but in time, as it becomes more difficult to fill the gaps, the temptation to diversify gains momentum. View having reference material for both current and potential future collecting periods as a means of problem solving.

When you say "3 date 1887 pieces in lead" I know you mean they have three dates but do you also mean there is more than one of them and if so are they part of your collection? No, the 1887 pieces in lead with 3 dates appear to be unique.