Rob

I think this is slowly changing, I have had them defend me on a recent claim as the seller against a credit card company/buyer. They are still not angels, but the last couple of dealings I have had with them were positive. The problem is still their digital contact rather than human interaction. Every situation is different and so problem solving is unlikely to happen if managing the problem is mechanical, such as multiple choice questions. It is clearly possible for human intervention to facilitate money transfers and override the blocking mechanism as was proven in my case. The problem lies in their unwillingness to discuss matters face to face so to speak. Having to speak to the other side means that you can't hide behind a digital facade and claim the email never reached you. In my case the excuse was a misunderstanding had happened, but that isn't sustainable over the course of a couple dozen emails or more. It's presumably policy as it's cheaper to hope that complainants will go away. The question worth asking is whether anyone has ever been able to instigate a discussion with a capable, can-do Paypal rep rather than Bombay central switchboard? Not including anyone who may work for eBay or Paypal as they would be able to bypass the system.

I suggest that someone has put the above coin and a George V coin in a vice and squeezed them together because the GRA is reversed incuse and so was done by something in the same vein as a regular coin. It would not have been done by the mint. Hi I thought of somethings like this, but some letters in indented ie below the surface ( explained by the vice idea) and some is raised up above the surface like a normal coin would look with the letters the right way round, just in the wrong place. And this would only happen if the thing that pressed into the coin was the reverse image, such as a dye. I mean the coins bashed to hell, It just puzzles me as to how this came about. One possibility is that a defaced coin was used in the vice, or alternatively the host coin could have been a mistrike in the first place and someone though they would just add a bit of decoration. I certainly think it has been in a vice though because the reverse is flat in the area where the incuse bit is on the obverse. If a coin has been meddled with (and this one certainly has), then anything is possible.

I suggest that someone has put the above coin and a George V coin in a vice and squeezed them together because the GRA is reversed incuse and so was done by something in the same vein as a regular coin. It would not have been done by the mint.

No, I didn't, but given they were asking for info they already had, the problem had to be internal administration. The fundamental problem though is their refusal to offer a facility for speaking directly with a person who can actually do something and rectify the problem. That is why the problem dragged on. If you stick two fingers up to your customers, a tit for tat is not unreasonable. They just think they are god and the whole world is wrong. Right product, shite company. With hindsight I should have insisted they take back the compensation which was deposited in my account without me ever asking for it or considering it as an option and let the ombudsman fine them a much larger sum and have the added benefit of getting the details published. Public exposure for wrong-doing is the best way to make errant companies do something about it. All I wanted was a workable system that allowed me to use my money as and when I wanted to. Now accepting payments by Paypal isn't an option and will not be an option. Given their default attitude of buyer right & seller wrong irrespective of circumstances, not using Paypal for business purposes isn't likely to change in my lifetime.

If you collect halfpennies, then surely you keep it? I'm not sure why you would require authentication though. Looking at it with a glass would say whether it had been altered, and PCGS haven't a clue half the time about varieties. I sold a 1799 copper proof to one of the PCGS forum members. When slabbed it came back as an MS62 currency strike despite having no surface marks or wear and Peck devoting a full page in his book to the type which should have made an id straightforward. They clearly can't learn from the standard reference, so your unrecorded variety is on a hiding to nothing if you want an accurate assessment that you can have confidence in.

Simple. As you have noticed, Paypal do random checks to prevent fraud. I had a lot of money in the Paypal account which I wanted out. They deemed my bank account to be suspect and wanted further verification despite already having info that met their requirements and in fact the transfers had worked well for a few years prior to the problem. I explained the situation to them, but this fell on deaf ears. For 3 months emails traded back and forth (about 30 in total), but it proved impossible to speak to a human being to discuss the problem. Phoning Paypal transferred you to a call centre in India who said I had to email, which was ignored, who said I had to phone in,etc. etc. After 3 months have passed from the start of the process you can refer a dispute to the ombudsman. This I did and in addition sent a courtesy email to Paypal saying I had passed the case over as it wasn't in any danger of being resolved. Within 10 minutes, I had a call from Paypal (based in ireland at the time if I remember correctly) accusing me of not trying to resolve the problem. I pointed out that if he had bothered to read even a handful of the emails, the problem could have been resolved a few months previously. He said, as a goodwill gesture they were going to transfer the funds as I had requested and that I shouldn't post the letter (actually a parcel of a kg or two) to the ombudsman. I said too late, it's gone. 10 minutes later I had a call saying they were going to make an ex-gratia payment into the same dodgy bank account that hitherto was too suspect to use. So much for concern about security and fraud!! Basically, it looks like emails were filed in the bin on the assumption that you would back down, but I didn't believe in giving Paypal a one-off donation and just kept plodding away. All could have been resolved easily if Paypal did customer service by allowing you to speak to a human being. Given nobody sets up an intentionally useless business model, the only indication of service is how a problem gets resolved. In this they palpably failed. I still would have preferred a service that I could use with confidence as it means that I can't sell via ebay because I still use the same dodgy bank account and so presumably the problem would resurface if I tried to sell via ebay again. My wife still sells on ebay occasionally because it is unquestionably a good way to shift oddball things that would otherwise have to go to a car boot, but only at a level whereby the funds received are outweighed by the money we typically spend on ebay purchases. For our security and peace of mind, this is kept to a minimum.

Or like me with my dodgy bank account - the same one I have had for years, long before ebay was even a twinkle in Mr & Mrs eBay Snrs' eyes. I've still got my dodgy bank account long after ebay no longer have my business, and surprise, surprise, it still works. Just like the day it did when ebay transferred my blocked Paypal funds into the same dodgy bank account that they couldn't transfer to because they deemed it was suspect. Forget paying-in slips, use the ombudsman. And thank you Paypal for my compensatory P1258.

................ but that is still 2400 more available than people who would want to collect them. Ultimately these commemorative pieces are almost without exception worth bullion irrespective of where they are from. It is all part of a money generating exercise from the RM in this country and their various international equivalents.

There are many different pointers to whether a coin has been cleaned, dipped or doctored in some way. If you search for cleaned, dipped, artificial toning you will find many references on the forum. In 99 cases out a 100 these will reduce the value. The harshest is the brillo pad treatment where you get a uniformly shiny surface, frequently associated with lines across the coin which are scratches from the abrasive used. Dipped coins tend to be uniform in colour and have no original lustre. Dipping can produce an attractive coin if you are lucky, as there is a fine line to be drawn between removal of the top layer of toning and getting into the fabric of the coin. If you over-dip the coin becomes lifeless. Cleaned copper tends to a lighter colour than what you would expect. Toning by natural means is usually random and so until a coin is completely toned gives a pattern that is variable, but rarely vividly coloured (see rainbow toning below). Polished coins can be identified by the shiny surfaces on the raised parts of the detail. Very often, these will be toned by whatever means to try and hide the fact that it has been cleaned. Fields can be proof-like where the die has been polished at the mint to produce mirrors, but if accompanied by similarly reflective detail then you should suspect cleaning. Those cleaned using metal polish will often tone to a very dark, nearly black colour with underlying reflectivity. Artificial toning is something that is more prevalent in the US where some people will pay silly sums for "monster or rainbow toning" on coins that are only a couple of years old. These have been produced either by chemical reaction or heating in an oven. Coins cleaned by electro-polishing will lose their lustre because it is the microscopic detail on the surface that produces the effect by dispersing the light and giving a characteristic sparkle. This is lost with electro-polishing because the surface is dissolved away and so tends to a flatter microscopic profile. The question of cleaned coins always raises debate as to whether or not a particular piece has been done and you really need to see a range of original surfaces and cleaned coins to identify which is which. You can start by searching some of the images in previous posts where some coins are shown with obvious cleaning.

It could be worth the effort as it's clearly aimed at our screwed up western economies. If inflation hits 500,000% you will be quids in, and you get $5 back with 6 months to pay off the debt. Am I being overly cautious, or does offering credit on an admittedly overpriced but still only £15 purchase, smack of desperation to sell. If you are considering taking credit terms out on this the money would be better spent on a private appointment with a man in a white coat.

Bizarre. You can't give away the 1971 RM sets in the wallets, not even for a quid. Must have added value with the obtrusive fingerprint on the reverse - probably some celeb's or the like.

Don't know what has happened...I was confused because I was under the impression you had added ME as a friend....as you say we've been conversing since Xmas 2004 & I haven't touched a drop of the hard stuff for months. Well, I had an email saying you had added me as a friend to which I wasn't allowed a reply. Do we have gremlins in the system? I think we should be told.

A while back I had Mat put himself onto my profile as a friend. 2 days ago Peter added himself as a friend despite having conversed on this forum for the past 6 or 7 years without an argument between us. Showing my ignorance, does anyone have a clue what the purpose is of this friends thing? Does it confer any benefits? Is it trying to emulate the face book or you tube thingy (which ever one it is) where you can only talk to people who allow you to do so? Is it a means of cyber hand-holding for people who need reassurance that they are still wanted? Is it nothing better than a fashion accessory? You can be friends and have friendly banter without having to tick a box, so what is the bloody point of it - anyone, please?

Looks like the 11 leaves to me not least because it has 11 leaves. Also the tie points straight out and the dot below the bust is present. My thoughts exactly. Amazed they got this wrong, but rather pleased to obtain an UNC Peck 1133 with a fair amount of lustre at a reasonable price. I now have an EF spare which will probably go to eBay unless anyone is interested? Is it 1133 or 1133A - i.e are the dots on the rock incuse or raised? The latter is easily missed too and given the indifference to accurate attribution of the obvious bits, with a bit of luck you could get an added bonus. I picked up an example of the latter (Adams 36) at London Coins in Sept. 2007 for just over 40% of what it sold for four years earlier, simply because it was now in a CGS 78 slab which displeased the number brigade rather than the description in Spink's catalogue which stated it was the best example the cataloguer had seen of the variety. Whether it's the best or not, I'll live with someone else's opinion every day for bargains like that.

Looks like the 11 leaves to me not least because it has 11 leaves. Also the tie points straight out and the dot below the bust is present.

Looks EF or thereabouts to me. There is obviously a small amount of friction, but not a lot. It could be that the coin has had a light wipe or clean in the past if the toning looks a little odd. Don't worry about the reverse rim as you often see it looking like this on coins of this type and era. The best way to image coins is perpendicular to them. Angled shots highlight the relief, but don't help grading where you are looking for wear on the high points of the relief. Toning has no effect on the grading which is an assessment of wear. It can however be nice or ugly, beauty being in the eye of the beholder etc.

Poor old George must have been turning in his grave at this unauthorised use of his name and title.

For the same reason there are no halfcrowns (currency) between 1851 and 1873 inclusive i.e. supply and demand, or for that matter Elizabeth II pennies in the 1950s or George V pennies in 1923-5. Coins are produced according to the demand from the banks and the quantities in circulation. If they don't order any coins of a particular denomination, then the mint won't produce them. You also have to consider that coins were regularly struck from dies bearing the previous year's date when there was a supply of unused dies, or alternatively old dies that still ahd some life left in them. The cost of producing new dies would have been much greater than the cost of punching the new date over the old. Overdates can be found for many years until the late 1800s on all denominations. Sometimes they are obvious, at other times less so depending on the depth to which the new charater was cut. Not quite, in that particular example. Halfcrowns ceased production to allow a decimal currency to be gradually introduced, of which the florin (introduced in 1849) was the first step, and replacement for the halfcrown. A cent was to be next, but the florin was to test public opinion first. In the end, although the florin became established, the clamour for the return of a larger denomination proved irresistible and so the halfcrown was reintroduced in 1874. That's true, forgot about that. You can partly disregard the half crown reference as there were other influences at work in addition to supply and demand, but the others apply fully. 1847 is a strange year because the 6d is similarly lacking. A few were struck but probably almost exclusively from 1846 dies as there is a solitary(?) 1847 sixpence known. The half crowns of 1847 are even more interesting. E C Linton wrote a very good article in the 1958-59 BNJ concerning the number of half crowns struck and the number of dies produced for half crowns, but then overcut to serve in 1848 along with others dated 1846. The article was primarily concerned with the 1848 coins which hitherto had only been noted struck from 1848/6 dies, but in 1957 two coins dated 1848 but not overstruck turned up. Since then, 1848/7 and 1849/7 have also been discovered. The paper notes that at the end of 1846 there were 35 obverse dies in stock, all dated 1846, 28 of which had been sunk in the last 6 months. In Jan and Feb 1847, 16 obverse dies were sunk, but it is not known if they were dated. Assume they weren't except for two. During 1847, 22 of the 35 1846 dies were destroyed leaving 13 1846 dies to coin during 1847. During the year, 367,488 half crowns were struck which explains the removal from service of the 22 1846 dies. As most 1848 dated coins are over 6 on the final digit, it is clear that these were dies from the 13 remaining at the end of 1847. However, the discovery of straight 1848 coins, not overstruck, means that the dies were incomplete in some instances and had the final digit added in the year they were required. Not known at the time of the article, but rather significant are Adams 676 which was a coin with the final 8 over 7, and Adams 680 which is a 9 over 7 indicating that at least two dies were finished with a final 7 digit in that year. Only 91,872 half crowns were struck in 1847 due to a fall in demand which explains the continuing use of 1846 dies well into 1848 and it is likely that the 1847 half crown dies were never used in that year as no half crowns of this date are known. Sorry to pirate the thread, but 1847 is an interesting and unusual year for silver. I don't have any figures for shilling production in 1847, but what applied to the two denominations above is also likely to apply to the shillings. Pic attached of the two overdated half crowns.

1905 is not difficult to find in low grade just as the other years are easy to obtain. The real rarity is one in mint state for which you would get a lot of competition up to at least the £2-3K price bracket. You are also observing the phenomenon of more rare coins appearing than you would expect. This is because they are worth more and so people sell them in the hope of making a greater profit. 1934 crowns see the same effect. 932 struck, but nearly every auction of modern milled has an example. The 1936 is three times more abundant based on RM figures for the quantity struck, but you don't see any more in sales, in fact you probably see fewer, but the price of a mint state 1934 is over 5x that of a 1936. Key dates always sell above the common years pro-rata because there are fewer examples to go around amongst collectors.

For the same reason there are no halfcrowns (currency) between 1851 and 1873 inclusive i.e. supply and demand, or for that matter Elizabeth II pennies in the 1950s or George V pennies in 1923-5. Coins are produced according to the demand from the banks and the quantities in circulation. If they don't order any coins of a particular denomination, then the mint won't produce them. You also have to consider that coins were regularly struck from dies bearing the previous year's date when there was a supply of unused dies, or alternatively old dies that still ahd some life left in them. The cost of producing new dies would have been much greater than the cost of punching the new date over the old. Overdates can be found for many years until the late 1800s on all denominations. Sometimes they are obvious, at other times less so depending on the depth to which the new charater was cut. Mint output can also be restricted due to maintenance work, an example of which is 1882 where most of the coins struck were made by the Heaton Mint with only a handful struck at Tower Hill.

I've heard anecdotal evidence about fake 1905 shillings where a 5 has been transplanted onto a higher grade 190x shilling which has the final digit of the date removed. So I would avoid any 1905 shilling where the position of the 5 looks a bit off, or has surface/tooling marks around the 5, or has heavier toning around the 5. There is one on eBay at the moment that I think looks a bit questionable. Anecdotal doesn't come into it. Here is a 1904 converted into a 1905, but the person responsible didn't do a very good job of it and the metal forming the 5 fell off.

Not as bad as this one. A clear attempt at deceit given the decision to relay the important piece of information in the smallest font size possible.

In the early 1980s they dropped across the board by about 30-40% following the recession.

Hoard finds are an occupational hazard which we are all risking when we pay for rarity. It may happen on the odd occasion, but for the majority of coins will not be a factor any time soon. If it does happen, bite your lip and move on. Don't ask which one(s) is/are going to be affected as I don't have a crystal ball. This effect is insidiously creeping up on us for all issues of hammered coinage thanks to the single random metal detecting finds. As for cherry picking, I do need some sort of payback for the money spent on the library. I've bought too many things in the past which I have regretted when a superior example has appeared post-purchase. Then you have to buy two if the condition warrants it and dispose of the lesser one which ties up capital that could be better used elsewhere. Forewarned is forearmed.

Prices can go down as well as up. Another example that springs to mind is the 1671 crown with T/R in ET. It dropped from £950 to £350 over a 3 year period which was a reflection of the realisation that it wasn't as rare as previously thought. ESC rates it as R4 (11-20 known), but this is clearly an overestimation of rarity. An inherent problem with reference material where you have absolute rarity values stated is that people take it as gospel and price things accordingly. When the picture becomes demonstrably clearer, something has to give - and that is usually the price because the book remains the same. 80-100 years ago, prices for rarities were astronomical relative to the "common" types. e.g. The undated Exeter crown with the 12 barrel garnishing was known from only 3 examples in the 1920s, but now is known for about a dozen coins. As a type it is still relatively scarce because the Besly B2 die combination only applies to this type whereas the other undated Exeters cover dies C3-C7a. Individually the dies are all scarce rather than common, but collectively approach the latter. My B2 which is ex Morrieson 441 sold for £7/10/- in that sale. In the same sale, lot 447 which is a 1645 tower/rose (Besly D18) sold for £22/10/-. This is known from 8 or 10 coins. Compare that with lot 442 which was an undated type C3 (Brooker 1011 this coin) and a 1644 C9 (Brettell 361) where the pair sold for £2/12/-. Today the B2 (12 barrel garnishing), C8 (1644 date divided by mark) and the 1645 tower/rose should attract a premium to the commoner Exeter undated, 1644 rose and 1645 tower crowns, with the tower or rose/EX types somewhere in between. What is not rare is the A1 Truro where I have over 100 images and counting of coins in grades deemed worth illustrating. Relative pricing will change over time in line with adjustments to the knowledge base.