Rob

Okay I hold my hands up......I am an xbox gamer I have never tried Spam........is it worth a go? Bots can also be helpful in getting your rankings up on search engines Did someone mention a 1926 ME? Azda - I couldn't agree more. Spam must be fried, and your wife does have a cracking bot, as I told her yesterday. Colin. Ok, a hands free xbox. How do you control the thumb switches? As for rankings on search engines, I am totally confused. It couldn't find me in the first 26 pages of a google search for "coin dealers manchester", but did manage to find a testimonial for a laundry machine. Weird or what? I guess that must have used one of these bots to improve the ranking, but for what reason is beyond me.

Short for robot (unlike Rob ), i.e. an automatic - software - conveyer of spam without human intervention. Rob is an automated consumer of Spam (or anything else, edible or not) without human intervention, or so I have been told.

Apparently it's called a 'console', and it plays games. Oh, and it fails often and spectacularly. Made by Microsoft. That's about all *I* know. Know all........ I'm still underwhelmed though.

They are only clever if the reader understands what the hell they are talking about. I've heard of the xbox, but that's about it. I still couldn't tell you what it does though.

Both the fact he is able to list the same thing twice and the label on the slab. Maybe it is my screen, but I can't see anything wrong with it, unless it is a laminating flan - but then you have to take NGC's word for it

Thanks Colin & Joey. Both the single coin on the database and the one pointed out by Joey have the halved rose and castle mark. The castle is very clear, being in higher relief to the rose sticking out of the left side and is of a consistent size when compared to others with the same degree of clarity. This must suggest a single punch was used for the mark. Compare that with my halved rose mark and you will see that my coin has a very blundered mark which is typical of filled and recut dies. The castle appears to have a rose shape superimposed on the coin, i.e. the castle was punched to a shallower depth compared to the rose. This would be expected if the die had been hardened previously. Surely on a forum where the number of penny collectors is on an industrial scale there must be someone with an example. The silence is deafening.

Somebody has been playing with a lathe. It won't be a mint product. These crop up on a regular basis.

Do we have a definitive statement or visual proof of this? To ensure that obverses and reverses aren't used in the wrong combination would require the locating end of the die to be different for the two sides. Certainly, prior to the introduction of Boulton's steam powered presses, the earlier mill equipment would have permitted any die to be located in any position. e.g. the William III and Anne double obverse (and reverse) halfpennies. There are also a few Soho and Taylor's related pieces with the same on both sides. This would suggest that the locating mechanism was the same for both dies and so anything could be possible.

The problem I have is that I also have a P&M London penny that looks like this. Not unknown, but I only recall seeing one other example in either the Circular or Seaby's Bulletin a few decades ago. This clearly has the rose mark associated with the Irish issue and I'm assuming that it was a die where the rose wasn't overstruck. I want to get as many images of base pennies of P&M as I can lay my hands on. I'm trying to establish whether the halved rose and castle is actually castle over rose, where the dies were returned to London from York and used for English pennies, or was it genuinely halved rose and castle? The image of mine shows what could be a softly punched castle over rose, where as other images show the rose component to be almost completely obliterated by a strongly punched castle, but still present. The implication being that a halved rose and castle punch didn't exist. I would also like any images of an Irish penny as these are like hens' teeth. Base pennies aren't particularly rare, so someone should be able to chip in with a contribution. Thanks in advance.

I'm not sure at all. It's definitely not hammered, probably quite a lot earlier from the look of it. I'm thinking it may be contemporary with Celtic issues, but it would need someone with much more knowledge than I to confirm that. Thank you. Pity I cant change the title to the post to draw more interest. Simon That wouldn't work. The problem is not attracting eyeballs, it's attracting someone who can read the inscription. I'd have a punt and say it's Indian or somewhere in that vicinity, but as to attribution - not a clue.

About VF as I first said. The hair detail isn't the best on many of the small silver issues which makes worn examples look worse than they usually are.

I would hazard a guess at about the VF mark - say £10-15. The pictures are too fuzzy to see the detail.

It is an 1862 threehalfpence which was first issued for colonial use in 1834 and last issued in 1862, though a proof only was made in 1870. 1862 is a better date as the common ones are 1834, 1838,1839 & 1843. The value will depend on the grade for which we would need a picture.

This is the best image I have of one.

These look good. I think Colin is right re the images in Peck and on CC's site. If you look at Cheshire collection lots 2516-8, here you can see that there is general agreement. The possible spanner in the works is the hair detail. Joey's coin looks to be the earlier strike as the 4th ridge in from the right is a continuous line, which it isn't on the 3 lots in the Goldberg sale. That's the only difference I can see. Thoughts anyone?

If it has the same profile, thickness and weight as a 20p, then it is a blank that got through. It should be flat on both sides as the relief is made by the dies. They usually sell for a few pounds at most, so there isn't a fortune to be made, but it's still a nice thing to have.

Surprised? That's why you should always buy the books and then the coins. Most people overpay for items because they haven't done their homework. An ethical seller might list an unc 1967 penny for £1. Less scrupulous people might list the same item for £10, after all, £10 isn't a huge amount of money in this day and age. With a little knowledge, the same £10 might just buy all of the Elizabeth II pennies in UNC once you realise how cheap they are. Would you prefer 8 coins (1953 & 1961-7) for the price of 1 without dropping grades, or not? Silly question probably. A really ethical seller would give BU 1967 pennies away free with other purchases. Will they ever be worth anything? Hm. Not in our lifetimes. Having said that, the earlier Liz II pennies (1961 / 62 / 63) are becoming a lot harder to get in genuine BU. The only really easy ones are 1965 / 66 / 67. I know that, but on the assumption that a business needs to sell things you have to say that everything has a price. The point I'm trying to make is that you have to get a feel for the market and not blindly accept what is presented. This can only be done by research, whether on line or printed is not important as long as it is done. Having done a spot of reading, it wouldn't come as a big surprise to find that some uncirculated coins are remarkably cheap despite being 70 or 80 years old.

Surprised? That's why you should always buy the books and then the coins. Most people overpay for items because they haven't done their homework. An ethical seller might list an unc 1967 penny for £1. Less scrupulous people might list the same item for £10, after all, £10 isn't a huge amount of money in this day and age. With a little knowledge, the same £10 might just buy all of the Elizabeth II pennies in UNC once you realise how cheap they are. Would you prefer 8 coins (1953 & 1961-7) for the price of 1 without dropping grades, or not? Silly question probably.

In this world of information overload I would doubt there being any gems in bulk lots. I have noted Surrey*coins have been selling overgraded polished / dipped coins on Ebay. Iphone underbidder investigations? This is old news. They have been doing so at least since I started using ebay in 2003 and presumably before that too.

i do not understand. Alarm bells should now start to ring. They make their money by selling you the first item and then routinely send you things on approval that they expect you to pay for but are never even close to being value for money. Unless you (or your grandfather) have signed up for a specific number of items and any distance selling cooling off period has expired, then you are under no obligation to take further items. I assume it was your Grandfather who bought the items in question and it is he who will be bombarded with items on approval sent to the contact address given. On the assumption there is no long term contract, I suggest that you write to them (preferably signed for to prove that they have received the letter) or email them asking to be taken off the mailing list, whilst pointing out that you will not be buying any more things on approval from them and that if they send them, they will not be paid for and will be treated as unsolicited goods which you are under no obligation to return. (Unless of course that is, you actually do want to receive them in the future). They rely on people's guilt in not taking up an offer that has so "generously" been made available to them and a lot of people get conned into thinking they have a bargain. This has expanded on the reason why Peter said this was your first mistake. The one thing these people crave is contact details. Randomly sending out gilt pennies to all the addresses in the telephone book would not be cost effective, but selling these items to people with a passing interest in coins is the basis for a business as the material costs are a tiny fraction of the retail price and so you only need a small percentage to take up the offer and make it worthwhile on their part. Taking up the next offer by actually paying for it means you will probably get an expanded and more expensive selection of similarly overpriced tat to choose from soon afterwards. If you really want their items I suggest you buy them in the second hand market as the price will be a fraction of the original. Sorry for the doom and gloom one day into your 15th year, but there are a lot of people on this forum who don't like to see people being ripped off whether it is coins or anything else and these items fit the bill perfectly. Others will echo what I have said and so you would be well advised to post any queries you have for specially packaged or presented items. Use dealers for purchasing single coins. Chris who runs this site is one, and there are a few other members with websites listing coins for sale such as John (argentum...), red riley, ColinG, myself, Michael Gouby (whatever his id is?) etc. not to mention the many more who list items on ebay. Any reputable coin dealer will take back a coin you are not happy with, though for obvious reasons it becomes unhelpful if rejection is the norm and in this case you should drop the dealer.

The key to the high bids is the word bulk. Single lots are easy to stick a value on, but bulk lots aren't unless you are talking bullion and melt values. The bigger the pile of low grade dross, the more likely it is that there will be someone prepared to pay OTT. Modern proof sets go for close to the price that you can sell them at. There is little margin to be made on bulk lot coins because you are caught between the downwards pressure on grade and the increased prices paid by people, many of whom put them on ebay with an inflated grade description and let them ride. In general, I think eBay sellers are the main culprits for the increase in prices realised for bulk lots.

Example please ? Too many to mention, but how about 130 florins of George V and VI (50% silver type plus cupro-nickel) in average circulated condition going at a bit under £500, which with buyers premium plus VAT is around £600. Also large numbers of bulk lots of mostly 20th Century or foreign, going for hundreds of pounds at a time. Many went to the same bidder, who I very much doubt had gone through each lot to find the gems that would turn a profit on these lots. I just found it extraordinary compared to say the prices at one of the specialist coin auctions. Most likly a dealer hoovering up bulk lots but it was difficult to see any easy profits - just a hell of a lot of hard work to turn them out to collectors, whether on eBay or at fairs. It is why I don't bother looking at the bulk items unless I don't have anything else to do. I've spend ages in the past looking at piles of average circulated odds and sods only to find someone was prepared to pay two or three times what I was at the sale. I can't see how anyone can make money on the prices paid for the 20th century bulk lots. Earlier than that there is definitely an age premium, but less than 100 years old and you have to be lucky to find anything of much value.

It was a nice one, hammered at £230 + 18% premium. In that grade the winner had to be a collector. A dealer would struggle to make much on it.

Restrikes are plain edge whereas this piece clearly has some edge graining. A clear image of the edge would establish what it is we are looking at. Taylor acquired the RENDER collar for the halfpennies, but this was worn out and so the metal was forced out between the gaps on the few restrikes struck with the collar. Other than these, all known are plain edge. Taylor had a problem with his plain edge collars, or at least with the halfpenny one, as it was prone to opening up during striking leading to double struck pieces with the detail frequently rotated by a few degrees and vertical tell-tale marks crossing the edge at the point where it opened. I can't say much about his farthings as I only have one example - a P1285.

I'm not totally convinced yet. Reasons being: 1. The G at 2 o'clock looks weak at the base. If a proof, this would suggest a later striking, but could also suggest a filled currency die. 2. The shoulder detail on Britannia shows clearly on the Peck plates for the reverses of KF14 & 15, but doesn't show on KF13. This could be bad image reproduction but needs to be borne in mind. 3. The rock detail below the shield at the right looks weak compared to the plate image of KF13, 14 & 15. If point 2 applies, then the rocks on the plate would also be expected to be a bit weak. 4. The olive branch looks weak on the leaves and the bit below the hand looks to have worn away somewhat. This could be a later striking from a polished die, though the leaves on KF14 & 15 are detached, so this rules them out. 5. The middle trident prong on the plate impinges on the angled bar of the N which it doesn't on your coin. Colin Cooke's piece matches the Peck plate despite being a grotty image. 6. The right hand prong looks considerably smaller than the KF13 image and so further away from the N. I can't make out whether the hair detail is right. Don't rule it out, but check very carefully. The edge should be diagonal cuts in the centre of the edge and not in a deep groove. That appears to be ok in the image, but should be the first check. Forget the 6/7, but if a flaw, it wasn't on any of the obverse dies recorded by Peck. The jury is out at the moment.