Rob

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.

Weren't there some sheep mintmarks (at least one) on hammered coins? The closest you come is woolpack. I guess with a badly flawed die you could end up with an additional head, 4 legs and a tail, but I'm not sure the coin would be very attractive. Dragon, greyhound, ostrich head, boar's head, crowned leaopard's head, lion, swan, martlet and Everson's 'turtle' are the only animal marks.

BAAA??????????? At the risk of lurching off at a tangent, I've got a GODESBRAND ON BA penny. No sign of a sheep on it though.

The top one looks to be a short cross Class 5c, WAL[TER ON]LV, so London. Bottom left is difficult, but possibly class 8 based on the waisted shape of the N which is about the only identifiable letter. ND at the end of the reverse legend suggests LVND (London). Bottom right looks to be long cross type 5a or 5b based on the wedge tailed R. The moneyer is probably [DA]VID, so London

Looks like I must have been eliminated in the past. Seriously though, you can see why people list junk - if it is going to sell anywhere, it is on ebay. Before I stopped selling on ebay a few years ago I listed a fairly low grade 1882/1H 1d, say no better than nVF. It made nearly £60 despite being described as such. An 1846 1d, good fine at best, made £66 despite my feeling embarassed to even consider listing it. Flat discs that sell for £1 - WHY?? A pair of QEII crowns sold. They may have been mint state, but when you sell these you think the good times will never end and it gives an incentive to try even harder.

I actually rate the Cromwell reverse quite highly. I like the subtle difference in shield shape and the design with its stippled decoration which was a characteristic of Thomas Simon's work. Though for a parliament that had abolished the monarchy less than a decade previously, the reintroduction of a crown above the shield seems a little strange and smacks of hypocrisy. A clear case of "The King is dead. [hopefully people have short memories] Long live the King".

Splendid! The only other coin I've seen with this error has had what people on ebay call good honest wear. In other words, it's a complete mess! (see here:) Yours looks much better and the overstriking error makes it even more interesting. Your earlier photo isn't very high definition but I'd hazard a guess that it is a die duplicate of this detector find as the obverse looks a close match too . Have you any plans to add to your Charles I shilling collection? Your coin has the C & R over an inverted C & R, so presumably the correction was made after the shield had been punched into the die, this being the simplest remedy. Below is another of this type with the C punched over an inverted R, but no sign of the R being over an inverted C and as you can see from a different die to yours. For the record, the reverse only is also portcullis over harp, so this die may also appear on a harp shilling.

Spink reference numbers for Charles I tower silver changed a few years ago, so you are probably both right but not singing from the same hymnsheet. I'm on holiday at the moment, so don't have the references to hand, but anyone with a curent Spink can answer the question as the former numbers are in brackets. The die axis can be anywhere from 0 to 359 degrees.

Crucial error. Look at the mintmarks used during the reign at the beginning of each section in Spink. It's a scallop. Sunburst was current only in the reign of Henry VIII and is thought to commemorate the birth of the future Edward VI. For silver, only the groat is even vaguely common with this mark. Smaller denoms are rocking horse poo rare with e.g one penny known in the post war period and only 3 halfpennies known at the same time. The numbers might have doubled by now. Don't even think about a sunburst.

Looks like 1673 as there is no clear sign of a 2 for 3/2. V QVINTO wouldn't apply to 1675/3 because the regnal year was V.SEPTIMO

I concur with the above argument and think this is a constructive spanner. Any die 39 with a clear WW should I think be conclusive. It is worth noting that Davies doesn't list a highest die number for no WW and stop after date, which suggests he may not have seen one, but could also potentially imply that there was no die number visible either if he did see one. I suspect that the absence of a die number means the former and that the entry was made based on its prior recording in ESC. ESC lists die 62 as the highest die number for no WW, but has a stop after date. This is not on your list above, but surely this list must have been compiled post Rayner's book if it was listed in the 1970 standard catalogue and the B4 number was taken from the ESC classification? Spink simply list the date and not whether there is a stop after or not, so we can be reasonably certain that it refers to the ESC entry. A die 62 obverse picture would be very helpful here.

I've never discounted this possibility, it is just that we need corroborative evidence. I don't know if the RM has dies etc. over and above those listed in Hocking, but if they did there is an outside chance the argument could be settled. Drop them an email with the question. Lol, Rob you're talking to the wrong man about Hocking and emails to RM, i don't even know what/who Hocking is, i'm assuming someone like Davies and Rayner etc. Hocking listed the contents of the RM museum in two volumes. vol.1 in 1906 listed the coins in the collection, vol.2 in 1910 listed the dies, medals and seals. This was an update to Webster's 1874 compiliation. It might be a good time to email the mint because Graham Dyer who was the curator but is now retired has been working there part time in the past few months, or at least he was there 6 weeks ago. He was researching Hocking recently as he contacted me about some correspondence between Hocking, Lawrence and Lincoln relevant to my Weyl patterns (he was one of the referees). He is also a very learned person about all things milled from the RM and best of all very helpful because it is right up his street. Send an email to the mint asking the question. Don't put Kevin Clancy's (the current curator) nose out of joint by addressing it directly to GD, so suggest you send in an email by the regular channels. If there is any useful material, he would send you pictures foc as he has always been good like that. He likes people that do research.

I've never discounted this possibility, it is just that we need corroborative evidence. I don't know if the RM has dies etc. over and above those listed in Hocking, but if they did there is an outside chance the argument could be settled. Drop them an email with the question.

Thinking out loud, I think there is a good chance the bust too low type of die is what is most likely to be a no WW. If you think of the number of obverse dies that were produced, clearly the number of matrices would be a lot less. As the WW is optional decoration, its presence is not important, but the die number was important as a control, otherwise there would be no point in engraving it. So as in the case of die 39 where the die number crosses the truncation, it is obvious that the die number was punched in manually. Unfortunately, the only obverse matrix listed by Hocking in the RM museum (vol.2 no.1274) is listed as reading MDCCC, but this is the one reading BRIT and so we can't assume that the one reading BRITT was identical, but it is reasaonable to assume that WW should have been common to all. If the bust was punched in too low on one, then there is an argument for the WW to be missing in that instance. Whilst it is always easy to blame a filled or worn die for weak or missing characters simply because you see so many examples, there is also a case to be made for it not having been there in the first place. On the assumption that the BRITT matrix only had MDCCC too, any images of a die 39 in whatever condition and whatever year might help. Or indeed, any obverse with a similarly low bust what ever the die number.

ESC 1154, not 1152. It hasn't necessarily been tooled, though the hair detail does look sharper than normal.

Agreed. So it's another type B5. It seems strange that a major London auction house would make such a mistake. ESC is pretty clear that type B4 has 48 arcs. Not at all. Numismatics is littered with mistaken attributions, incorrect listings and the like. Look at the number of incorrect slabs out there. e.g. Hus got his 1844 third farthing from me. It was slabbed as a half. I will happily buy 1844 thirds slabbed as halves for the price of the latter all day long. Freeman acquired his unique F689A from Spink because they had it down in the Circular as a P2002. It's a totally different design, and when graded by NGC they attributed it as a P1983 which is still wrong, because the leaves on the reverse go in the opposite direction. I acquired my 1675/3/2 1/2d for a bargain price because it was listed in a London Coins sale catalogue as MS64 despite the label reading MS65. As it happens, it was the highest graded 1673 halfpenny at NGC, but it still didn't mean they got the date right which was obviously 5/3 without even resorting to a magnifying device. The reality is that virtually every sale catalogue has a list of notices correcting mistakes. Some sales are worse than others.

Rayner had a very close relationship with Harry Manville, and I have heard several opinions from different sources that he had a significant say in the variety and rarity attributions. The problem as ever is one of sufficient research material because you can't acquire statistically significant numbers of every silver coin from 1649 to the present day for both financial and practical reasons. Herein lies a sensible reason for a degree of trepidation when trying to compile an accurate reference volume.

I would say it has been listed as such since 1949 when Rayner first compiled ESC. The B1,2 etc goes up to B9. B4 must have been there from the beginning as you wouldn't leave a gap in anticipation of a bust waiting to be dicovered the date was already covered elsewhere. It has been listed as extremely rare since at least 1987. The only copy I have prior to that is 1970 which gives prices of Fine £10, VF £30 and EF £75.

I should have counted the arcs/trefoils before I posted the link. It's only got 42 and is therefore ESC 848 and type B5. Uh....correct. I hadn't checked them either. Cancel the above, it isn't exactly what we want, but the general principle still applies. I have found a reference to what may be a type B4 florin. DNW auction 8 Oct 1999, lot 1072 "Florin, 1877, stop after date, no WW, die 6 (ESC 847-R3; S 3893). Almost as struck, very rare". However, it doesn't mention the number of trefoils, so it may not be 48. Unfortunately, there is only a small picture of the reverse on their website and I don't have any DNW auction catalogues that early. 9th, not 8th October. A grotty picture, so make of it what you will. Looks like 42.