Rob

w13ang is another user who uses private feedback. He is currently selling a Peck 778 (1718 silver halfpenny proof (?)). I was the underbidder on this piece at Baldwins in May when he paid £360 hammer. The first time he listed this he used his alter ego tee2459 as the shill bidder who according to his relisting was a non-payer. For some reason he didn't leave himself negative feedback, although I'm sure he could have written himself a cheque. Now it's relisted and his other shill is matthews9289 who is top bidder. I'm going to have a good time and bid to what I was prepared to pay in May. I know I'll be outbid, but I might as well hope he screws up. In any case, I'm more than happy to let him keep paying. People like this are a problem. Particularly when they try to offload a piece like this for £800 which he did. There are too many part time dealers out there who think that because it was bought at auction it must be a bargain, and an equal number of suckers who think everything on offer is cheap. Another rant over. Thank you.

I'll go along with this. If you look at the NGC site they list population reports for the various denominations and grades. If their records are up to date, they have graded precisely 6 Charles II halfpennies, 2 of each year. 1672 MS62 & MS65, 1673 MS64 & MS65 and 1675 VF40 x2. They gave my 1675/3/2 as seen in the unconfirmed variety section a MS65BN grade which conveniently ignored the 5/3 overdate which is very clear, and also the generous amounts of lustre which whilst slabbed showed through even in a darkish room: although I will let them off the underlying 2. It is almost certain that they are unaware that this piece is quite possibly the best known and certainly the only piece I have ever seen in the hand or in catalogues that is close to mint state although I don't know what the museum examples are like so there may be better. The MS64 is the Cheshire Collection piece, lot 2209 which is definitely not mint state and a 1675/3 in any case. The 2 1672's are also both ex- Cheshire collection and although relatively with respect to each other grades of 62 & 65 are OK, there is no way the P509 is mint state. The 1675's I don't know about. How anyone can say that a sample size of 6 pieces is sufficient to determine what a mint state example looks like beggars belief, reinforced by the fact there are no coins slabbed in low grade which is equally important in ascribing grades and merely reinforces my belief that American grading companies are insufficiently experienced to quote any grade to most rarer British pieces. But no business will ever admit that. The key to grading is knowing what the best looks like, but also knowing what is a weak strike, what is worn dies, and given the number of replicas in the market these days what is real or not. All of these things depend on having seen a top grade piece, or preferably pieces. Thank you. Rant over.

This thread seems a good starting point for intentional ebay rip-offs as opposed to laughs. So here's one for starters. Shill bidding or what? 1858 shilling. 184 feedbacks for top bidder but only 7 for someone other than the seller.

Here's another one I forgot about with C/inverted R beside the shield (that's according to MS).

I'd better post a picture of both sides. With well over 90% dusty mint lustre, this is close to mint state, but there is still some signs of friction, although I am prepared to forgive the adjustment marks (for once). Sorry. There are some signs. It's been a bad day

This isn't recorded anywhere, but I note that David Seaman has one listed on his website in aVF.

Her dad collects coins as well. So now we know how you caught the bug.

Any clues as to identity of this nefarious character? Ebay id and location would be useful although ebay id is easily changed. I'm not sure they are clever enough to vary the location but every bit of info helps.

There are lots of mint trials circulating. The problem is that they are all unique or likely to be so, therefore nobody has produced a list. I record those relevant to my collecting area, but every few months a new one crops up. I'm not even sure the mint knows what was produced.

I'm not saying anything. I'm always in the s**t, only the depth varies.

I suggest you remove the comma between wife and Lorraine or else one or both of them might get upset

Does anyone on the forum know what coins the mint was striking for another country in 1967 or slightly earlier that used a 28.3mm dia. 1.5mm thick, 7.77g flan in cupro-nickel? The dimensions are open to slight adjustment as the 1967 florin mis-strike I have acquired could have resulted in a bit of spreading.

No. If it is only fine it will not be worth very much. If it is dirty as in physical dirt just wash it off with soapy water. If it is dirty as in toned, this is natural.

Thanks for the comments. I find it hard to determine what a fair price is for this particular type. Between Krause, Spink, Ebay results, true auction results, and current asking prices with UK dealers, these are all over the map. In solid EF I'm seeing prices anywhere from 125 pounds to 300 pounds. True UNC (by British standards) is 400 pounds and up. The asking price for this particular piece was 225 pounds. I offered 150 pounds and it was accepted. Assuming that there aren't any problems with the coin, even if it's just an EF, I think I did ok. Certified MS examples seem to be off the charts... Krause & Spink are based on historical prices and so do not always reflect reality. Some are overpriced, some under in both cases. Ebay prices are comical and rarely reflect the market value at both extremes. The best bet is somewhere between proper auction prices and dealers' prices. After all, the dealers get a lot of their pieces from auctions too. Certified MS numbers mean in reality that you are buying the quoted grade on the slab rather than the market value of the coin. Frequently you have to go to MS65 to get a truly UNC coin. I'd buy it for £150 as long as the flat breasts and hair haven't been rubbed down and even then it would still be good value. The edges are much better than normally found too.

I can't see anything wrong with the obverse, so has to be a minimum of EF, probably better. Looking at the breasts and head and if I hadn't seen the obverse I would have said nearly EF, but it is possible that they are a weak strike or infilled which would be unusual. Best thing is to examine both sides and particularly the flat bits under good magnification (x10 minimum) and see if there are any tell tale signs of rubbing. Usually there is some indication of wear to the highest points. If this is the case it isn't UNC as the raised rims on cartwheels are quite effective at keeping the raised parts of the design free from contact with the surface. Other than that it is impossible to tell from the picture as it disintegrates into pixels before you can see any minute detail. Sorry missed a bit. Looks like a dig to the front laurel below the top group

Is it a forgery? The detail is awful

In answer to your two questions I would say pass but probably and no respectively. The legend looks currency and if a proof, the fields are sufficiently marked to say it is slightly impaired. The rim however looks much sharper than average although this may be a result of being slabbed in a piece of moulded plastic. The excess metal to the rim is not a regular feature of Soho proofs, but is of currency pieces or Taylor restrikes and may or may not be filed off in the case of the latter pieces. How many jewels are there in the brooch? Peck states 9 jewels for the currency piece but the picture is not clear enough to say 9 or the 10 that some proofs have. (10 jewels could mean the use of a proof bust punch for a currency die.) I have attached a picture from a Peck 1326 which clearly shows the improved quality of lettering on a proof over that on your piece and I would say yours isn't a proof simply on the quality of strike, sharp rims aside. However, there are penny collectors on this site with a wider range of knowledge of these pieces than me who would perhaps contradict what I have written. Thoughts anyone?

Regarding the 1806 1d, it should be straightforward to identify if it is a proof or not by matching the detail to a recognised Peck number. As the only currency pieces listed in Peck are 1342 (with incuse curl) and 1343 (without) it should be a simple matter to check for the half a dozen varieties of proof as these have fairly obvious differences. A restrike proof penny will have a plain edge which can't be checked in a slab, but missing or weak features found on the Soho issued pieces will provide enough evidence. The question of prooflike attributions in slabs is something that muddies the water a bit. I would have thought it not impossible for the various grading companies to incorporate a prooflike strike into their numerical system, after all, if they can knock off a grade for a surface mark, it should be possible to up it a grade for a better than average finish. I suspect therefore that this additional info is a marketing tool to hype up the value. Premium quality (PQ) suffixes are part of the same problem. How to tell a proof from a quality currency piece? Firstly to be absolutely certain you need it in the hand unless it has features only found on proofs which will differentiate it from a currency piece. The piece you bought is not a proof. The 1770 1/2d proof should have a full round border of teeth. The rim/edge will be a right angle as it was struck in a collar although being in a slab you would not be able to see this. The lettering on proofs is almost always perfectly formed with distinct angles where there is a change of profile and is rarely rounded, but against that must be noted that some proofs are identified by their defective lettering. The fields are typically mirrors, but there are examples where storage conditions have degraded the finish so that it is not necessarily obvious. You have to take all the features into consideration. Proof or not has frequently been a bone of contention, even amongst the professionals. A coin in my gallery is a prime example of this. The F329A halfpenny is ex- Freeman and is the coin he based the entry in his book on. Spink contend that this is an early strike and not a proof. This coin was slabbed PF66RD in the Terner sale. So what is it? I'm inclined to lean towards Freeman's assessment, but I can see the other side. A quick glance tells you it is much better than normal. It has full original original colour and if you hold up the coin and use it as a mirror, it is possible to see out into the garden and observe what is going on with virtually full detail but it is still not as perfect as some mirrors I have seen on a proof. For comparison, the currency F329 halfpenny in my gallery has a proof-like reverse which if you hold it up to the light shows the window outline with some shadowy detail for example, but not the garden beyond. It is difficult to compare with words. The rim/edge is a sharper right angle and the lettering is sharper than many acknowledged proofs that I have seen. If you look at the 1 of the date for example it has a flat surface and the sides form angles. There is a close up of this in the anything else posting here where the angular nature of the 1 & 7 characters can be seen. This sharpness of characters is a feature you should be looking for. The obverse is slightly off centre, which counts against it as proofs are supposed to be special strikes and this would be regarded as a minor fault. However, many proofs are not centrally struck. A flat proof rim will often be wider than a currency piece. The general level of crispness of detail is typically better on a proof. I hope this helps a bit. PM me if you have any questions.

You've got no chance of getting any folders from the mint. If you put a coin in dire condition inside and try to sell it as the original article, it will be the mint that looks bad, not Mr. Anonymous. Would you risk your reputation doing something like this?

It's not E/N. See attached pic. a bit blurred but the features clear.

I've had negs from 3 people. The first was a woman in Southend (ebay id canary123pink) who sold me an 1887 crown in really good condition. Unfortunately when it arrived I discovered it had been silvered and put it to her that it was not at all collectable, potentially could be a dud or just a very nice coin defaced. First reply was that she was a person who had been in the antiques trade for 30 years and would not sell a silvered coin unless described as such, but if I could get a member of the BNTA or a qualified antiques dealer (do they exist?) she would give a refund. Excellent I thought and next day conveyed the news to her that Mark Rasmussen (who had called in that afternoon and who as a former director of Spink and chairman of the BNTA fitted the requirements adequately) was willing to vouch for it being silvered. At this point, all question of a refund was rejected, so negative feedback was the only resort. Thankfully she is now retired from business. Second was from a Mr T Barker (aka. isitmeyourlookingfor (sic)). I had the temerity to leave a neutral on balance for diabolical grading, but a credit for the refund. I purchased a William 3rd 1st bust 'high grade shilling' off him which in the picture posted resembled the second from the left, but no clues as to which is his high grade piece. I pointed out that VF was the lowest you could reasonably accept as high grade and emailed a scan of his and my pieces in VF, gVF or a bit better and EF+ for comparison, pointing out that his was somewhat lacking in quality. For spoiling his 100% positive feedback, he left me a neg. I had to chop off the higher grade pieces to post the image. Third was from Mr P Hentall who sold an 1860 1/2d 1*+A that was about 20% epoxy resin repair kit and another worn unc. Said he knew nothing about coins yet professed to grade them accurately and Phil's coins and curios had over 500 coins and 60 curios. Everything was contradictory. I just hate being taken for a ride. My neg received was a tit for tat.

I hope you bought the book. Any correspondence which is attributable to the owner of the book would enhance its resale value, particularly if the book was either Garside's or Batty's. Montagu had little time for later coinage and sold his collection of George 1st onwards to Spink in 1890 in order to concentrate on coins prior to this. The contents of his book as a reference source are not very comprehensive and also included pieces that are today considered to be tokens or similar whereas they were previously considered to be patterns. Some were included on the authority of previous writers without having been examined. Concerning the varieties of penny, it is fair to say that the major collectors of the era on the whole paid relatively little attention to contemporary common currency pieces. A situation which hasn't changed much today.

Potentially this is a good starting point for a thread on negative feedback experiences. Would that be acceptable given that you would likely only hear one side of the story - Chris?

Don't worry about it Chris. It's easy to get negative feedback. All you have to do is give a straightforward, honest and accurate explanation of what is wrong and many egos get bruised. God, I wish I was infallible like them.

I presume you know about this one. CAROLS E2/2 i.m. Tun. Mine is ex- Roger Shuttlewood who had found a better one, so there are at least 2 about.