Rob

It could be that Stacks are not filling in the boxes correctly because I usually get charged 5% by FEDEX, UPS and RM.

I'm afraid that's not going anywhere as it has settled in quite comfortably between the 1845 and 1853 copper proof. And I don't want the hassle of rearranging the trays.

It's the bronzed 1849 piece noted in footnote 2 on p.408 of Peck, where mention is also made of an 1850 changed from 1859. The original date of this one is unclear, though must be 1851-57 as it has dots on the shield.

What do you think?

The forum has been like the Marie Celeste of late - where is everybody? A Victoria copper halfpenny for consideration.

A gimmick.

Go along with the dodgy status. Aside from the fact that it has been scrubbed a bit, the giveaways are the straight lines defining the hair on the forehead and more obviously Hibernia's belly detail. Compare with a few to go through auction recently.

The edge on the 6/- token should be plain. When you say the 5/- token is milled, is it possible to post a picture? These are supposed to be either plain, or retain traces of the 8 reales edge which is a square/rectangular pattern. It shouldn't be a conventional milled edge, which ought to ring alarm bells. Taylor restrikes are plain edged.

Not going to open an unknown file, but surely the colour should be a giveaway. Upload the picture as a jpg and keep the file size to under 500kb, then we can have a look.

Do what? I see the original listing at £5K has been relisted at a far more reasonable £500. My original opinion remains unchanged.

If they got them from LMO or Westminster etc, they might have paid, and by extension think that they are worth £4K.

Maybe they were struggling to reconcile a good strike with a 1920 halfcrown. My hypothesis is that they looked at it, trying to find a fault such as a copy which would lead to rejection, but found none. As this clearly didn't match up to the splendid indifference of strike usually seen (and these accorded high grades), they gave it a low grade to cover their a**e. Fish out of water springs to mind.

The reverse looks all wrong - it seems far too crude. The assayer's initials are wrong. There is no F P at Mexico. The latest my edition of Krause gives a P is 1665. In 1817 the assayers were Jose and Joaquin, so a J seems to be imperative. Unfortunately I don't have an example of a modern copy and only have a genuine 1794 Lima mint to compare, but the pillars in particular on your coin seem to be lacking in quality. I suppose it is possible it is a contemporary copy made during the Civil War around 1821, but it certainly isn't an official product. That is why I suggested asking across the pond.

over 500kB. If not, leave the thread and come back into it, then the 500kb limit per post will reset.

Not a clue about these, but given the abdication date it doesn't sound right. What mint is it? Weight? Edge? The portrait doesn't seem to match the 1808 coins exactly, but I haven't checked all the different mints. The eyelid is too long for a start and the front cuirasse strap could be a bit too long. Usually the other 3 are slightly longer. It's almost certain the Chinese will be making these, so anybody know if this is one? You might be better off posting on a US forum as there are a lot of collectors of 8 Reales over there due to the Hispanic connection with the US. If it is a copy, it won't be the only one.

The big problem with the first few years of the 500 coinage was the indifferent strike frequently seen with practically as struck VF detail not unknown. It isn't until 1923 that you get a consistent strike.

If it is any help. Jackson Kent did a 10 year study of the early milled coinage in the 1950s & 60s in an effort to establish whether the number of harp strings had any relevance - his conclusion was nothing to learn from them. i.e. they were random in number with no patterns apparent, from which you can reasonably expect a deviation around the most commonly occurring number. That isn't to say there is no relevance, just that none has been established to date.

The number of strings varies as they were entered separately. This is one of the pitfalls of references when they go into detail because the assumption of many is that it provides a true and full picture - something they manifestly do not. I don't know whether this is a common variant or not, so can only suggest locating as many images of the coin you can and work out the answer yourself. The old ESC was full of holes, and the new one has expanded on this considerably, but the number of holes has also increased to take account of this extra information. At the end of the day, you have to take what is written on board, but always keep an open mind so that when you spot an inconsistency you investigate and customise your reference to reflect the updated information.

1963 decimal patterns

Normal for Bury

It's a pity ebay don't offer a drop down menu that includes copies as a reason to report an item. I can't see a way to inform ebay that describes the problem, but I guess that is just the way they like it - no hassle and fees received.

Hello fellow strange man. This date floats my boat too.

I don't know what the regular mail insurance limit is in the US, but suspect it will be aligned with this country where the maximum insured value is £250. Over that and you are using a courier (including Parcelforce) which is considerably higher, or if you have separate insurance, you can send it regular mail. Prices can escalate. If I want to send a higher value thing to the US with a courier, the price is in the £30 area, but can be more depending on value. For imports from the US to me, $30 is a minimum charge whichever auction house it comes from. They won't send it on a wing and a prayer as they are responsible for it getting to you, so arses will be covered.

No.

Mintages are definitely not the main determining factor in price, which for most things on this planet is supply and demand. A good example is the wreath crown where the vast majority of coins struck must still be extant, not having circulated to any large degree. In fact, these are likely to be the largest population of 20th century material surviving post-demonetisation where the numbers struck are close to the numbers extant. With no published die varieties to chase, it means the sales prices are quite clean and representative. Using high grade examples, with the exception of the 1934 with a mintage of 932 which regularly sell in the 3500 - 5000 range, all the others typically sell for 4-800. The two next lowest mintages with just under 2.5x this are the 1932 & 1936 which sell in the upper end of the range, but the others mostly sell in the 4-500 bracket. Based on mintages, the 1934 is clearly overpriced, or else the others are underpriced. Given the assumed correlation above between mintage vs extant, I suppose this gives us an approximate figure for the numbers of people collecting this issue. Demand for the rarest year (by mintage) is clearly buoyant based on prices, yet the number of examples coming to market is disproportionately large relative to the other mintages. They are always available. This I believe is due to collectors putting off purchasing a 1934 until relatively later in their collecting life due to the higher cost, and as a result will be retained for a shorter period of time than is the case for the other years, leading to them being resold quicker. The collector's perception of rarity is derived from the published figures published and it is this which drives the price, because it certainly isn't availability. The next two rarest years are probably a better indicator of demand. In my opinion, you see relatively fewer of these, and they command a small premium to the rest. The 4056 mintage for 1931 therefore appears to fully satisfy demand leading me to the assumption that the number of collectors is somewhere in the low thousands.I could be wrong, but don't think it is too wide of the mark. When it comes to varieties the waters are somewhat muddied, as they tend to only be collected by the broader population once they have been written down and referenced, and then only by a small minority of specialists. The majority of collectors will only ever want a type example. This leads to some stratospheric prices where only a handful are known, but the collector base is wide, but also leads to a rapidly reducing price subsequently once more examples become available due to the spread of knowledge and people actively seeking out the variety, e.g. the 1893/2 penny. That speaks volumes about attention to detail and the depth to which collectors actually study their coins, and raises the question of greed and avarice - but that's another discussion.