Rob

Couldn't agree more. 3 years ago or so, I had a call from a person who did house clearances asking if I bought scrap coins. Obviously the answer was yes, but the 135kg of scrap metal took a lot of sorting, to the point where I still have 30 or 40kg left. I found 7 coins that were worth as much as I paid, leaving me with the problem of what to do with the other 25000. The scrap man was rubbing his hands.

And the rest.

OK, I'll go with that. The remainder of his collection including James & Charles' silver was sold through the Circular commencing Feb 2001. His tin, copper and bronze was in the same issue, but there is no mention of a no date in exergue coin unless it was listed at a later date. First bit attached.

OK, we appear to have an issue here, so let's debate it. You appear to have a problem with Simon Willis - that's a specific issue between yourself and him. 'Dealers all deal between themselves'. - they do the world over. Every dealer has a list of customers and coins they require. They are hardly going to say I am not going to buy a coin for you that you want because it comes from another dealer! They usually have a good sense of underpriced coins, and also have to buy to offer a broad range of items when stock is short. i.e they have to buy coins, but other dealers are only a small section of the market place. 'set up price fixing between themselves'. Example? If a coin is common there is no way that the market can possibly be rigged. If it is rare or highly desirable, then the number available is unlikely to exceed one or two in any instance. The only instance I can think where there is some attempt to link coin pricing, is where the coins are slabbed, with a given number equating to a certain price. If people will buy coins unseen based on the slab number, that is a form of price fixing because (leaving aside the ability to resubmit to receive a higher grade), the grade is deemed to be set despite only forming one opinion amongst many. The same can not be said for raw grading whereby it is accepted that opinions differ and so the price for a given grade has more flexibility. If a coin comes from another dealer, then the selling price must inevitably be higher than the purchase price for the new owner to make a profit. 'shuffle customers like cattle'. Not sure where we are going here. I can't think of any dealers who consciously try to move their customers on to the next table. They certainly keep their list of customers to themselves, which is normal for any business. A dealer might tell a good customer where he can get a specific coin, but that is doing someone a favour on the back of past sales. 'lie on eBay'. Don't know as I haven't bought on there for well over a year. I haven't the patience to trawl through the more than 100K British coins listed. 'don't really have as much knowledge as they wish they had, but do they HAVE to be so nasty???' Again, a bit of evidence would help would help if you want to throw stones. We all wish we had more knowledge. Every area has someone who knows more than the next person. Judging by your post on my profile I assume you have included me in this section. For those who haven't looked it reads 'Gosh ain't you a fine example of the nasty arseholes I said populate this forum....negative nelly should be your name......you are certainly no expert in anything except bullshit'. If you would care to elucidate with specifics, I can make a reasoned response. If it was in relation to my reference to the NNC slabs. As 'Centisles' on eBay, he acquired a reputation on both sides of the pond for grading things much higher than anyone else. If it was with regard to the 1911 slabbed by a company neither of us have heard from, then the uplift in price from a PCGS or NGC 65 rating should be enough to cover the cost of slabbing. I also note you mentioned trolling on the MP thread. I made the not unreasonable assumption that you too were trolling. Your first 8 or 9 posts promised much, but then on Christmas Eve you managed to populate the entire first page (but no more) of the 'Free for All' forum topics in the space of a few minutes with replies, many comprising a few words with little in the way of punctuation or properly formed sentences. They hinted at sensible replies, but said nothing informative as there was no corroborative evidence or reasoned argument for the statement. A post asking for an Ansell sovereign is ok. You then listed 10 or 11 coins in the 'Items for sale'. For someone with less than 50 posts in total, nearly half of which were the mechanical replies made shortly before followed by listing items for sale, you were following a tried and tested method used by people trying to ingratiate themselves with a view to selling coins via something resembling a pyramid scheme. Overpriced silver slabs are the most popular product in this area. I think our friend Henry was the last person to try this on here. As I also mentioned, Chris is kind enough to provide this forum FOC. Whilst he has included a For Sale section, he is first and foremost a dealer and publisher, so we don't flood his website with adverts for our own wares. Certainly not with what is virtually an introductory message. Reasoned debate is always welcome here.

Although not set in stone, the serial numbers of the genuine pieces should be close together if still in a package. The numbers are discussed somewhere in a previous thread about these. Sorry, can't remember the range.

Genuine ones have uneven wavy lines in front of the face, the copies have straighter lines of uniform thickness.

Lines in front of the face amongst other things

Maybe they will replace eBay as the place to go for dodgy coins? One last heave chaps..................

............ the seller being one Archibald Spooner, or his descendant.

I've certainly had a number of lower grade pennies with spurious dots, including in the same area as this, so quite possibly from the same die. I throw them all in the scrap pennies pot as they have little or no chance of selling, being unlisted and hence uncollected examples of otherwise hopelessly common dates.

Not a penny, but if someone wants to be obsessed with random dots, here are few to contemplate while I enjoy myself for the New Year. I've also seen a coin with the sixth dot in from the left, and 14 from the top missing, (Ok, might be telling a little fib there). Happy New Year everyone.

This one will be debated for generations to come. It all comes down to how deeply someone delves into the type. Clearly you have people who just require an example of a type. At the other end of the spectrum you have those who study as many individual dies as is feasible. Many collectors fall between the two, taking an interest in some dies because they appear on a list, as in this case. There is nothing wrong with identifying different dies, but an ever increasing number dictates that any premium attached will reduce for the individual die unless it is distinctly different, or particularly important as a variety. Dots, die fill, recut letters etc all have their place in research for the identification of and linking of dies to produce a chronology, but as continuous variables will not make anyone rich. The identification of individual dies requires the undefined generic coins to become progressively scarcer/rarer. Will this increase their value? Unlikely, as the pot of money available to purchase said item is proportionally, reasonably constant. Therefore the price of varieties must fall to suit the spending power available, unless there is a material change in collector habits and focus.

But you, or someone else has to write the book first. The listed dot die is not necessarily rarer than others, just that it was listed in the first place. Someone with a year or two on their hands to carry out a census is required to prove it one way or the other I personally see no difference between the two dots, considering them equally irrelevant unless someone can prove that they constitute a deliberate design feature - but that's just my take of how to define a variety.

There is an argument for paying besieged troops as a means of stopping them mutinying. Buying loyalty is as old as history itself. However, the number of defenders dictates that you wouldn't need too many dies, let alone denominations. All you need is a supply of plate with a few die pairs. There are 28 discrete varieties listed in Spink for Scarborough across 23 denominations (not including the 1s9d). The average civil war garrison was maybe 100-150 strong? The same goes for Bridgnorth. 120 defenders, yet 30 dies associated with 'B' mint currency and all of a month to cut and use them.

It's a penny with a dot between the O and the N due to a small piece of metal flaking off the die compared to a penny with a dot between the O and the N due to a small piece of metal flaking off the die. One sells for a lot of money whilst the other sells for rummage bin price. Vive la difference. I understand why one sells for lots of money, because it is listed in a reference book with the dot location clearly defined and collectors are obsessed with chasing numbers. What I don't understand is why it made it as a variety in the first place. Surely the only basis for entry would be a design difference, whether deliberate or as an engraving error? However, one dot should be as good as another if someone wants to write the reference book.You will get more plaudits than complaints for doing so, and the collecting world will find another excuse to spend money.

No milled in Spink 151, which was only up to Elizabeth I. All the coins were sold through Spink, so it's likely to be in the Circular, if anywhere.

Most are off the market, so not too many people will have one. The reality is that my view is just one of several, none of which have been proved.

This is an ongoing debate. Personally, I've never seen anything that suggests to me that they are genuine, in fact exactly the opposite. Leaving aside this one, In the case of the two towers pieces, I find it inconceivable that they would make a series in penny increments all the way from 6d to 1s4d plus the higher values. All that would be required would be to get approximately similar pieces of plate, weigh them, and stamp the value. It's not rocket science. You get an example or two of each denomination - which doesn't make sense. Although the denominations seen on the castle and gateway types are more sensible, I also struggle somewhat from a perspective view, and think the castle may be viewed looking at the inside wall. It is also important in my view that Cholmley is reported as producing coins to pay the troops, but no mention is made in connection with this of the quantity of CARA farthings found at the bottom of the castle well (cf. Peck p.56). Although there are pros and cons for them being contemporary with the siege, not least the fact that they constitute the early issues of copper farthings. When one considers the designs employed on some of the provincial civil war silver, they clearly hark back to the early part of Charles' reign, so it would be wrong to exclude the CARAs as possibly being made at Scarborough. Although some of these pieces were in collections going back to the end of the 17th century, that still doesn't place them as being contemporary with the siege. I think it is significant that other siege pieces such as Newark and Carlisle were struck in towns, not just within a castle. I had a discussion with kal about 3 and a half years ago on this topic. I laid my views out in a note, the contents of which are attached. I haven't changed my view on this since then. I'm sure kal will come back on this given his interest in the subject. 140731-Kal on predecimal discussion.docx

With the reverse profile, it looks anything but hammered IMO unless it was using an offcut of metal to rest the blank on. The sharp obverse combined with the concentric rings doesn't look like any of the other Scarborough pieces. I think it is a case of call it what you want.

I would have thought up to a hundred quid is fairly typical. It really depends how badly you want one.

They are current, so worth face value. Spend them in the shop.

Money speaks louder than words. Where have I seen that before? Less experienced collectors please note. At least the main auction houses will listen and pull things if they can be shown to be iffy. By main auction houses I mean those that have specialist coin auctions with a team of in-house experts capable of doing the due diligence referred to by Declan. By that I mean places like BSJ, DNW, LCA, Spink etc in this country or the big ones in the US, though they may hide behind the TPG label where applicable. The T&Cs of all auctions will inevitably state that all items are guaranteed genuine and that refunds will be given for those proven not to be, but the cost of proof and the time element is likely to put people off. It is incumbent on collectors to help identify coins that don't pass muster, as nobody is infallible and not every seller of an iffy coin has a broken moral compass.

I'd say it's 1 over the same size 1, but the underlying character not punched deeply enough to bring out the serif. V over inverted A I would go with looking at the picture. I would concur with the 1st obverse. Listed in ESC, but Davies only gives this obverse used up to 1860. As the latest crossover date of a three year period (1859-1861), there were probably no more than one or two serviceable dies of the first type remaining. Obverse dies can clearly be used for more than one year, so the offset colon may well be the same die noted above for a previous year.

"Value: As a rough estimate of this coins value you can assume this coin in average condition will be valued at somewhere around 35 cents, while one in certified mint condition could bring as much as $5 at auction." So he lists it for $15. Doh. Clearly, buggered and cleaned is more desirable than slabbed mint state.

Oh, thanks. The initial post implied it was sent to them before they had even bought anything, or so I assumed. Mind you, I haven't bought anything on eBay for over a year, so probably don't have enough (any?) brownie points.