Rob

This is an excellent example of the bling purchased by people who say 'look at me and what I have'. Everyone has a phone on their watch,so doesn't need the extra weight on their arm, and the coin is of no collector value as it mounted and doesn't fit in a 2x2, tray, slab, capsule............. As a coin collector, you simply wouldn't buy this. Value? At the current spot price of $29.58/gram and 14g of .995 platinum (assuming it is correct) - $412.0494.

Diamond Jubilee medallion depicting 4 generations of the Royal Family as seen. The signature below says Greuber, but he was at the BM. Not sure if they were sold in conjunction with the BM or not. They are quite common.

It happens on all hammered coins because the diestock is essentially a length of bar of a given diameter, the end of which serves as the die. When it is worn out the end is ground down, polished and re-engraved. That's why you can often see traces of a previous die under the current die detail.

If it is that good, they could always make it available to all and sundry and be a competitor to eBay. Maybe that way they would get people to join. eBay has got too big to be much use for sellers as there is too much material for buyers to sensibly plough through. I'm sure the way forward is an auction site with a low fixed listing cost for everybody - say £1. That way you will eliminate 90%+ of the dross that is only listed because it is free to do so and encourage the average quality rating to improve dramatically. It would take a lot of things away from traditional auction houses too if the pricing structure for buyers' fees was addressed. The internet does bring benefits, but businesses ultimately need to make a living. all those anxious to buy everything at 99p will one day want or need to sell. Presumably they will be happy receiving 99p less costs for their period of ownership?

Pretty certain it will be. The top stop of the colon after D is also nearly filled.

Most of the silver is cleaned. The surfaces are all wrong on all bar the low grade milled and most of the hammered. The Calais halfgroat and the Roman look too bright too.

Which might feed into why the 1791 gold halfpenny I used to own but sold on account of the heavy scuff on the cheek, resurfaced 6 months later slabbed proof 64 cameo. The only reasons I could see for this getting through was either the identity of the submitter, or they don't actually check very hard when you have a rarity/unique piece, because it is desirable on their part to say they have slabbed it. After all, PF64CAM sells better than Unc details. . I can't disagree with the protection issue, but slabbing means storage requires upsizing - think of a full height wardrobe sized cabinet, and presentation becomes a tad more difficult when you need to use a telescope to see the coins laid out at the end of the line when laid out.

On the assumption it is real in that case. Roman coins are widely copied, which results in many sales, just none recorded through auction houses. Nothing to compare with at least rings a warning bell and warrants further research

Yes, but for a quid it is probably worth finding out.

Leeway doesn't come into it. Wear is wear, whether it happened a year ago or a millennium ago is irrelevant. Leeway is wishful thinking on the part of the owner. All people have to do is accept that there are coins which don't make unc and be happy with them. It's not difficult really. None of the three I posted alongside were uncs, VF, nEF and a decent EF was the best I could go to.

You might struggle for people with in depth ancients knowledge on here. Can't help, sorry.

Don't worry about it. It is what ebay is all about. I pointed out to a seller of 'high grade' coins that were obscured with image manipulation that he was a bit wide of the mark and gave a comparison to back up the argument - so he left me a neg (in the good old days when both parties were allowed to call a spade a spade). Quick quiz. Guess which of the below was the high grade coin I questioned? Clue - it wasn't VF or better.

Nope.

Somebody has scanned it in in that case. You are better of with the book though, as you have to keep going to and fro from description to the plates which are at the back.

Probably Godric at Stamford.

Yep. Not cheap, but invaluable. And no, not available online. The internet wasn't about in 1958.

That is the point of saleroom notices. It is very easy to make a mistake when cataloguing, and equally difficult to proof read, particularly on multiple lots. Let them know, and they will correct it. It doesn't serve any auctioneer to give a misleading description, as they will only get the coin returned.

It has been discussed at length on here since Chris started the forum. Do not read too much into estimates. This is a function of the reserve set by the vendor as you are not permitted to have a reserve higher than the top estimate. If you have a coin that will normally go for about £100, then the estimate would logically be say £60-80. If you have somneone who says I want to receive £200 for my normally £100 coin, then the estimate will have to increase to take account of the reserve. All it needs is one person to submit a bid and the coin sells - thus giving the illusion that a new base level has been set for that type. The auction house will charge a fee whether it sells or not. The high prices are likely aimed at US buyers who will pay according to the number, though £1200-1500 for an 1887 crown that isn't a proof seems a bit steep. Yes slabbing is more popular in the US than here and yes it did start there, but there are some on this forum who are UK based and also prefer slabs such as PWA and The Coinery (not Coinery). The attraction of slabs is assisted by those who just want to buy a product off the shelf. That in a way is why slabs could take off to a larger extent in the UK, but it is certainly not going to be highly correlated with someone interested in the study of coins, as your sample material is protected from serious examination by the plastic.

The thing is that all these numbers are relative because there is no way in any shape or form that you are going to be able to compile an accurate corpus for anything but the rarest items, and even then it isn't guaranteed. If Peck (author of the BM catalogue published in 1958, English Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins in the BM 1558-1958) assigned a rarity to a variety, it was always going to be loosely based on his personal experience over the years. The same goes for Alan Rayner and ESC where the rarities are way out in some cases. Nobody can be expected to find all examples of anything, not least because a lot of collectors hold things close to their chest, or maybe haven't looked hard enough at the coin in the first place. Some things are mis-atttributed. There is no failsafe method of catching all examples and rejecting all mis-attributions, just what you can work out yourself.

Scarce is more common than R. Also, if looking at Peck for example, a currency thing assigned as very rare can equate to multiples of the numbers for many patterns assigned VR. Do your homework and assign the rarity ratings you think apply. Every R, S, N or C and their subdivisions in whatever tome is simply a guestimate. Not everything that is written should be taken as gospel, but equally, everything that is written gives you a starting point that you can adjust along the way as your knowledge improves, so is still inherently useful.

Traditionally, it went from 1 to 5 Rs. The last is unique. Make your own definition up for the others because they are all uncertain numbers. A bit like the Freeman or ESC splits, where you treat the actual number with a pinch of salt, because they are frequently adrift from reality too, it's just that people want to believe in what they read and love to assign an absolute number to things, especially the ones that say unique, or nearly so. .

The VAT is only charged by the auction house on the buyer's and seller's premium, not the hammer price. The only additional VAT would be on an import from outside the EU where 5% is applied.

Depends on what the item is, the VAT scheme under which it is taxed, the seller's location and and and.... Anything which crosses borders has scope for different tax treatment because the VAT can be applied either in the country of sale, in which case it is deemed to be fully paid for intra-EU transactions, or if from outside the EU, is due on import, but the seller in the forein country doesn't charge VAT. Reatil sales to the public should be VAT inclusive, as they ought not to have any scope for reclaiming the tax element. For business to business it is optional, as you can reclaim the VAT with a VAT no, even if the price is not broken down.

If you are VAT registered you can reclaim input VAT in most instances.

I'm not aware of any recent changes to the fees. I think the last one was eBay charging a %age on everything, including postage. All that meant was the postage charge had to increase to reflect the fees. I can't stand ebay and their policies of indifference to sellers, but given the number of eyeballs do list cheap things on the wife's account. I gave up on my own account 10 years ago. Now I start something of nominal value or a piece of crap at a quid, and I'm happy if they go for that as it enables me to get a business card to a potential customer. Somewhere along the line a buyer will visit the site, look at something costing £2 and realise it is legible, not bent, not corroded, and ultimately cheaper in all probability than they paid. It is no good telling people that they are throwing good money after bad on eBay, they need to realise themselves. Postage is £3, which some people consider excessive, but after all postage, fee and tax considerations, it leaves you with £1.14 for an item starting at a quid. So as far as I am concerned, I am doing my bit for education, not ripping people off, adding contacts to the customer list, saving myself a trip to the scrapper. It's a win, win, win, win ... situation. The only negative is funding a company with indifferent ethical standards. Think dodgy dealers and tax receipts.