Mat

A currency issue 1839 half crown sold on ebay US during Christmas holidays, it was in about Very Good to Fair and it sold for around £900 if I remember correctly, I think that was grossly overpriced considering you can buy one in VF for £2500-£3000. I wouldnt be prepared to pay more than £800 for one in Fine... if I was collecting..

Thanks for the very useful help coin watch, I have amended the listing accordingly, and yes I will PM you, I am going away for the weekend so need to go to bed now but when I return I will send you a pic of the crown over bell and we can have a chat. Thanks again for the big help! Mat

Hi Coin watch, your just the man I need at the moment! I don’t have the Barr catalogue my copy disappeared somewhere, I had 27 I think from the Barr sale and over time I am sure I have attached the wrong descriptions to the coins when I sent them to the auction houses, they never seem to check! Please could you compile the correct title for this crown for me? So you’re saying this one I have is only one of two known with these dies? Please could you also look up another one for me out of interest, I sold this with W&W last year: “Charles I Tower Mint under the King crown, group III, type 3a, mintmark crown over bell / crown third horseman FRC XV/XXXI, fine/good fine, apparently 1 of 5 known in private hands, estimated £1,900, realised £1,955.†I was under the impression this one was also 1 of 5 known (crown over bell) but I was told recently that it was actually one of two known! Please could you clarify that for me if it true or not? Sorry if I am asking a lot from you, believe it or not I much much prefer milled coins! Thanks Mat

Thanks for giving me the values azda, and I have amended the listing accordingly, I didn’t realise I omitted the Spink ref! Its a tricky one these rare C1 crowns, as you say £400 For A Penny about the ease of finding a buyer, its the very last of the Alan Barr crowns I have in my possession, the second but last I managed to get rid of at W&W last year but this one I have been stuck with for quite a while. I don’t tend to (or have been reluctant to in the past) to list coins on ebay worth over £1500, I usually find over that price I can yield better prices at the auction houses but market changes/ebay expansion etc etc it might pay off in terms of interest but in terms of price we shall see. There is 10 watchers on it so far... I might try and tempt some of the other ebay sellers to do some swops with me to see if I can get some more easily manageable pieces which will obviously sell easier...

The one you mention from London coins is different to mine, there are only 5 known of which I think all were in the Alan Barr collection. I actually had mine in London coins march auction, I think mine was lot 867, London coins described it as good VF with an estimate of £2400-£2800 but it didn’t sell so trying it on ebay: 290417824465 I was less than impressed with how London coins handled my coins, I asked them to return my unsold lots, (3 coins with a total value of £4000) and they didn’t use any protection at all, just slung them in pvc cases that were too small for the coins and put them in a normal envelope. At least they used special delivery to return them!

Hi, just a little interesting peice of knowledge. I was clearing through some of my old paper work and I came accross a stack of the old coins newspapers that coincraft send out monthly to its members. I looked in a 1994 one and they had a 1839 Una & Lion £5 for sale for £10,000. (If only... if only if only runs through you head!!!) To be honest that was very cheap for that coin in 1994, especially for coin craft! My 1980 Seaby catalogue quotes £10,000 for the coin then and that was 14 years prior. The investment value from 1994 on that would have been the equivalent of putting £10k in a in an account in 1994 at 20% interest which would have yeilded you if you cashed it out today about £25k which is the approx value of a 1839 £5 now.

I couldn’t resist having a dabble back into this during my work lunch break! In trading standards a phrase like "A person who needs to be saved from their own stupidity will only learn the hard way" theoretically has no place in regulatory services, all the stupid people that we could place in that boat would be considered as vulnerable consumers, and no matter how stupid they are regardless of fault or circumstances, they are still just vulnerable consumers and its trading standards job to protect them because the trader must always exercise all due diligence to ensure what they are selling is legitimate and must not mislead the consumer in any way. As you said before its a specialist field and we cannot look at all aspects of coins in the same way we can at Levi Jeans or a Gucci Handbag, but the same trading laws should be applied to the transactions just as any other item in terms of buying, selling, descriptions etc unless there is explicit implied terms otherwise. In regards to "As a member of the BNTA, W&W would be obliged to adhere to their rules as a condition of membership." That’s very good, I admit I have not actually looked anything the BNTA do and requirements of their membership, that specific requirement is a good form of regulation in its self, I am guessing most of the auction houses or larger traders are all members of the BNTA, if not maybe it there should be some sort of rule that if a coin traders turnover exceeds a certain threshold maybe it should be compulsory for them to subscribe to the BNTA.. or somthing along those lines. The gilt coins from w&w, I think I saw them at the auction after the one you saw them at, they sold at the auction I attended for I think £80 and £120 to a phone bidder, that’s the last I think any of us saw of them, it looked like car touch up paint to me! In regards to regulating the trading of coins on ebay, that’s just a colossal task and x amount of additional laws come into play including several EC directives that would take us forever to get through, although as a platform for selling, theoretically ebay should regulate it. In the Tiffany’s v Ebay US case, Tiffany’s had to employ two full time members of staff to just monitor ebay transactions to ensure all the items that were being sold were genuine. Ebay argued that its just a platform for people to sell and have no responsibility in the content listed as per their terms and conditions. The judge ruled that those terms and conditions are unenforceable and ebay have full responsibility in ensuring that the selling platform they provide protects buyers and trademarks and regulates seller listings accordingly, and were ordered to pay for the costs of employing the extra staff, and an amount of compensation reflective of the damage caused to Tiffany’s brand by allowing 1 in 7 (or some figure like that) Tiffany items to be sold that are fake. The figure came to millions! Ebay’s Vero protection program should maybe extend to coins.

Hi coin watch, So what if... you bought the guilt proof 1806 and 7 halfpennies warwick and warwick were selling last year, you didnt have time to go to the viewing days so you placed an internet bid and won them. When they arived they were just normal halfpennies which goldish paint on them (which is true I think some forum members can vouch for me on these). If warwick and warwick wont let you return them because its their policy: sold as seen or somthing like that, what are you going to do? just accept the loss? Call trading standards? It would be nice if there is a body you can turn to that has the legal power to make the desicions on behalf of both parties such as an obmudsman or an alternative dispute resolution. In this particular case its a clear cut case that trading standards would be able to step in as the Distance Selling regulations apply on the basis of a misdescription otherwise auctions are normally excluded, if you bid on the day in person there is only contract law and the sales of goods act which are not strict liability in auction situations and the only real option is to go to a small claims court.

Sorry all I had a call out. And I am afraid I this will be my last post, and a short one because of my work schedule next week. Peckris: I am sorry I didn’t mean to offend you, I did read all you wrote I just didn’t have a direct reply to what you wrote. Rob: I have changed my perspective a little based on some of the things you have written in your post, I agree there is less likely hood of things happening with coins due to the sheer volume and nature of the industry, but I still tend to disagree with the idea of leaving them well alone without any concrete evidence. That’s how Sotheby's and Christies got away with their illegal operations for so long, no one had any idea what they were doing and no one knows how long for. Rob & £450 for a penny: What my suggestion would be is the BNTA (or if there is a more relevant body in UK coins) have more of an active role in being a little bit of a big brother in practises that go on. After all BTNA ask for subscriptions don’t they? If people are going to spend the kind of amounts they do with coins, some transaction are more than the value of a house, there should be some form of redress if something is not right and the seller does not uphold the complaint, whether the issue is in regards to value, authenticity... or anything. Each industry has some body they can turn to for redress, I just think coins should have something too, especially now all these Chinese fakes are rife anywhere. If spink or another auction house sold you a fake and they were adamant its real and refused to refund you, as far as I am aware there is no one really you can turn to that has the power to make the auction house secure the value of your funds until the investigation has been carried out, if the auction house were to then become insolvent during that process you have lost your money for sure. I don’t think it would take much effort and cost to have some simple form of regulation in place, or even a voluntary code of practise. Sorry if anything I ever wrote offended anyone I had no intention of that Kind regards Mat

I think the only way I am going to be able to support my argument which is based largely on assumptions and probabilities is if I introduced some evidence which I think could only be obtained through carrying out an investigation. The closest thing I can offer in comparison is the Sotheby’s case: Sotheby’s and Christies, slightly different scenario with being an illegal cartel but in 2002 the office of fair trading had to step in because one of price fixing methods they used to ensure their fine art reached certain sales is to offer guide prices and value art at a level which allowed them to guarantee certain prices to the sellers. There is such a lack of regulation in the antiques market and look what happened, all kinds of illegal price fixing market driving things happened because there was absolutely nothing in place to keep an eye over things to make sure it doesn’t happen. However I am not alleging that these things are currently happening now with coins and spinks, or are likely to in the future, I am saying there is nothing in place to stop them from happening if they did which is a problem. I would also have to re-evaluate spinks position within the market after some of the other comments, but I firmly believe that spink are the most influential driving force in the market with the popularity and use of their guide, and their skill, knowledge, expertise and reputation. My concern is that if they were ever to abuse that power there would be nothing to stop them. I feel if they wanted to (although its probable it would never happen) they are in a strong position to devalue or increase the value a coin or delve into some method of price fixing, especially where the more rarer ones are concerned because the they are not subject to the sheer volumes of that specimen for sale on ebay which as you rightly put it appears to help dictate the real value of what some one is prepared to pay for a coin. I believe that if... lets say for example Spink dropped the value of a charles II crown from £5000 to £1000, as always supply and demand applies and prices would be beyond and below the guide price, but I believe the charles II crown would generally be traded at a lower price more reflective of the £1000 opposed to the £5000 on average taking into consideration all the sales of that particular coin. If any other guide did the same I believe it would have no effect, or no where near the same effect as it did with the Spink book. That can be considered as a form of price fixing which is illegal. I know that is a bit of a silly example any price drop to that extreme 400% would never happen, but I believe if Spink wanted to for what ever reason they are in a position of power to do so, and when anyone has that kind of power in any industry, I believe there needs to be some form of regulation in place just in case things start to happen like it did with Sotheby’s. Even if we take spink out the equation, what regulating body is in place in the coin world to stop all the UK coin guides from forming some kind of cartel and fixing the price of certain coins in certain ways... probably will not happen but there is no watchful eye to make sure it doesnt.

I think I deviated off my original qualm too much sorry I apologise for that. I still don’t think anyone realises the actual point I was trying to make, its not coin guides in general I was suggesting should be regulated by trading standards, just Spinks catalogue only! Reasons: Spink are the leading coin auctioneers in the UK. Spink also produce the leading coin price guide in the UK. (They are conflicting interests to begin with so there is immediate potential for them to be naughty) The two above facts put them in a unique position, and those factors together give them great power above anyone else in the industry which is why them in particular need some form of regulation in their commercial practises to make sure (just in case) they are acting purely to satisfy their own economic interest. Just some form of external auditing would do! Now where I think the regulation needs to come in: What is in place to prevent Spinks from producing a guide which assists them in yielding higher auction prices or helps them achieve higher private treaty prices? There does not appear to be anything, and it could be occurring now and we wouldn’t know otherwise as there is no body looking over this. It is a possibility! Thats where the CPA Unfair trading 2008 regs come in. Spinks power is so influential to the UK coin market that if they wanted to (I am not saying they do or will) they are in a unique position to artificially rise the prices of coins (steering the market in their direction) and they would get away with it because there is nothing in place to prevent them from doing so.

That wasnt meant to be a smiley it was supposed to be the Letter 'b' in brackets

"There's nothing wrong with that and unless it could be shown that Spink somehow unfairly enriched themselves by adjusting prices in their guide then I would leave well enough alone." That is my exact point! There is nothing in place to ensure that Spink are not doing that and that they never will be doing that, and there is no form of regulation that anyone can ever go to in the need for redress if they feel they need to. There needs to be some industry body in place in the eventuality of such... If Spink appraises a sellers coin at £250,000 then the client bought it for that amount based on spinks experience, skill and judgement, (appraisals are legal services under the Consumer Protection Act For Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) then the client tried to sell it for £250,000 but found that its only worth £140,000, who is there for him to go to in the need for redress if spink will not uphold the complaint? No one other than maybe BNTA or trading standards. In UK law it is an unfair commercial practice that has lead the average consumer to make a transactional decision he wouldn’t have otherwise made. (Section 5(1)(. If a chartered surveyor valued you house at £250,000 but the highest market value offer you had for your house was £140,000, you would escalate your complaint to the ombudsman for estate agents or the ombudsman for chartered surveyors and they have the legal power to order the surveyor company to proved a compensating remedy reflective of the difference in value. Who is going to do that for your coin that you have overpaid £90k for? You might argue that a buyer forking out £250k for a coin should know what his is doing but English law is not allowed to discriminate that, it must be based on the average consumer whether it’s £5 for a t-shirt or £250k for a coin, antiques are no exception, but in practise they are very often overlooked by regulation apart from the occasional painting that appears on the market with a value of £50k but its only worth £3k.

I believe SPINK influences the UK coin market more than most other factors with its guide, especially with very high value coins. Ok, putting aside regulation in the form of trading standards other than for the regulating significant trading offences, despite coins collecting being just a hobby its really serious business when you look at the figures. Just looking at genuine completed sold ebay listings there are approx 50,000 a week, I have no idea the value of all coins sold in the UK over the course of the year but including all the traditional auction houses I bet we wouldn’t be too far off £500m a year. (ebay contributing to a significant amount of that). I have never really looked at the BNTA website much but I dont ever see them step in and challenge anything. I take it the BNTA is pretty much the only real members trade body for coins in the UK? I think it would be most relevant for them to step in now and again and actually challenge SPINK on why X was valued at £120,000 in 2009 but valued at £137,500 in 2010 when there was not a single specimen sold that year so what could you be possibly basing that increase on? Or other things such as that. Im just trying to get at the fact that for something that we all heavily use, and with the values of some of the transactions we participate in, there is no form of regulation to ensure spink is acting in the absolute interest of consumers in its trading practises.

What the trouble is: The spink catalogue has become more than a guide, its arguably the industry standards for British coin values, and when something is the industry standard there should be a form of regulation over it, especially with how big the coin market is becoming and how valuable some of these transaction are. The other major factor is the level of biasness from their own auction sales. Section 20 of the consumer protection at 1987 does not apply to antiques in all cases as such and Trading Standards has very little to do with this sector but if it did there would be several contraventions of the provisions. As mentioned I am sure us all coin people exercise a significant amount of due diligence and do our home work, but the vulnerable people do not and it’s those that need to be protected. If spink put the price up in the 2011 catalogue of a 1905 half crown to £20,000 in UNC, there would be hundreds of sellers putting their prices up to the ridicules amount when we all know it’s not worth that, but the fact is it theoretically would become worth that because sellers would sell the coin reflective of the spink guide, vulnerable buyers would buy it at that price if they could afford, the buyers would not resell at a price lower than they paid for it and a new market is created. There is absolutely nothing in place in the form of consumer protection regulation to stop that happening in the coin world. If Tesco put the price of beans up for £0.55 to £1.25 the OFT would be down on them like a ton of bricks because there is a consumer expectation of Tesco, and they would be using their Tesco-opoly power to get away with it and it would eventually become the norm as their 2800+ stores dominate the market, just as Spinks do with the coins guide but no one with trading enforcement power is bothered or knows about coins.

Good call, I think the 2010 prices are most unrealistic, when I finish my DCATS which will allow me to specialise in a particular field as a trading standards officer, I hope to investigate into the way spinks create their guide, I feel there is a certain use of their guide acting as a vehicle to ensure highest prices are obtained at their auctions, which if it is the case it contravenes certain trading regulations and is not in the interest of the consumer. Antiques are a sector which is least regulated unfortunately.

Or a fair to fine as high grade, stunning etc. Oh right, so exactly as with banknotes on eBay then, where undeserved and mendicacious superlatives abound; Beautiful note! Crisp! Uncirculated! Flawless! You will not find better at this grade!! Rare!!! Scarce!!!! The more exclamation marks there are in the description, usually the more sceptical it makes me!!!!! Mind you, I can think of a few "respectable" banknote traders who suffer from excessive optimism in their grading (and pricing) too, some of them also deal in coins so it'll be interesting to go back and look at their offerings from the other side as it were. I can shed a slightly extra perspective on sellers listings with these things as I am a trainee Trading Standards Officer so I am used to dealing with the legalities of titles and descriptions... (although this will be obvious to you anyway!) The use of an ! after a condition to the buyer is obviously meant to create a quality implication that is really is 'flawless' or 'EF' or what ever they are exclaiming. It means nothing, its nothing more than a character on a keyboard in the sense of describing a condition on ebay. Unless you come accross a a well known reputable dealer to your self that you rely on, your best bet on ebay or closely exam comprehensive high res photos, always ask the ebay seller to send photos to your email address, and you examin and zome in much better then. (!!)

1980 was around the peak in an artificial "high" of coin prices - if you'd bought then, you'd have been buying at the top of the market. From the mid-80s to the mid-90s there was, following an early fallback, a stagnation of values. You can't compare commodities to bank accounts. Buying a Una & The Lion in 1980 would have proved unwise, whereas buying one in 1994 would have turned out well in the end, as you've noted, though no-one has a crystal ball.

Hi, if you stick a couple of pics on here of the coins you would most like to know the real grade I am sure most of on here would give you a more accurate guide of the grade than you might find anywhere else! In regards to banknote grading, there is a much less uniform system of doing it and each people will use a different one. A lot of people start with a 100 point system, take off 10 points for each fold, 5 for minor creaes, 20 off for holes etc... However you cannot use the same idea for banknotes to grade coins. As RED RILEY said do not use ebay to judge grading, most on there have grades the coins 1 or 2 x up from its real grade. EF should only show the slightest wear at the highest points. Most people grade a true EF as mint UNC!

Hi guys can anyone speak for this seller or have used him? The sellers ebay user name is osica_lam he has 500+ feedback and the ebay account is Australian. I just wanted to flag this one up with you all before anyone looses £0000s, this one is not so obvious.... but it will be after I have pointed it out to you... I am very hot on judging ebay sellers and have never been caught out yet, this one possesses the same traits as the scrupulous Chinese fraudsters but has some amazing coins listed. I was watching 2 coins with the intention to bid that sold at 3am UK time a Rare Edward VI half sovereign and a rare Elizabeth I Angel... take a look at the half sov: 290388536640 He now has a William III 5 Guinea listed which is in amazing condition: 290390940585 Look at the factors: Look at the Edward vi half sov, the seller has not listed what the coin is, its a harder coin to identify if you dont know coins and I cannot see how some one in the possession of such a rare coin does not know what it is... Look at the 5 guinea, with coins like this you would expect more than a 1 line description and not to include the phrase "sold as is" for a coin worth £10k. His listing style is typical of the Chinese fakers but the coins listed are not.... it appears to me that none of these coins are fake, they are genuine pictures but listings are a fraud, I doubt the coins exist in his possession and will never be sent to the seller... Most of the Chinese fakers stick to milled silver typically under £400 in value, I have never seen them do fake gold nobles and hammered stuff like this yet... I have also never come across this seller before, after years of scouring ebay for high value coins I would have thought I would have noticed this guy but no... it would appear his 536 100% positive feedback is created fictitiously, this amount of feedback is also a little uncommon for the fakers as they tend to have about 150-250 100% positive but fictitious feedback. Also all of this feedback is private which is a bit of a no no. Also his feedback comments are a little sharp and similar which is not a normal set of comments, and if you look carefully though all the comments, the word "Recommend" is spelt "Recommand" and it is spelt incorrectly by several different ebay accounts that have left feedback... Unless you know the seller feedback means nothing, do not forgot that seller a couple of years ago that had over 2000 feedback all 100% was a power seller, all the feedback appeard to be genuine but then he listed all the 1 oz Kurrang coins which of course he did not have in his posession to sell, the value of the 400 odd listings came to nearly a million quid. Of course I could be very wrong and all this circumstantial evidence I have conjured up in my head... but not likely. So has anyone had dealings with this guy? Best regards Mat

Hi Peckris, not sure why the links didnt work, the item number for the WIII 5 guineas is: 290390940585 Look at his "see sellers other items" then "compleated listings" for a look at his last sales. I have asked around quite a few top buyers and no one has heard or dealt with this guy in the past.... Cheers Mat

If freeman used him and left a good feedback there must be somthing in that then, there is just too many bad traits in this seller for me to trust with such high value coins, I have asked him so many different questions over the last week ie is the coin has any creases etc and have not had a reply to any... good luck with who ever spends with him Mat

Hello guys, Did any of you attend or bid at the Warwick and Warwick auction today? I battled it out with a phone bidder for an 1860/59 copper penny today; the phone bidder outbid me at £2400 which is about £2814 after premium and VAT. Do any of you think the winner got a bargain there? I can’t stop thinking to myself how much it would have been worth bidding to. Whilst that may have been a bargain, everything else seemed to be going for stupid prices.... and I mean like over double the price you can pick the same coin up from eBay in better grade. I also think all the coins are a little over graded. These were some of the hammer prices...and they have to pay 15% + VAT on top of that too.... 1887-1906 sets of half crown, florin, shilling, six pence and three pence, some EF but most fine.. And all the 1905 coins were just fine if not lower... sold for £1500. 35 crowns mostly 1887 to 1900, a couple of 1845, 1821 and a 1902 but absolutely all of them were in Fine tops and it sold for £765 which is about (£870).... on eBay that would have definitely gone for no more than £450. some Victorian shillings, a 1821 crown and some bits and bobs all mounted or ex mount, or quilted all in F or lower, my estimate was £35, it sold for £95... A box weighing 5kg full of pennies about 1895-1967, all the typical junk which has no value, and about 100 post 1947 half crowns, my estimate £30, it sold for £120 (£140) which is just a joke! 1716 crown in Fine, lower than fine on the obverse ex mounted sold £380 which I suppose was not too bad. 1739 crown in VF sold £670 which is ok.. 1847 Gothic crown, fine tops, exmounted and had 4 holes in the rim sold for I think £500 And this one..... they described a 1925 half crown as extremely fine, however when I examined it closely it was really no more than a medium to better VF, and it had staining, it sold for £160. I swear if we all just go and buy a load of stuff and junk from eBay and sell it through an auction like this we would make tons of money Mat

Nigel Mansell coins? You shouldn't have any trouble selling those - they shift quite fast from what I've heard. na na you have it all wrong, the moustash slows them down!

Hi folks, can any one tell me anything about the Isle of Man Nigel Mansell £10 Coins dated 1993? Especially their value? I have looked high and low on the internet and ebay and there is nothing, there is a lot on the £5 coin but nothing anywhere on the £10! I have attached a pic as well. The main information I need more than anything is their value...... or what you think I might be able to sell them for, or even any offers to buy them from me!! :-) Cheers Mat