Peckris

One wonders where Osborne got his example from, particularly as the reverse hasn't been decided on yet..

Somehow I don't see Wills and Kate leading any kind of "revolutionary" force in an "engagement", on either side of the Atlantic.

Yes - I understand this point. I think Rob is conflating 'rarity' and 'availability', which is of course a perfectly justified and meaningful position. But then there is 'absolute rarity' which - as you say - includes all specimens held by collectors whether or not they appear on the market from time to time.

More RM slapdashery (Why doesn't the usual 'angry face' emoticon work? It gives this : > , instead of what I finally selected from the row of faces above)

I'm not so sure about the CuNi, but the bronze designs seem far superior to the ones finally used.

I think you and I are singing from different hymnsheets Rob. To you, it's not rare unless only a handful is known. To me, in the context of artifacts produced by the multi-million, a few thousand is rare, a few hundred very rare, and anything under a hundred is extremely rare. Which is where this whole subjective debate began...

That's a very good book, though you have to watch out for a few glaring errors - the 1923 halfcrown being rated rarer than the 1925 is a case in point!

What you do is either set up a dummy eBay account, or enlist one or more friends, then rack up lots of bids to simulate frenzied activity on the item you're trying to sell. Hopefully you or your cronies won't thereby win the item, but you can always relist it or offer it to a genuine underbidder. However, if you're a victim of it (it's not clear from your title), complain to eBay and have them investigate the bidding activity on the item in question; it is an illegal activity after all. Dave here (azda) is probably the expert on shilling, purely from an observer's point of view I hasten to add

Sorry to disagree. The 1930 obverse is not a lot better than Fair - the hair detail is nearly all gone, and the top of the ear is missing completely. As for the reverse - the top left of the harp is fused into the shield quadrant edge, the adjoining thistle is flat, the lettering is worn - not away - but WIDE (look at an UNC specimen, you will see how fine the legend lettering is). There are certain designs which - even after a lot of wear - still retain a lot of detail; the obverse of George IV Crowns, and all George V halfcrown reverses, are cases in point. Just because a lot of detail has survived, it doesn't mean that the grade is therefore higher than on other designs. I'd give that halfcrown a grade of Fine only, being an average of the obverse and reverse, which are a whole grade apart. Here is my 1930 : strictly speaking it's GVF, but a more lax assessment might say NEF. See how much difference there is between the two coins? (The quality of photograph is not good, as it's a JPEG scan blown up 100%, but you see the point, I hope).

Some here may not have wholeheartedly agreed with everything you stood for, but it's a sad day nevertheless. Most people respected you even if they didn't agree with you. There'll be a lot of tea-drinking in Heaven right now...

Welcome to the forums Simon

If you post pictures of the better Roman coins I can help identify them for you. (If they're just little green discs, they won't be worth anything really.)

Oh no - he only gets his MP's salary. Unless you're talking about Healey? Last of the few, that one...

You've been unfair on the 1914, which I'd rate as Fair (averaged between obverse and reverse - the obverse is better). You're right about the 1965, but you've overgraded the 1940, which I'd rate as VF. Yes - detail is all-important, while colouration determines how much 'eye appeal' the coin has, which could affect its selling price by typically -/+ 20% (whereas a coin in a more worn grade might be worth anything from one half down to one fifth of the higher value). I don't agree with everything Wybrit says on that page - his bottom grade is better than Poor IMO, and would certainly be collectable if rare. I can't see the 1886 halfpenny in-hand, but it does look better than EF to me. However it may not be in-hand, and I suppose that's his point.

One slight addition...

Oh, don't forget The Beast of Bolsover!! Unless you actually meant Denis Skinner, and Scargill was a misprunt?

No. He had a thingie shaped like a turnip if I recall ... Yes but that was eventually eaten, remember?! Someone got close enough to eat him?? Haha no, your original post should have been "No. He had a turnip shaped like a thingie". And it's that what was eaten It was actually much funnier than that! : Percy: Well, My Lord, while Baldrick and I were preparing the Turnip Surprise, *we* had a surprise -- we came across a turnip that was exactly the same shape...as a thingy! [Percy and Baldrick laugh.] Edmund: [not amused] ...a thingy... Baldrick: ...a great big thingy! It was terrific. Edmund: Size is no guarantee of quality, Baldrick. Most horses are very well endowed, but that does not necessarily make them sensitive lovers. I trust you have removed this hilarious item...? Baldrick: Oh, yes, yes, My Lord. Edmund: Good, because there's nothing more likely to stop an inheritance than a thingy-shaped turnip. Percy: Absolutely, Edmund. ...but it was jolly funny! [laughs more] Edmund: Yes, yes, yes... Baldrick: I found it particularly ironic, My Lord, because I've got a thingy that's shaped like a turnip!

Great movie! At least, the first half is.

No. He had a thingie shaped like a turnip if I recall ... Yes but that was eventually eaten, remember?! Someone got close enough to eat him??

Hi Debbie - good to see you posting! It may be that you and young Patrick have never coincided and therefore he may not know of your interest in things amorously tokenish?

Lol not at all, I believe these coins will get a better price if slabbed that's all, it has been borne out so far! And the premium has been way above the cost of slabbing! All part of the CGS trial really, plus I need some readies so selling them now. It's impossible to be sure given the random nature of auctions, especially eBay, but every CGS slabbed coin I have sold so far has realised more than I paid (after slabbing costs, commission (if any) and postage), whereas the others (Kew 50ps aside) have very rarely done that! I knew what these coins were and had them slabbed as part of a CGS TPG trial (see threads), some of them I am selling and so far (for mid-high grade coins) I would say there is a premium in excess of the cost of the coin submission. I will post details when the next auctions are concluded, for anyone interested. My position right now is that you will get a much better price when selling mid-high grade English Silver Coins (esp pre-George V) on eBay if they are CGS slabbed, and if you are thinking of selling it might be worth considering getting them slabbed (£80 value coins and above). My experience so far has been very clear on this, but only based on 20 or so CGS selling auctions. And Peter, I am keeping my very best coins! And I appreciate your concern, I am staying as a collector and a forum member! You could well be right about this, and I wish you luck with your auctions. However, I don't think it would apply to popular rarities often sold in low(ish) grades such as the 1903 and 1905 halfcrowns. Those I feel are best sold raw.

I wouldn't trust any seller using "HIGHLY SORT AFTER" any further than I could throw them.

No. He had a thingie shaped like a turnip if I recall ...

This is one of the illustrations from my Kindle version : As you can see from what is a screenshot converted to a JPEG, it's absolutely fine. It must be either your computer Stuart, or something went wrong with the download?

Gold??? I have NEVER seen gold that's dark green. Remember, gold doesn't tarnish or corrode.