DaveG38

RobJ Just to put a slightly different perspective on the issue of the quality you should buy. Of course I have no issue with the general principle that you should buy the best quality you can afford. However, depending on how and what you collect you may find that this isn't always a practicable strategy. For instance, I am a milled coinage date collector and like others I try to buy the best I can. However, sometimes this isn't possible and I have to settle for a good deal less than I would like. This isn't always a matter of money, although that does come into it, it's also a question of availability. I have an example of all the dates/major types of farthing back to 1672 - the only missing one is a James II 1684 which is extremely rare. Now if one comes on the market at an sort of sensible prices and in almost any kind of condition, I'll probably buy it, simply because I'm not likely to see another. The alternative is to have a yawning gap in the collection and I'm afraid I like to see gaps filled. So, my collections doesn't always have the best condition coins in, but it is largely complete in terms of date runs. This means I have had to settle for low quality at times for e.g. my 1854 sixpence and shilling, my 1689 halfpenny, my 1863 florin etc. etc. Of course, if a better specimen comes along and I can afford it I can and do upgrade, but in the meantime I'm happy to see the gap filled. You may end up being a different sort of collector in which case I'm sorry if this post isn't relevant to you.

Hmmm interesting......now I wonder whether I have been re-sold these coins, or whether these are an additional lot to the ones I purchased. Either way I am happy but it puts a few more in the market place Did you attend that auction then Dave, how did you become aware of these farthings.....or was it you that sold them to me Neither. I was interested in them from the internet and left a commission bid. Unfortunately, I forgot to leave my name and address and so my bid wasn't accepted. The auctioneers did come back to me on this, but I was away for a few days and so missed out - by the time I returned the auction was over, so drat and double drat as some cartoon villain used to say (can't remember which one now). Please put me out of my misery and say how much they went for!

From Lot 808 in Smith's Newent Auction on 10 September by any chance?

Hi all,

Sorry about this, but I found the answer to my question and tried to delete the post - as far as I can see the only way to go was to delete almost all of it, so its a hi to everyone and nothing more!!!!

I'm very impressed that you remember it was precisely £5/17/9d. Can you tell me what albums you sacrificed it for and how much they cost? I remember that one of them (which I still own) was the mono first pressing of Cream's Disraeli Gears. Not only a brilliant classic album, but in itself now worth somewhere around £60 - £70 ! Swings and roundabouts, hey... P.S. I seem to remember that albums back then cost 32/6 - one down in memory, two to go 32/6? You extravagant youngster. 19/11 in my day!!! PS: I've still got Disraeli Gears, but I think mine is the stereo version.

He's pretty optimistic considering that there's a group of three of them going for £5!!! http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/3x-2008-charles-darwin-2-pound-coin-/330480090029?pt=UK_Coins_BritishDecimal_RL&hash=item4cf225fbad

Nope, damaged die. The filled 2 is raised on the coin so must be incuse on the die. A bit has broken off the die at the inside angle of the 2, unless it is a bit of trapped metal which has attached itself to the flan. You don't have any relief perspective from the image. This particular phenomenon is refered to as a filled die just for description purposes. You are so correct, the die must have been incuse. It is also possible that the die punch that made the die was damaged,not finished properly or had a piece of trapped metal in it. We may never know. What I do know is that this so called filled die 1920 penny is far from unique. This flaw is found on a number of dates in the George V series and as you say is far from unique. Known examples include 1912H, 1920, 1921, 1927 and 1932. Also the 1922 second '2'. The extent of the filling of the '2' also varies, suggesting a progressive flaw. The fact that it occurs on the '2's throughout the series, suggests that it is a common flaw in the shape and cutting of the dies for the '2'. Or maybe it's inevitable given the shape of the number '2'. As you say, we probably will never know.

I've just been caught out. Not seriously, but still caught. I spotted a 1965 sixpence for sale and the photo was the rarer variety with the 'I' of 'REGINA' to a space. Checked with the seller whether this was the actual coin in the photo and was told yes it was. Arrived this morning and it clearly isn't the same coin and is the common old 1965. Only $3 wasted, so no sweat. Not worth sending back, but a good excuse to leave a great big negative feedback. Why these people do it, I really don't know!! In the long run they are the losers. Indeed they are, Dave. It's very difficult to understand such a mindset. For the sake of a minor score on a few coins, they are risking long term isolation as the collecting and dealing community soon come to recognise a seller who is effectively a crook. And the proof of the con is that the 'dealer' in this case hasn't come back to me to complain about the negative feedback, which has knocked him down to around 97%. I,m always on the lookout for 1965 sixpences and have often come across the rare variety on ebay. I alway now look at any other sixpences being sold by the seller to see in they have used the same obverse in several actions, they always have. Why take a picture of every obv if they are all the same grr. I ended up buying a Peter Davies piece. I have no problem with people using stock photos or a single one for a range of coins where the coin is a bog standard one e.g. the Eliz II cupro-nickel series. I don't even mind when they don't say so and I have to ask. What I do object to, very strongly, is when I ask the question, I am assured the coin in the photo is the one for sale, and when it arrives it clearly isn't the same one. These sellers are simply con-men willing to sell anything and lie blatantly just a for few miserable pennies - after all they don't go for much. Even more insulting is that they don't think I can tell the difference!

I've just been caught out. Not seriously, but still caught. I spotted a 1965 sixpence for sale and the photo was the rarer variety with the 'I' of 'REGINA' to a space. Checked with the seller whether this was the actual coin in the photo and was told yes it was. Arrived this morning and it clearly isn't the same coin and is the common old 1965. Only $3 wasted, so no sweat. Not worth sending back, but a good excuse to leave a great big negative feedback. Why these people do it, I really don't know!! In the long run they are the losers. Indeed they are, Dave. It's very difficult to understand such a mindset. For the sake of a minor score on a few coins, they are risking long term isolation as the collecting and dealing community soon come to recognise a seller who is effectively a crook. And the proof of the con is that the 'dealer' in this case hasn't come back to me to complain about the negative feedback, which has knocked him down to around 97%.

That's what the members can deliberate over Scott. There are a few theories re this date and others between the years 1850 and 1874. Rayner thought it was a forger operating in the 1890's. Others think it was possibly mint employees tinkering with old dies after the 1887 issues. Some think they are genuine mint productions. A very nice find among a £300 lot though! Genuine Mint product or not, its still a pretty good price. Rendel Ingram seems to have cornered the market for these mystery 1860s halfcrown coins with a number of them at between £400 and £900, so not a bad deal.

Two ways I've used in the past : 1. Issue your own postal list and advertise it in the Coin News classifieds (not expensive). Be aware though, it takes time to build up a customer base, but once you have a clientele it can really deliver. 2. Find an antiques centre without a coins outlet. Offer to be their coins expert and rent a cabinet or display from them. Again though, it takes time to become 'known', but the advantage is that you get people wanting to sell to you also, and you can pick up some real bargains. I've given up using auctions after I sold two lots at one provincial auction for £30 which I thought was a reasonably fair price for them. The cheque I received? £17. You can complain all you like about FleaBay, but their fees are SantaClaus-esque by comparison. If you want to use auctions, then eBay, despite the fees etc. still wins hands down on price. Consider this. The average auction house and coin auctioneer charges the seller somewhere around 10 - 12% on the hammer price, which is in line with eBay plus Paypal fees. Additionally, however, the buyer also has to pay his premium, which is typically 15-20% on the lot he has purchased, and buyers obviously factor this into the price they bid up to. Overall, the cost to the seller of these two factors is typically around 33%, so you would be getting about 66% of list price, assuming the sale goes through around this figure. Obviously it might be more or less, but that's auctions for you. Consider then that eBay typically charges about 15% with all its fees and you can see that eBay is well cheaper. Yes, its got other problems, but in terms of coverage it is also probably one of the widest, certainly compared to a standard or even specialist coin auction.

You could try searching the British Library catalogue. Some items can be borrowed I believe. Alternatively try searching the UK library system - if there are any in the archives they can get them to and from anywhere in the UK.

I've just been caught out. Not seriously, but still caught. I spotted a 1965 sixpence for sale and the photo was the rarer variety with the 'I' of 'REGINA' to a space. Checked with the seller whether this was the actual coin in the photo and was told yes it was. Arrived this morning and it clearly isn't the same coin and is the common old 1965. Only $3 wasted, so no sweat. Not worth sending back, but a good excuse to leave a great big negative feedback. Why these people do it, I really don't know!! In the long run they are the losers.

If I catch your drift correctly, you appear to be advocating a return to good old fashioned headhunting ? Not really, just eyeball collection after the owner has no further use for them! Obviously, mounted adds to the value.

Got a buy it now price on that Dave ? I only want one - not into collecting sets...... Biut you would want both a left and a right, surely Worth more as a pair then separately though. Obviously, fixed in their original sockets adds to the value as does the certificate of authenticity i.e. birth certificate. Cataracts reduces the value - not sure how we grade them!

I've just had my house, contents and collection insurance come through and I was gob-smacked at the huge hike of around £200 per year in premium, even when allowing for the increased value of the coins. Taking Gary's advice, I approached Stamp Insurance Services, and have now got a separate coin insurance policy, which is significantly better than the 'standard' type. They insure, through Sterling Insurance, the whole collection for its replacement value, not just two thirds of the Spink values and this has only cost a small increase over the 'standard' policy. However, this small increase (£25) was more than offset by decoupling from my house and contents, which I have managed to dramatically reduce. The overall effect is to cut around £400 off my premiums, which is brilliant. There were also no problems with Stamp Insurance Services. The proposal form was simple, they replied within 2-3 days and there were no nasty surprises about what they do and don't insure. The only slight chore was producing a list of the items valued at over £1k, but once done there were no problems at all. I appreciate that I haven't had to make a claim (and hope I don't have to) so I don't know what that part of their service is like, but so far I am very happy with them. Just thought I would give them a thumbs up for forum members.

Although it sounds good, in practice the lots were mostly not that brilliant. I bought the 1734 halfcrown and a small mixed lot of 4d, but otherwise they weren't really that exceptional.

Yes. I suppose the key is working out what the fashions will be in 30 years time from now and acting accordingly (catching the next boat) Easy to forsee a world in which cash has been long since redundant in 30 years time, probably conduct business using a retina scan or something. Of concern also, is that the more expensive an item becomes, the more it's worth forging Lets hope we don't get into collecting eyeballs then!! Blue iris, small variety, second line from the left points to a pigment flake.

Scott, If you have found different types of the 1965 sixpence then you may be on to a bit of a winner, as one type - the obverse 3 type with the 'I' of 'REGINA' to a space - is much scarcer and can command quite a premium. Ive seen one recently sell for around £65 I think. Certainly, I've been looking for one in boot fair trays for years and never found one.

In my varieties book, I identify varieties in 1953, 1955, 1964 and 1965, plus some proofs. If you have found some others I would be interested to know about them. I think you've got the 1964 "I in GRATIA missing" Dave? On the subject of your book - I think it's a great read, and very very thorough. Just one thing though, I struggled to find much in the way of rarity assessment. I'm used to books like Freeman and Gouby and ESC where every single listed variety has a rarity rating. Any thoughts on producing one, and making it available as a supplement to existing readers? For me, it's a 'must have'. Well done! That's one I didn't come across - better keep it for a re-issue sometime in the future. On the thorny issue of rarity assessment, I did consider what I could provide for this, but the problem was always one of identifying a scale (as Freeman does) and then assessing the numbers available against that scale. None of the sources I used have done anything like this and I could foresee major timescale problems if I attempted to do so, as well as a huge piece of work contacting/visiting dealers, going through their stock and then categorising the coins. I judged it to be a very long involved task equally as involved as the work done on silver edge nicks in the 1960s and 70s, and for this reason I decided against doing it. What I have done is comment generally about rarity where there is some published view available - a bit lazy I know, but I wanted to get the book written for people to use, rather than as a piece of historical research.

In my varieties book, I identify varieties in 1953, 1955, 1964 and 1965, plus some proofs. If you have found some others I would be interested to know about them.

There is more material available than serious collectors of the series, though somebody with a fairly comprehensive British collection will probably get a few examples from Scotland, Ireland, and the islands to add a little diversity. They are scarce in top grades but not rarish unless you are talking mint state. I've got no idea of the quantities of proofs extant. The 1860s book at £2000 & £3500 compared to £350 for the 1839 in 2003. The BNJ index reveals no articles on Manx coinage up to 1999 which probably speaks volumes about the level of interest. The only reference to quantities in the 2003 book is to the 1733 copper issue which states that £300 in pence and £200 in halfpennies were struck. The bibliographical references for Manx coinage are P Nelson, 'Coinage of the Isle of Man' - Numismatic Chronicle 1899, and contemporary forgeries of the 1733 coinage in SNC 1901. Maud Lister's 'Manx Money' (1947); F Pridmore's 'Coins of the British Commonwealth of Nations part 1 (1960) and C Clay's 'On the Brass, Copper and other Currency of the Isle of Man' in the Proc. Manchester Num. Soc Parts I-V (1864-7) are the only other refs. Nelson and Pridmores areticle are likely to be the easiest to acquire, though there is a chance that the Lancs and Cheshire Society or Manchester Museum still have the last article. Keith Sugden at the museum or Bob Lyall who is into colonials might know. It won't be easy finding the articles, let alone accurate mintage figures. Coincraft quotes a total mintage for 1839 IOM halfpennies as 214,080 (£446!), but no figures for proofs. However, it must be a heck of a lot less. Coincraft also quote a price of £240 for a UNC Proof in 1999, so you could extrapolate from there. By comparison, they quote a 1860 proof at £1500.

Very good that! Nice voice! Thank you for that. She will be pleased. She likes to sing when she can and has had a few sessions in the studio recording some of here favourites. My personal one of hers is 'Nights in White Satin' or perhaps 'The House of the Rising Sun.'

Just got a 2008 Beijing London 2012 £2 coin - first I have seen in change.