Coinery

Cheers, Pies, thanks for that! Do you work IN hospital then?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm you've listed the coin you wanna buy lol I'm fancying an experiment! Can I shake those deposits off with one of those cheap machines? No Bugger!

Hmmmmmmmmmmm you've listed the coin you wanna buy lol I'm fancying an experiment! Can I shake those deposits off with one of those cheap machines?

TBH i'd love to think this is genuine. The seller sells many Sovs, but a rarity such as this on ebay is somewhat strange to me. An EF graded coin in Spinks is around 8500 quid. Why put this coin on ebay if its so rare? I can't vouch for authenticity, but ebay often exceeds major auctions at final hammer, AND only have a 10% sellers fee! I think all the serious collectors/dealers have a pretty good handle on eBay nowadays, despite everything that's said! Look at us lot, for instance, when something special comes along (not saying this is) we're all drooling and speculating, CALCULATING, twitching, itching...there are quite a few armchair bidders methinks! Most of the quality hammered is almost untouchable on eBay! C'mon, Dave, you use one of those electro cleaners, any good for this? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/170910669150?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

I'm sure I read somewhere that it was resolved and he was not out of pocket?

Poor Liz! I did wonder upon whom Mrs Shrek was based! http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/300768960535?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

Cheers, Dave, I'll had a dig around in there and see how Chris has played it!

I don't know. But it occurs to me, what's the point of designing a system of classification and then publishing it for everyone to read about if not the hope that people will find it of assistance? The assistance element would be if you had an unclear 7/6/5 date, for example, you could hopefully find a 6/5 die to match and confirm, or quite simply being able to rule out an overmark because you have found the die match in the 'solo' marks, meaning you can give it the full BCW title! And surely, part of finding something useful will be that you will want to adopt it yourself, no? This is certainly the case with collectors of the shillings of Charles I, in that Michael Sharp's system is much more useful than Spink's numeric one (such as S.2793 which doesn't really differentiate within a type group) or Grant Francis' (1b2 etc ..) And Michael's introduction to his paper seems fairly clear that he designed his system for reference and in the hope that it could develop if any further types or varieties were found. The fact that we call a coin Sharp C2/6 effectively gives MS credit. Similarly it seems to me that by using BCW (or Peck or Spink or Freeman etc) notation we are acknowledging their work. But can I publish material stating "BCW Shilling A-b (Die G1)" with the G1 being my own extension to their cataloguing? As to a new system, while it's your area and you have the expertise, not I, my personal feeling would be that if BCW classifications are adequate, why re-invent the wheel? I'd love to use BCW, it's a superb system, just uncertain whether I can or not? My thoughts on a new system were about avoiding red tape (if there is any) That's what Roy Osborne tried to do (again with the Charles I series) but to be honest he went into so much detail that the result is just unwieldy and inelegant. While it can be helpful if you can't access or send a photograph, but want someone to be able to recognise an individual coin by description (down to the style of harp and beard shape), for the most part simplicity equals functionality. IMHO . Thanks, Richard! I have marked above in your text, just because it would be simpler to follow (I often think it can look rude, you know it's not)! I guess my key point here is, can you use the numbering systems of Freeman, Spink, BCW, Sharp, etc. (and add to them using brackets) provided academic acknowledgement is given? Whilst I believe it's courtesy to contact the authors of these works, notwithstanding their endorsement would be an important part of the process, and not to mention I'd feel it akin to meeting Keira Knightley should either BCorW as much as give a passing interest in what I am doing, I wonder if it's legally neccesary? Essentially, what is the correct process/etiquete/presentation when taking a BCW Shilling A-2 and sub-dividing it by the 10 different dies that potentially make it up? Do I have to get consent (other than as a courtesy)? Can I numerically add to their system without consent (if clearly and academically noting the division)?

Any advice would really be appreciated from those on, who've been on, or are thinking of being on this journey! I notice in Spink that they use BCW's bust ID's to classify their own Spink numbers, with only a 'for further reading see BCW....etc.' acknowledgment at the end of the Elizabeth silver section. I also notice that Dave G. has used Peck & Freeman following permission to use their numbering system. So, I initially wanted to record the individual dies of the Elizabeth varieties as laid out by BCW (primarily so that I and others could better identify a variety [overdate etc.] should a particular feature be weak/missing), and have been approaching this by taking a BCW number and adding to it my own extra die-identifying references (as seen in the images above). However, before I go much further (I'm still awaiting responses from BCW themselves) and end up with a lot of back-tracking and time-consuming changes to my filing, can I actually do this, provided I appropriately reference BCW (as you might in a dissertation)? Or, is the correct 'approach' to this quite simply to create your own unique referencing system, where you then might say, for example, "Shilling SBGa1 (BCW A-2) with 14 known dies SBGa1:GA, SBGa1:GB, etc" So, entirely new referencing system, or blatant use of someone elses (with permission of course [do you actually need permission if it's appropriately referenced?])? What is the numismatically recognised standard for what I am attempting to do?

The top coin obverse looks like it could be an advert for a carry-on film, and the reverse a trial pattern for the 1935 crown!

It is a shame for sure, as I for one would've taken a chance on an NGC slab blind before seeing this! It would've been more palatable if it was a really good quality fake but, honestly, I've handled 2 examples of this cast copy, it's obvious in the extreme! Sadly for PCGS and others, it has coloured my judgement of them too! I found an NGC Elizabeth Hammered a while back that even had the wrong denomination on it. Not a three-farthing/threehalfpence confusion, but sixpence/groat (and it wasn't a roseless sixpence either). The only saving grace now is that I might, as Rob suggests, find a glaring (or subtle) error to my advantage, and that's what I am looking for now in NGC (maybe I'll find that rare roseless coin slabbed as a penny or something ). I look forward to acquiring, and hearing about other's one-upmanships in this respect! Really obvious mistakes should definitely be picked up by the TPG. Failures like this suggest that they are being lazy (i.e. just accepting the submitter's description) and have poor quality control (not ensuring multiple checks of the principal grader's opinion). In my opinion mistakes should be reported back to the TPG and should be taken very seriously (a full examination of the audit trail for that particular coin being investigated and lessons learnt). Without this forensic examination the whole process could become worthless. Personally, while I'm not a particular fan of the TPG process, I would definitely not want it to lose all credibility. The damage, should that happen, would ultimately affect all collectors be serious threat to the credibility of our hobby. I have reported mis-attribution before (to CGS) and not had a serious response beyond 'we will look into it'. Perhaps we should consider writing as a community when one of us discovers a mistake, explaining our serious concern that such obvious errors are a threat to the efficacy of the whole TPG system and that we expect the error to be investigated fully, the results made public (or at least communicated to us), and the necessary remedial action taken. Perhaps this sounds OTT, but I think the whole issue needs addressing urgently. I do believe that this affects us all. Definately poor quality control! I have to confess I sent around 20 coins for slabbing a while ago...took 3 months to get them back! The only explanation I can offer for this timescale, is they must be absolutely inundated with material, which means the £££ signs are likely blinding their judgement. If credibility fell out of the slab market, the investment angle would collapse in a very short time, and the knock-on effect from that would surely be massive; all that high-end material with only the genuine collectors to sell it back to, it could trigger a major fall in coin prices (or am I being too sensitive?). The TPG's have brought major investments to the coin market, which I presume to be the cornerstone of the increases we've all enjoyed for a long time. It's my thoughts that it won't be any global economic circumstance that brings about a future crash in coin prices, I think we've got our own smoking bomb in the TPG's. Also, 'we will look into it' is as perfect a political response as we'll ever get from them! To bring audit and accountability into TPG practice would undermine them in a moment, so I'm not sure how that would work, the trust would never return. They will just have to keep burying, plugging holes, sweeping under carpets, and remain as detached from complaints as possible, otherwise, like any Government that gets found out, they'd be history!

It is a shame for sure, as I for one would've taken a chance on an NGC slab blind before seeing this! It would've been more palatable if it was a really good quality fake but, honestly, I've handled 2 examples of this cast copy, it's obvious in the extreme! Sadly for PCGS and others, it has coloured my judgement of them too! I found an NGC Elizabeth Hammered a while back that even had the wrong denomination on it. Not a three-farthing/threehalfpence confusion, but sixpence/groat (and it wasn't a roseless sixpence either). The only saving grace now is that I might, as Rob suggests, find a glaring (or subtle) error to my advantage, and that's what I am looking for now in NGC (maybe I'll find that rare roseless coin slabbed as a penny or something ). I look forward to acquiring, and hearing about other's one-upmanships in this respect!

Welcome aboard cristatus, you'll not be disappointed!

Watching that, thanks! Thought that might catch your attention Paulus!

Totally agree Peter, many people here who give their expert opinions and don't take any BS either. I for one am glad i joined this very forum 2 ish years ago, it's been a great learning curve, although hammered still eludes me This forum's an absolutely amazing source of information, barely a day goes by where i don't learn something new; the university of coins, there's no mistaking it! Oh, and thanks for that extremely generous post earlier, Dave, my hat off to you too!

What worries me about the 1934 crown, for a minage of 932 there seem an awful lot of them around. Now now Gary.The Chinese are getting good.NGC will slab them for you. Now, now, Peter, what's wrong with NGC? What we should all do is gather together a series of our best fakes (don't even have to be that good [grab all your brass G3 tokens, they'll do]) and submit them for slabbing! Once we've got more than a few done, we should then go to the biggest media shop window for numismatics and reduce their business to a status that's appropriate to their knowledge base!

Luckily for the people living in the following countries - Africa, Russian Federation, Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, Ukraine the seller is not willing to flood the market with the copies. Leaving aside the question of NGC's competence which it appears is a given, I actually wonder about the seller here. We have a listing that is priced in US$. The location of the item is Paris. The ebay id has a stop in the middle of the name which is very reminiscent of a number of Yorkshire and Lancashire based purveyors of this crap who ebay refused to deal with. Can't help wondering if there is a connection. Lots of things have been bought from China too. Given the coin has been physically handled prior to submission and they obviously feel and look wrong, any person submitting a coin will know that a pitted flan will lead to an environmental damage label, so the only reason to submit to the TPG is to accord the coin a genuine status - something which the Negligent Grading Committee have duly obliged. It now has an official seal of approval. I always wondered why the American TPGs withdrew their guarantees on world coins, but I thought they would still guarantee a coin as genuine. Methinks a large pointy hat with a big D on the front is appropriate. Why has he submitted this to NGC if he's in Paris, PCGS have an office in Paris now, why not send it there? Is he actually Fu Man Choo posing as a Frenchie?UPDATE..........Coin has been taken down I had absolutely no idea the American's had withdrawn liability! Joe and his Aunt could slab on that basis! Taken down? Now that would be something extraordinary if that was eBay led...I just can't see it, with TPG's being their future baby? BONJOUR IF YOU ARE READING THIS THREAD!

They'd be out-of-pocket and have a damaged reputation if they did that. Makes you wonder, though, how many successful claims are made against these companies for 'shocking performances,' and how it all just 'goes away' quietly?

Ah ha, so NGC know sweet FA about what they're slabbing in other words The saddest thing of all is that this is a glaring fake in-hand, really obvious edges, thicker, and soapy enough to take a shower with! You've got to feel sorry for the eventual new owner because, as you said (and maybe this is part of NGC's gameplan), who's going to break it out and 'chance-it'?

This is the worrying thing, they have! NGC actually have the image of the fake on their website. The only glimmer of hope they have is that this is the original the fakes were cast from. Actually it can't be the original, as my fake has more outer-edge beading at the E&T of Elizabeth...hung, drawn & quartered! I've just realised it's the ebay coin 30/06/12 from the thread "Elizabeth Fake Groat on eBay" http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hammered-Groat-Elizabeth-I-Elizabeth-1-British-Tudor-Elizabeth-i-42-/320933281810?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=cCzk6X4balcL%2F1rvoWDuCX2BHjA%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc NGC are over for me!

Link to the ebay NGC coin http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/230851403945;jsessionid=634E8DD61049C3EFC884221EDF875F9F?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_sacat%3D0%26_nkw%3D230851403945%26_rdc%3D1

My pictures: The other example I saw at W&W was much sharper, as good all over as the bottom left-hand quadrant of the reverse.

Zero feedback, but that photography and background looks mighty familiar!

Buckcoins (which i've already proved on the forum has upped grades on purchases). I'm looking forward to meeting the young Buck at a coin auction, if only to give him the look of displeasure I feel for him. I bought a £200+ coin from him recently that failed to materialise! I politely wrote him emails...not a single civilised response. I've been sorely tempted to transcribe our entire communications, just so people can see for themselves what an unreasonable man he is! I've failed to win (so effectively bid up) probably a hundred or more of his coins, and that's worth a huge sum to him alone, not to mention the £1000's I'd already spent with him! What a complete...

I thought that when I was visiting their site at the time of my C2 5/3 farthing query. I couldn't believe some of the W3&M stuff either, but especially the C2 material. CC not spot on, Spink's listing fakes, what's it all coming to? Bring back the Shanghai boys, all is forgiven!