Sword

I think it would be more interesting to ask the original seller mycopau if it is the same item.

She would just say no I guess. People like that have skin thicker than a Gothic Crown.

Marlybob1 didn't leave a feedback when she brought the item initially. The original seller didn't leave one either as a result. He gave a feedback later on for a very good reason.

The original seller probably noticed her first attempt to pass the item as the real thing. This is Marlybob1's second attempt.

From The Telegraph.

She is at it again. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1847-WW-SOLID-SILVER-PLAIN-EDGE-VICTORIA-GOTHIC-CROWN-MY-GRADE-E-F/123730842205?hash=item1cceeed25d:g:Jw4AAOSw9A5criZ1 Are there some raised dots by the V of Victoria? "ITS SOLD AS SEEN BOUGHT AT YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT" "AS IM NOT AN EXPERT" Oh look, her last feedback as a buyer was for a particularly interesting item:

Didn't know Amazon is that bad. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47941181 "With headphones, all the products on the first page of results sorted by average customer review were from little-known brands and 87% of more than 12,000 reviews for these products were by unverified purchasers" Guardian Just had a look and it really is true. E.g. this is one of the top headphones on the "average customer review" All the reviews were written on the same date. There are scores of reviews for the same user name. None of the reviews are from verified purchases. Amazon can remove nearly all the fake reviews by only allowing reviews from verified purchases only. But at least not many people appear to be falling into the traps.

Victorian Patterns were trial pieces and were not made by the Royal Mint for profit. Hence, they have historical significance. I rather suspect organisations like the London Coins Company have some agreement with the Royal Mint and can return some unsold coins to minimize their risk. Anyway, I will say no more. Enjoy your coins.

"I see them the same as those Victorian pattern proofs albeit a bit more legit." Problem is that there are only a finite number of collectors for modern coins and they have a finite amount of money. However, the number of Royal Mint offerings is totally unlimited. Each issue might have a low mintage but the combine total is already colossal and increasing by the month. A Victorian pattern will always maintain it's value and fascination. But a modern Royal Mint offering can easily be bullion value 20 years after issue.

Gold value is £461 and the proof limited edition is being issued at £845.

Building a snowman has not been possible in my part of the country for almost a decade now The real test is if people still want to buy them in 5 or more years after issue. Time will tell.

Yes, 100% 5* is too obvious. It's more dangerous when an Ok product's rating has been improved from say 3.5 stars to 4.5 stars over a longer period of time.

Obviously, the modern images such as those from Disney are licensed. I am just not convinced that copying "an element" of a previous coin's design without permission is definitely "illegal" if the coin is old enough and there is no attempt to deceive. It's even more arguable when the image is very similar (or "inspired") and not absolutely identical to the real thing. There are so many unofficial reproduction coins / coin-like objects around (done by private companies rather than countries) that feature large elements of official previous designs. But I am sure someone on the forum would be able to give a definitive answer.

I don't think there is anything wrong with collectors buying, investing in and enjoying the Niue trade dollars. We buy most things on visual appeal and buy things we like. However, I do think it is wrong (or at least very bad taste) for countries wanting to make money by: 1) Copying or cloning other nations' designs 2) Making commemorative coins on events / ideas that have little or no relevance to them as they would appear very insincere for doing so. Niue Island is particularly bad in my view. They make coins almost exclusively for collectors (and use New Zealand coins in everyday transactions). They have made coins featuring Mickey Mouse, Snoppy, Pokemon, Bambi, Darth Vader etc. i.e. things that have no relevance to them. The Royal Mint has sank rather low in recent years with things like the Graffalo, but they at least have British connections. One might get some amusement from the Niue offerings: https://www.govmint.com/world-coins/other-world-coins/niue-coins E.g. These cheap attempts to make money is fine. But copying other nations' designs to make money is not. Cashing in on other nations' heritage, culture, tragic events is also poor. For example, many might argue that Niue Island making SEVEN different 2011 one dollar coins for Diana just solely greed. Back to the Niue trade dollars. Yes, the website does state they are "a lasting tribute to a currency born out of commerce and trade". Then it also go on to say that the " Collection consists of five new coin designs celebrating the infamous currency of the Orient". With Niue's track record, the real purpose is obvious.

I don't think it is particularly relevant which mint made these pieces. Niue is an independent country and has control over its own coinage (with the exception of the Queen's portrait). The East India Company Website does not mention the mint used and there is no Royal Mint Logo anywhere on the box. The other websites are also very quiet on this point. Does it say the the Royal Mint in the COA? I understand that the New Zealand Mint generally make coins for Niue Island.

Yes, things were very different in the reign of George III. UK even had the slave trade and countermarking coins was trivial in comparison. The world has hopefully moved on since.

Strictly, a restrike is a coin made from original dies at a later year. In this particular case, the word "restrike" has never been used on the coins' website (as far as I can see) and has only been used unofficially by private collectors on e.g. Youtube clips. Niue Island has nothing to do with the original trade dollars. Its designs for the "US" and "British" trade dollars are at least not identical to the real things and were "inspired" by the originals. But the Chinese dragon is just an exact clone of the original design as presumably because Imperial China is not around to complain. Collectors buying the coins of course don't have to care and they can be good investments if there is a strong market for them. Buy what one likes and why be troubled by other people's concerns. But it could be the Imperial German eagle, or the Russian double headed eagle being copied by some third country / territory next. I just think that it would be nice if there is greater respect for other nations' culture and heritage.

Just "China". And certainly not to the Niue Island.

I really like the look of the coin myself. But I just don't think it is morally right to pinch another nation's iconic design like that. Imagine some country suddenly using an exact copy of Una and the lion or worse still, our St George and dragon. That Chinese dragon really belongs to China!

I think that's what VickySilver is saying.

I don't think there is anything wrong for using external experts as consultants. If I remember correctly, the old cgs website claimed they have also used external experts on occasions to confirm authenticity to justify why there are no refunds in cases of forgery.

The Gold version is at least VAT free and the price (including p and p) is just about £72 or 7% over bullion. But the premium of the silver version is well over 100% and it's too much for a bullion product IMO.

They have just reused the 2015 one pound design to save a bit of effort. Personally, I just don't like this design as the bodies of the lion and unicorn have to be tiny to hide behind the shield.

Because it will never be worth more than bullion when you resell it ...