Paddy

My first school was in Englefield Green! Is St Cuthberts still going?

Yes @Coinery I hadn't really paid much attention to the variety before, but mine I believe is S2596 with the smaller rose and the elaborately decorated dress. The OP is S2594 I think with the larger rose and the plain dress. The latter is slightly scarcer. @Citizen H I see no problems with yours being fake. If you look at the form of the 5 in the date, it is the same on both examples. I don't know if it is still the case, but the main giveaway for the fakes was a blundered terminal to the cross fourchee. This was discussed somewhere on this forum at least 5 years ago.

Nice coin, but not particularly rare. Lovely history concerning their minting at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloy_Mestrelle In that condition probably £80 to £100. At least is appears to be genuine - there are fakes around. Here is mine - slightly better condition:

Weight is within range (4.7 to 6.3g approx) and you would not expect a reeded edge on a farthing of that date. Apart from a lot of corrosion, I can't see much wrong with that one.

I think you are reading the figure for proof issues of this date, which is 1312. Regular business strike, of which this is an example, the figure is 7,010,000 !

I woke up this morning thinking about this coin, which I have had tucked away for a couple of years. The Swan (or |Goose) dollar was designed to be a candidate for the new Australian decimal coinage, but was rejected. A small number were minted by Pinches in London, and they are now quite collectable. Unfortunately there are now quite a few fakes out there. I found this one in a local auction and paid a fair bit for it as I recognised the rarity, but I got it on reserve as no one else bid. I am fairly sure it is genuine - I saw it when it was brought in to the auction house in a tin with a few other random British and foreign coins from a house clearance. Here is the Numista page on it: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/exonumia78083.html And the linked information on identifying fakes: https://www.australian-coins.com/collecting-coins/1967-australia-1-dollar-pattern-crown-goose-dollar-90-silver-copy-coin-counterfeit-fake/ I know we have a few Australian contributors on here, so I would be interested in confirmation that it is genuine, and some indication whether these are still sought after or the fakery has killed the market for them?

Good grief, what an appalling fake! Let alone the completely inaccurate description. Look at his feedback - 280,000 odd reviews and only 82% positive. You have to work hard to be that bad. PS, and in the feedback you will discover he is in China, which explains a lot.

Yes, it is noticeable how much narrower the edge is. Checking back through mine, it seems to be the same for all the Reverse A (Freeman) GV pennies?

... and the 1867. Shame about the gash on Britannia's leg, but otherwise pretty decent:

I saw the conversation under "Wanted" about 1865 and 1867 pennies, and decided to check mine. I don't think I need to upgrade any time soon. The likely costs were a surprise to me. I have had these a long time and have no idea what I paid for them - I would appreciate some idea of current market value? The 1865:

It is worth keeping an eye on local auctions. Boxes of Vicky pennies often come up in house clearance sales, and sometimes include some rarities unidentified. The lower tiers of coin auctions can also be good as again they may not have identified the good ones. Also, you won't be fighting with the big bucks buyers. My local coin auction in Exeter, which runs every 3 weeks, has had some great pennies at low prices recently.

I would have to say probably a fake. As well as the orientation problem, there seems to be lots of irregularity in the denticles.

Where do we start! I have given up buying or selling completely on Ebay. The coins I still need are all rare dates or varieties, which makes the chances of fakery or fraud very high. For low value items, it is probably still useful, or if you spot a rare variety that the seller has missed. I suppose my main thoughts are: If it is high value, assume a fake unless you are absolutely certain. Do your research. Check sold items - a tick box down the left of a search list. This will show you the actually sale price of recently completed similar items to give you a good idea of real value. (Sadly this does not include "best offer" sale values.) Research the seller. These days it is almost impossible to leave negative feedback, so the overall score is irrelevant, so check the actual words left by buyers. Also check that the seller has sold plenty of coins before with feedback. Someone who usually sells household good and suddenly starts listing high value coins is a worry. Check sellers location. Anything far eastern or Eastern Europe is a worry. Read the words the seller has attached. Often these are clearly AI generated or stolen from some auction site, in which case you know it is a con. If still uncertain, ask on a forum such as this.

Can anyone point me in the right direction for this coin? Came to me as "unidentified Celtic". Looking through Spink and Mack the closest I can get is Regni uninscribed, but not an exact match. It appears to be Copper, measures about 11mm across and weighs 1.89g. Thanks!

I don't believe it actually copies any specific Celtic coin, it is just done in that style, which just adds to the difficulty in calling it out as a fake.

I had forgotten about this query as I got answers on another forum. It is, sadly, a fake and apparently there are lots in a similar style on Ebay at present. I returned it to the auction house for a full refund.

Yes, a Barbarous radiate is not a fake in the usual sense of the word. It would have been made 4th or 5th century after the Roman Empire in Europe had collapsed to provide coinage for the remaining residents. I looked at your other coin but I was not able to offer any real insight.

I can't tell you who the people depicted are, but I suspect this is a "Barbarous Radiate" - that is to say a coin minted post Roman empire in loose imitation of a Roman coin.

That looks entirely possible. My book has such awful illustrations that I cannot even tell which way up the lettering should be! You need someone with access to a better reference book.

I can see that it is Alexander III first coinage, probably class 2. (I am using the Coincraft 1999 catalogue and I beleive the classes may vary from other works.) I struggle to make sense of the reverse. My best guess would be Walter at Kinghorn - working on the premise that the 3 letters 6 to 9 o'clock are KIN.

I am not greatly into this Grading Mularkey but I would say the NGC 65 is way over graded - far too much loss of detail on the bust. I would say the other two are very similar and I would choose your ungraded one over the PCGS 64.

I believe the view from the British Museum is now that no coins can be definitively assigned to Edward V (the Prince in the Tower). Previously it was believed that the halved sun and rose mintmark corresponded to this period, but now they say that there is evidence the mintmark was used by Edward IV before his death and by Richard III with the Edward legend after he had assumed the throne. I saw this in a documentary a couple of years ago.

I am frustrated by this one! I am sure I have seen the likes before, but exhaustive searches in Numista have yet to hit a match. I believe it is Eastern European, including Poland, Livonia, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia and Eastern Germany. The word "Moneta" meaning money is legible. I suspect the 92 or 192 signifies 1/92nd or 1/192nd of some higher denomination. Both the double headed Eagle and the Orb appear on many coins from across that area. Date probably between about 800 to 1700 AD, which is rather a long range.

Just to clarify, as Rob tried to do, it is a One Shilling coin (or 12 pence), not a 12 shilling coin.

That will fill the gap for you nicely, but do bear in mind it is a modern "fantasy" restrike as no Crowns were minted at the time.