Nordle11

Go on then

Right you are Terry, mixing up my die clashes here.

Got a scanned copy from the Fitzwilliam Museum in the end. Will have to pick it up when I'm back in UK.

Nice die clash crow's foot, I think it's 'unofficially' called.

I should add, I've done this probably only a handful of times, it's not a blanket policy that I adopt and definitely can cause problems. Especially so if the seller is willing to shill your bid.

Yes but that's a bit of a generalisation, for the most part it's going to be on items starting 20-30 pounds or more, and bidding multiple times does not mean paying more than I want to pay, which is the main point. Sure, I might have to pay up to the next increment (and we're talking a pound or 2 tops), but that doesn't mean it's being sold at a price I'm not happy with, as it's inside of my max. This also assumes bids are in the increments of the minimum amount. If I would pay 100 pound for a coin and it's starting price is 15, I can put 15, 16, 17 then 100, it's not going to affect the outcome all that much if someone comes along with 20.99. It's one of those things that you can't prove though, maybe it dissuaded 10 people from having a look, maybe none. Maybe, like you say, someone came along thinking they could be smart and my own plan actually elicits a new bid!

I think some of us here were speaking about the practice before, I would do this in the instance that the starting bid is not 99p, so if the start price is 14.99 or something, put a couple of bids on (15, 15.10, 15.20) and when people are glancing, they'll see 3/4 bids and at 14.99. At a glance that seems like a few interested parties already, and even if it puts just one person off from looking then it's done the job. However 99p starts it's obvious that it's the same person putting multiple bids down.

I would also agree that the die was fixed in the wrong place and didn't rotate during strikes, but when they start with new dies they'll run a few samples first to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen, I can't see them putting in a new die pair, pressing go and just walking away. Could be that the worker picked up the first few, saw it was wrong, corrected the dies, then just chucked the couple he picked up into the pile with the rest of the 'good' ones because that seems to be the extent of 'quality control' at the RM. Maybe he was being altruistic, knowing collectors like this sort of thing?

I think this has been put to bed now, there's only one 1954 (that we know of) and all pictures we've seen here are of the same coin, as evidenced by the scratch by the forehead, scratch across the trident and the dent by the E.

Thank you for copying them all into one, that makes for much easier comparing so I reckon it's the way the picture is taken, scan or photo. The scans are taking the lustre out of it. The scratch by the head does it for me, although hard to see in your photo, can you see it with the photo in hand?

Wouldn't the scan do that? Which one are we looking at that has lustre (sorry I'm out of the loop atm)

I see Bernie already mentioned the scratch, surely cased closed?

For reference.

Sorry guys but that's the same coin. Scratch by Britannia's forehead/helmet plume confirms it.

What a nice surprise! Thank you for sharing that Mike.

I have never bought and, unless ridiculously rare and only known to be available in very low grades, never will buy anything without seeing a picture first. The only exception to the rule is one coin from yourself, but that is because I trusted your judgement and know you have a good eye for good coins, having bought plenty from you before.. Pictures really seal the deal for me, I've had to stop buying so much from Guy because I just can't browse his collection so feely anymore.

For me, I don't pay much attention to what the seller says a coin is, I want to see the pictures first before I decide and I'll decide if it's good enough or not... but, I can't on the CGS slabbed coin (obviously the seller can download and send you the picture but it's a little bit time consuming asking for individual pictures all the time). Maybe they're both UNC and both CGS 80, but one has a much weaker strike than the other.. you don't know until you see it. That and everyone is a little different, I don't particularly go for toned coins, whereas a nice chocolatey covering does it for some people. Both UNC though..

Jesus christ I need to check for post updates before submitting my own

That's what Jaggy was getting at with his comment about having presence outside of LCA for slabbing

LOL hadn't seen this while typing, make that one

Yes I've seen and used that before, it's very handy and for rainy days it makes good browsing. This is the sort of thing I think they would work well in if they could offer it for free, that and verification for non-paying members. Don't they also have NGC approved dealers too?

I'll assume agreeing, in which case, yes, keeping it free for the buyers to browse potential purchases will keep the sellers slabbing and registering. They wouldn't do bad to create a central location where many sellers come together and buyers can browse their wares through their collections.

For some reason I can't read this one way or the other, are you agreeing or disagreeing? Long day, sorry

Cannot agree more with that statement, it's a bit difficult to break into a market while effectively shutting yourself out to non-paying members. The business they will get from making that service free will absolutely counter the loss they take from having their members use it to sell their own coins (which is why I assume they made this a chargeable service). I found the lookup excellent and used it almost daily, but due to the change to paid only service (sans any information/notice) and some questionable practices at LCA that I've seen over the years, I don't want to pay for the service out of principal.

bloody hell they're estimating 23,5 hours delivery time