Ebay's Worst Offerings

[Gary D 76]

Did the seller make a typo with the price on this 1887 sixpence? Or am I missing something?

I wouldn't pay £14.99 for it, let alone £149.99.

Don't think you're missing anything - it looks like a bog-standard, perfectly ordinary, average, cleaned example of the Withdrawn Type 6d.

Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S".

It's nose to VS that is the rarer one.

[Nick 329]

Did the seller make a typo with the price on this 1887 sixpence? Or am I missing something?

I wouldn't pay £14.99 for it, let alone £149.99.

Don't think you're missing anything - it looks like a bog-standard, perfectly ordinary, average, cleaned example of the Withdrawn Type 6d.

Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S".

It's nose to VS that is the rarer one.

I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator.

[Peckris 579]

Did the seller make a typo with the price on this 1887 sixpence? Or am I missing something?

I wouldn't pay £14.99 for it, let alone £149.99.

Don't think you're missing anything - it looks like a bog-standard, perfectly ordinary, average, cleaned example of the Withdrawn Type 6d.

Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S".

It's nose to VS that is the rarer one.

I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator.

OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse.

(Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?)

[Nick 329]

Did the seller make a typo with the price on this 1887 sixpence? Or am I missing something?

I wouldn't pay £14.99 for it, let alone £149.99.

Don't think you're missing anything - it looks like a bog-standard, perfectly ordinary, average, cleaned example of the Withdrawn Type 6d.

Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S".

It's nose to VS that is the rarer one.

I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator.

OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse.

(Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?)

No offence intended. However, I still maintain that both noses point to S albeit not quite the same part of the S. See the picture below which has Davies obverses 3 & 4 merged together such that the portraits align as closely as the slightly different sizes allow.

I agree that they are pretty easy to tell apart, especially when you see the two side by side.

[argentumandcoins 70]

1828 halfcrown

I thought this one worthy of inclusion.

I had a chortle at the description, practically EF and the mintage figures quoted. Anybody who knows anything about coins knows that the figures quoted are not mintage but release numbers. Whilst admittedly scarce the actual mintage figure could be anywhere up to half/three quarters of the 1829 figures.

If you want to set yourself up as the leading authority on GB coinage in the world at least know your subject!!!!

Probably the most amusing/annoying line is the reference to excellent future investment. If you want investments steer well clear of coins, particularly cleaned ones with whacking great edge knocks unless they really are rare.

[TomGoodheart 400]

Probably the most amusing/annoying line is the reference to excellent future investment.

Well, if you can pick it up for 99p then it might yield a bit of a return when you sell it!

[Nick 329]

1828 halfcrown

I thought this one worthy of inclusion.

I had a chortle at the description, practically EF and the mintage figures quoted. Anybody who knows anything about coins knows that the figures quoted are not mintage but release numbers. Whilst admittedly scarce the actual mintage figure could be anywhere up to half/three quarters of the 1829 figures.

If you want to set yourself up as the leading authority on GB coinage in the world at least know your subject!!!!

Probably the most amusing/annoying line is the reference to excellent future investment. If you want investments steer well clear of coins, particularly cleaned ones with whacking great edge knocks unless they really are rare.

Par for the course with this seller. Always at least one full grade above actual and never mentions cleaning or surface marks/gouges. It amazes me that none of his customers have ever had a coin bought from him graded - they'll be in for a shock if they do.

[Nick 329]

1828 halfcrown

I thought this one worthy of inclusion.

I had a chortle at the description, practically EF and the mintage figures quoted. Anybody who knows anything about coins knows that the figures quoted are not mintage but release numbers. Whilst admittedly scarce the actual mintage figure could be anywhere up to half/three quarters of the 1829 figures.

If you want to set yourself up as the leading authority on GB coinage in the world at least know your subject!!!!

Probably the most amusing/annoying line is the reference to excellent future investment. If you want investments steer well clear of coins, particularly cleaned ones with whacking great edge knocks unless they really are rare.

Looking at London Coins archive of 1828 halfcrown sales, it's clear to see that this one is much nearer the gF example than it is to the EF. If genuine, I reckon it's VF.

[Peckris 579]

Did the seller make a typo with the price on this 1887 sixpence? Or am I missing something?

I wouldn't pay £14.99 for it, let alone £149.99.

Don't think you're missing anything - it looks like a bog-standard, perfectly ordinary, average, cleaned example of the Withdrawn Type 6d.

Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S".

It's nose to VS that is the rarer one.

I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator.

OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse.

(Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?)

No offence intended. However, I still maintain that both noses point to S albeit not quite the same part of the S. See the picture below which has Davies obverses 3 & 4 merged together such that the portraits align as closely as the slightly different sizes allow.

I agree that they are pretty easy to tell apart, especially when you see the two side by side.

I think you've made my point for me! On that overlay, the legend GEORGIVS is probably the biggest displacement between the two obverses. If you take the nose as an arrow head, with the bridge forming one side and the underside of the nostril forming the other, then quite clearly - on your photo - the arrow is pointing between the V and the (upper of the two) S. But pointing almost directly at the lower S.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Peckris

[Nick 329]

Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S".

It's nose to VS that is the rarer one.

I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator.

OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse.

(Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?)

No offence intended. However, I still maintain that both noses point to S albeit not quite the same part of the S. See the picture below which has Davies obverses 3 & 4 merged together such that the portraits align as closely as the slightly different sizes allow.

I agree that they are pretty easy to tell apart, especially when you see the two side by side.

I think you've made my point for me! On that overlay, the legend GEORGIVS is probably the biggest displacement between the two obverses. If you take the nose as an arrow head, with the bridge forming one side and the underside of the nostril forming the other, then quite clearly - on your photo - the arrow is pointing between the V and the (upper of the two) S. But pointing almost directly at the lower S.

There is only one way that a nose can point to anything - and that's along a line parallel to either axis. The two axes here are 1) straight down the slope of the nose (from bridge to tip) and 2) the lower edge of the nose (parallel to the line formed by the top of the nostril opening). As can clearly be seen in the attached pictures, both axes of both noses point to the same letters.

If there are several interpretations of what the words "nose points to" means then clearly it's a poor descriptor.

[Gary D 76]

If there are several interpretations of what the words "nose points to" means then clearly it's a poor descriptor.

That is as maybe but as long as I can remember the two types have been described as "nose to S' and 'nose to VS' nose to VS being the scarcer and them being incorrectly described in Spinks. It's a bit like people using the colon gap to determine a 1926 ME penny as the BM is often weak or goes very early, it's much easier to look at the pointing of the I in DEI. As they say there's nothing queerer than folks.

[Peckris 579]

Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S".

It's nose to VS that is the rarer one.

I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator.

OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse.

(Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?)

No offence intended. However, I still maintain that both noses point to S albeit not quite the same part of the S. See the picture below which has Davies obverses 3 & 4 merged together such that the portraits align as closely as the slightly different sizes allow.

I agree that they are pretty easy to tell apart, especially when you see the two side by side.

I think you've made my point for me! On that overlay, the legend GEORGIVS is probably the biggest displacement between the two obverses. If you take the nose as an arrow head, with the bridge forming one side and the underside of the nostril forming the other, then quite clearly - on your photo - the arrow is pointing between the V and the (upper of the two) S. But pointing almost directly at the lower S.

There is only one way that a nose can point to anything - and that's along a line parallel to either axis. The two axes here are 1) straight down the slope of the nose (from bridge to tip) and 2) the lower edge of the nose (parallel to the line formed by the top of the nostril opening). As can clearly be seen in the attached pictures, both axes of both noses point to the same letters.

If there are several interpretations of what the words "nose points to" means then clearly it's a poor descriptor.

It may well be, but it's MY poor descriptor! I don't agree with your verdict on what noses point to - to me it was as "obvious" as it was "poor" to you, that the nose is forming an arrow head and that's what I intended by it when I used it. Spink must have understood me, even though they got the description part the wrong way round. If you try to see it as I saw it - the nose as an arrow - I'm sure you will see the truth of my description.

[Peckris 579]

Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S".

It's nose to VS that is the rarer one.

I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator.

OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse.

(Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?)

No offence intended. However, I still maintain that both noses point to S albeit not quite the same part of the S. See the picture below which has Davies obverses 3 & 4 merged together such that the portraits align as closely as the slightly different sizes allow.

I agree that they are pretty easy to tell apart, especially when you see the two side by side.

I think you've made my point for me! On that overlay, the legend GEORGIVS is probably the biggest displacement between the two obverses. If you take the nose as an arrow head, with the bridge forming one side and the underside of the nostril forming the other, then quite clearly - on your photo - the arrow is pointing between the V and the (upper of the two) S. But pointing almost directly at the lower S.

There is only one way that a nose can point to anything - and that's along a line parallel to either axis. The two axes here are 1) straight down the slope of the nose (from bridge to tip) and 2) the lower edge of the nose (parallel to the line formed by the top of the nostril opening). As can clearly be seen in the attached pictures, both axes of both noses point to the same letters.

If there are several interpretations of what the words "nose points to" means then clearly it's a poor descriptor.

It may well be, but it's MY poor descriptor! I don't agree with your verdict on what noses point to - to me it was as "obvious" as it was "poor" to you, that the nose is forming an arrow head and that's what I intended by it when I used it. Spink must have understood me, even though they got the description part the wrong way round. If you try to see it as I saw it - the nose as an arrow - I'm sure you will see the truth of my description.

[azda 979]

Probably the most amusing/annoying line is the reference to excellent future investment.

Well, if you can pick it up for 99p then it might yield a bit of a return when you sell it!

His usual Crew are bidding it up

[Nick 329]

Posted in error. Deleted.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Nick

[Accumulator 52]

How to use every character of your title allowance:

RMS TITANIC 2 COINS JFK USA GOLD Ship Job Lot Collection 1912 Penny Boat Cruise

[Rob 3,152]

How to use every character of your title allowance:

RMS TITANIC 2 COINS JFK USA GOLD Ship Job Lot Collection 1912 Penny Boat Cruise

And probably the maximum allowance for the description section too!!

[azda 979]

Probably the most amusing/annoying line is the reference to excellent future investment.

Well, if you can pick it up for 99p then it might yield a bit of a return when you sell it!

His usual Crew are bidding it up

460 quid it ended at, not surprisingly, over double its value. I hope the buyer throws it right back at him, although i doubt it. Maybe in 15 years it'll be worth what he paid.

[Nick 329]

Probably the most amusing/annoying line is the reference to excellent future investment.

Well, if you can pick it up for 99p then it might yield a bit of a return when you sell it!

His usual Crew are bidding it up

460 quid it ended at, not surprisingly, over double its value. I hope the buyer throws it right back at him, although i doubt it. Maybe in 15 years it'll be worth what he paid.

There certainly is one born every minute. MP must be laughing his socks off.

[azda 979]

Probably the most amusing/annoying line is the reference to excellent future investment.

Well, if you can pick it up for 99p then it might yield a bit of a return when you sell it!

His usual Crew are bidding it up

460 quid it ended at, not surprisingly, over double its value. I hope the buyer throws it right back at him, although i doubt it. Maybe in 15 years it'll be worth what he paid.

There certainly is one born every minute. MP must be laughing his socks off.

Well its certainly not EF, remember he usually ups ALL his coins 1 grade, and then possibly dipping, then his crew get involved, so i'd agree at the VF mark. I'm certainly not feeling sorry for these people who are bidding on his crap, i mean coins. They should look at his photos and check against any previous sales. What i don't get is why no one has ever gave him a NEG or NEUTRAL after getting something from him, especially when they've clearly been dipped etc, well actually i do know why (refunds with a bit on top to not leave the NEG)

There's one born every minute i suppose....

[Nick 329]

Probably the most amusing/annoying line is the reference to excellent future investment.

Well, if you can pick it up for 99p then it might yield a bit of a return when you sell it!

His usual Crew are bidding it up

460 quid it ended at, not surprisingly, over double its value. I hope the buyer throws it right back at him, although i doubt it. Maybe in 15 years it'll be worth what he paid.

There certainly is one born every minute. MP must be laughing his socks off.

Well its certainly not EF, remember he usually ups ALL his coins 1 grade, and then possibly dipping, then his crew get involved, so i'd agree at the VF mark. I'm certainly not feeling sorry for these people who are bidding on his crap, i mean coins. They should look at his photos and check against any previous sales. What i don't get is why no one has ever gave him a NEG or NEUTRAL after getting something from him, especially when they've clearly been dipped etc, well actually i do know why (refunds with a bit on top to not leave the NEG)

There's one born every minute i suppose....

It's quite possible that they don't know any better. If the little knowledge they possess has been acquired by exposure to eBay, they may well think they are paying the right price. Perhaps, those buyers should be hinted towards getting their purchase valued - then the gulf between what was paid and what it is worth would become apparent.

[Peter 615]

The trouble is that Ebay turns over more coins than any dealer.The collector should look at dealers lists,visit coin fairs and learn the market.

It really isn't difficult.

[azda 979]

I agree with what you're saying Nick, 1 problem with that is that everyones opinion differs when coming to grading, although it's very apparent in this case that the coin would'nt be graded as EF. Some people will most likely be crying in a few years if they decide to sell what they've bought from him. If you tell people that the coin isn't as graded then you just create huge problems for yourself, especially if you tell a buyer it's not the specific grade or it was bought under another ebay ID, cleaned and upped 1 grade.

This is what happened to me and i got booted for my troubles by ebay, but as they say, every dog has it's day, i now have a new ID which Mr X does'nt know about and i will be buying some form of shite from him and i will leave my NEG

Edited March 29, 2012 by azda

[Peter 615]

I agree with what you're saying Nick, 1 problem with that is that everyones opinion differs when coming to grading, although it's very apparent in this case that the coin would'nt be graded as EF. Some people will most likely be crying in a few years if they decide to sell what they've bought from him. If you tell people that the coin isn't as graded then you just create huge problems for yourself, especially if you tell a buyer it's not the specific grade or it was bought under another ebay ID, cleaned and upped 1 grade.

This is what happened to me and i got booted for my troubles by ebay, but as they say, every dog has it's day, i now have a new ID which Mr X does'nt know about and i will be buying some form of shite from him and i will leave my NEG

Thank god for Hadrians wall (and the English channel)

[azda 979]

I agree with what you're saying Nick, 1 problem with that is that everyones opinion differs when coming to grading, although it's very apparent in this case that the coin would'nt be graded as EF. Some people will most likely be crying in a few years if they decide to sell what they've bought from him. If you tell people that the coin isn't as graded then you just create huge problems for yourself, especially if you tell a buyer it's not the specific grade or it was bought under another ebay ID, cleaned and upped 1 grade.

This is what happened to me and i got booted for my troubles by ebay, but as they say, every dog has it's day, i now have a new ID which Mr X does'nt know about and i will be buying some form of shite from him and i will leave my NEG

Thank god for Hadrians wall (and the English channel)

Tell me about it, keeps you English doon at least.......Bring on the Independance and the passport control at Carlsle Yes, we're taking that back to