Ebay's Worst Offerings

[rpeddie 119]

ahh fair enough, the other one was this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-V-SILVER-SIXPENCE-1917-/251209415458?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=HL0r%2Fz33fPOt2K46CZ6xbFcDtdE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

next time i might give them a wee bid

[Nick 329]

ahh fair enough, the other one was this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-V-SILVER-SIXPENCE-1917-/251209415458?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=HL0r%2Fz33fPOt2K46CZ6xbFcDtdE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

next time i might give them a wee bid

That one looks more like nEF.

[declanwmagee 122]

what do people think of these 2, i know they are both high grade but not that high

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/261152347098?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/261152347098?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

Yep, it gets an aUNC from me too

Cracking coin. I've been happy with the seller too, in the past. I'd bid £25 or so on that 1926 ME.

£41 so far.. That's over Spink's BU price! (2012)

[declanwmagee 122]

ahh fair enough, the other one was this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-V-SILVER-SIXPENCE-1917-/251209415458?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=HL0r%2Fz33fPOt2K46CZ6xbFcDtdE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

next time i might give them a wee bid

That one looks more like nEF.

And you know who "stampinvestor" is really, don't you?

Roy "1864 florin" ...

[Nick 329]

ahh fair enough, the other one was this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-V-SILVER-SIXPENCE-1917-/251209415458?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=HL0r%2Fz33fPOt2K46CZ6xbFcDtdE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

next time i might give them a wee bid

That one looks more like nEF.

And you know who "stampinvestor" is really, don't you?

Roy "1864 florin" ...

Indeed. I wish that eBay would provide a better way to exclude certain sellers (and private listings) from search results. I'd rather not see their tat full stop.

[rpeddie 119]

that guy a well known scammer or bad seller? or the total opposite? the more i know the better

[Nick 329]

that guy a well known scammer or bad seller? or the total opposite? the more i know the better

If you look at the thread about the 1864 florin fakes (in "Members only" section) you can make your own mind up.

[Peter 615]

that guy a well known scammer or bad seller? or the total opposite? the more i know the better

There are a couple of user names from Cornwall who have been named and shamed...plus their shill buddies.

[Peter 615]

Another bit of brass makes 3 figures.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1798-george-iii-guinea-/170972196649?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=jrE%2BIR7OxT5SjHE7s58DSi%2FmqJE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

[bagerap 706]

And it appears to be his first ever sale! Isn't he a lucky boy.

[Peckris 579]

ahh fair enough, the other one was this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-V-SILVER-SIXPENCE-1917-/251209415458?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=HL0r%2Fz33fPOt2K46CZ6xbFcDtdE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

next time i might give them a wee bid

That one looks more like nEF.

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

[Nick 329]

ahh fair enough, the other one was this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-V-SILVER-SIXPENCE-1917-/251209415458?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=HL0r%2Fz33fPOt2K46CZ6xbFcDtdE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

next time i might give them a wee bid

That one looks more like nEF.

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade.

[Coinery 1,148]

ahh fair enough, the other one was this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-V-SILVER-SIXPENCE-1917-/251209415458?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=HL0r%2Fz33fPOt2K46CZ6xbFcDtdE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

next time i might give them a wee bid

That one looks more like nEF.

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

And what about the reverses of the 1920 penny, does Britannia's bodice exist anywhere in a well struck-up state?

[Peckris 579]

ahh fair enough, the other one was this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-V-SILVER-SIXPENCE-1917-/251209415458?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=HL0r%2Fz33fPOt2K46CZ6xbFcDtdE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

next time i might give them a wee bid

That one looks more like nEF.

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade.

I can make out a complete eyebrow, but it certainly isn't better than EF I'd say. On the other hand I always distrust 'blown up' photos as they magnify any little tiny flaws and make them seem like horror stories which they wouldn't in hand.

And what about the reverses of the 1920 penny, does Britannia's bodice exist anywhere in a well struck-up state?

That's a well-known issue - the reverses of George V before 1921/2 are notoriously affected by the high relief of the obverse portrait 'sucking' metal away from the reverse (and causing 'ghosting' too). This is especially true where the reverse rims don't protect the design properly (pennies & halfpennies) or the reverse design is too shallow compared to the obverse (shillings, and to a less extent, sixpences). Where there are strong reverse rims and a strong reverse design - halfcrowns - you don't see the ghosting or weakly struck reverses. Interestingly, the 'recessed ear' 1915/16 pennies usually have Britannia fully struck up, so why the Mint didn't persist with the experiment further is a bit baffling.

[Coinery 1,148]

ahh fair enough, the other one was this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-V-SILVER-SIXPENCE-1917-/251209415458?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=HL0r%2Fz33fPOt2K46CZ6xbFcDtdE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

next time i might give them a wee bid

That one looks more like nEF.

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade.

I can make out a complete eyebrow, but it certainly isn't better than EF I'd say. On the other hand I always distrust 'blown up' photos as they magnify any little tiny flaws and make them seem like horror stories which they wouldn't in hand.

And what about the reverses of the 1920 penny, does Britannia's bodice exist anywhere in a well struck-up state?

That's a well-known issue - the reverses of George V before 1921/2 are notoriously affected by the high relief of the obverse portrait 'sucking' metal away from the reverse (and causing 'ghosting' too). This is especially true where the reverse rims don't protect the design properly (pennies & halfpennies) or the reverse design is too shallow compared to the obverse (shillings, and to a less extent, sixpences). Where there are strong reverse rims and a strong reverse design - halfcrowns - you don't see the ghosting or weakly struck reverses. Interestingly, the 'recessed ear' 1915/16 pennies usually have Britannia fully struck up, so why the Mint didn't persist with the experiment further is a bit baffling.

So did ANY, say 1920 pennies for example, get through unscathed, or would I be wasting my time looking for one?

[Peckris 579]

ahh fair enough, the other one was this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-V-SILVER-SIXPENCE-1917-/251209415458?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&nma=true&si=HL0r%2Fz33fPOt2K46CZ6xbFcDtdE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

next time i might give them a wee bid

That one looks more like nEF.

No, that's at least EF. Those 1917s ALWAYS come with weakly struck reverses (have a look at Chris's offerings - he's got a couple up there right now). That could be one reason they are so scarce in high grades - a fully struck up example would be worth a king's ransom.

My grading was mostly based on the obverse, where there appears to be significant wear to the eyebrow and the top of the ear and poor definition on the beard and hair. But I wouldn't quibble over a quarter of a grade.

I can make out a complete eyebrow, but it certainly isn't better than EF I'd say. On the other hand I always distrust 'blown up' photos as they magnify any little tiny flaws and make them seem like horror stories which they wouldn't in hand.

And what about the reverses of the 1920 penny, does Britannia's bodice exist anywhere in a well struck-up state?

That's a well-known issue - the reverses of George V before 1921/2 are notoriously affected by the high relief of the obverse portrait 'sucking' metal away from the reverse (and causing 'ghosting' too). This is especially true where the reverse rims don't protect the design properly (pennies & halfpennies) or the reverse design is too shallow compared to the obverse (shillings, and to a less extent, sixpences). Where there are strong reverse rims and a strong reverse design - halfcrowns - you don't see the ghosting or weakly struck reverses. Interestingly, the 'recessed ear' 1915/16 pennies usually have Britannia fully struck up, so why the Mint didn't persist with the experiment further is a bit baffling.

So did ANY, say 1920 pennies for example, get through unscathed, or would I be wasting my time looking for one?

Oh yes, the strike is not invariable. There are always cases where the obverse hasn't 'sucked' out too much metal and Britannia looks more or less ok. Especially if a new reverse die is in use but the obverse die has seen some use. You might have quite a search though.

[Gary D 76]

I started to write a message to this guy pointing out the error of his ways, but then I though that would being cruel.

Sun grasses please

[Nick 329]

I started to write a message to this guy pointing out the error of his ways, but then I though that would being cruel.

Sun grasses please

I like the typo in the description. "balzing" is definitely a good way of describing that monstrosity.

[brauereibeck 1]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360571306847&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:GB:1123

Proof or ex-plastic set?

[Paulus 1,975]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360571306847&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:GB:1123

Proof or ex-plastic set?

:lol:

[Peckris 579]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360571306847&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:GB:1123

Proof or ex-plastic set?

:lol:

That piranha was obviously taking a fancy to Liz's chin - look, it's left its teeth marks!

[declanwmagee 122]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360571306847&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:GB:1123

Proof or ex-plastic set?

Obv 1, so if it is a Proof, its Unconfirmed in Davies. All plastic set coins, however, are Obverse 1...

[Paulus 1,975]

Here's an amusing one:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Battle-of-Trafalgar-2005-Commemorative-Crown-/200882237509?pt=UK_Coins_BritishComm_RL&hash=item2ec583b045&nma=true&si=lwoW94bIzNFaHgBs%252BW1cUSuae4I%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

The seller has sold silver proofs in the past and has described them as such, but in this instance described the item as an unwanted gift and made no mention of it being the gold proof edition, as described on the box, and offering recorded delivery only. The bidding sat at £30 with seconds to go and I decided to take a punt at just over a hundred, thinking that if I didn't get the hoped for bargain I could always return it as 'not as described'.

Anyway a sniper nabbed it for just over £525, so someone either got a bargain (the gold proof would be worth double that in bullion) or will be entering into some interesting discussions with the seller! Weird one.

[Nick 329]

Here's an amusing one:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Battle-of-Trafalgar-2005-Commemorative-Crown-/200882237509?pt=UK_Coins_BritishComm_RL&hash=item2ec583b045&nma=true&si=lwoW94bIzNFaHgBs%252BW1cUSuae4I%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

The seller has sold silver proofs in the past and has described them as such, but in this instance described the item as an unwanted gift and made no mention of it being the gold proof edition, as described on the box, and offering recorded delivery only. The bidding sat at £30 with seconds to go and I decided to take a punt at just over a hundred, thinking that if I didn't get the hoped for bargain I could always return it as 'not as described'.

Anyway a sniper nabbed it for just over £525, so someone either got a bargain (the gold proof would be worth double that in bullion) or will be entering into some interesting discussions with the seller! Weird one.

I wish somebody would buy me 'unwanted' gifts like that.

[Paulus 1,975]

Here's an amusing one:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Battle-of-Trafalgar-2005-Commemorative-Crown-/200882237509?pt=UK_Coins_BritishComm_RL&hash=item2ec583b045&nma=true&si=lwoW94bIzNFaHgBs%252BW1cUSuae4I%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

The seller has sold silver proofs in the past and has described them as such, but in this instance described the item as an unwanted gift and made no mention of it being the gold proof edition, as described on the box, and offering recorded delivery only. The bidding sat at £30 with seconds to go and I decided to take a punt at just over a hundred, thinking that if I didn't get the hoped for bargain I could always return it as 'not as described'.

Anyway a sniper nabbed it for just over £525, so someone either got a bargain (the gold proof would be worth double that in bullion) or will be entering into some interesting discussions with the seller! Weird one.

I wish somebody would buy me 'unwanted' gifts like that.

Indeed, it would have cost a pretty penny if genuine, really is a strange one, I shall look out for feedback!