Ebay's Worst Offerings

[Red Riley 2]

I don't have your grading book Derek, but if the Y P and I in the garter are missing I call them fair, barely visible gives it a Fine as I grade. The obverse of this particular coin is certainly better than Fine, the reverse...?

I am maybe harsh on grading this reverse type halfcrown as I have sold quite a few Poor/Fair 1905's over the years that now are Fine/GF in everybody elses grading scales!

I did do a bit of research on this, the concensus I got being that most people considered the garter to be part of the design rather than the legend. Since this bit wears so readily, if it was treated as part of the legend, there would be no coins (or at least the reverse of them) in Fine or Fair at all, the grading effectively dropping from VF straight through to Poor.

[Red Riley 2]

Turned on a lathe by the look of it and probably within the past week!

Plain as a pikestaff.

[argentumandcoins 70]

I don't have your grading book Derek, but if the Y P and I in the garter are missing I call them fair, barely visible gives it a Fine as I grade. The obverse of this particular coin is certainly better than Fine, the reverse...?

I am maybe harsh on grading this reverse type halfcrown as I have sold quite a few Poor/Fair 1905's over the years that now are Fine/GF in everybody elses grading scales!

I did do a bit of research on this, the concensus I got being that most people considered the garter to be part of the design rather than the legend. Since this bit wears so readily, if it was treated as part of the legend, there would be no coins (or at least the reverse of them) in Fine or Fair at all, the grading effectively dropping from VF straight through to Poor.

I'm old school when it comes to grading Derek. It costs me money but I never get complaints or coins sent back due to overgrading. Even my grading seems very lax when you look at some of the graders from the old days at Spinks and their likes though! I can safely say that if Jim Brown at DNW saw this 1908 HC he would not give it more than Fine, if indeed it made it that high.

[Red Riley 2]

I'm old school when it comes to grading Derek. It costs me money but I never get complaints or coins sent back due to overgrading. Even my grading seems very lax when you look at some of the graders from the old days at Spinks and their likes though! I can safely say that if Jim Brown at DNW saw this 1908 HC he would not give it more than Fine, if indeed it made it that high.

It is undenible that grading has changed but there would be pause for thought if a particular design was always coming up with strange bi-grades such as GVF/F (I'm not saying that applies to this particular coin) and I suspect that there has been a trend to even these things out a little. Some anomolies however still exist and it is commonplace for most George V coins to have a higher grade on the reverse than the obverse, principally because the obverse has so little detail that what there is quickly erodes leaving a largely smooth head whilst retaining a very bold legend. The 1902 crown seems to work in the opposite way to the halfcrown - if you lay it on a table obverse down, the whole thing pivots on the side of the king's head but turn it over, and it sits perfectly flat. The result is a worn head and an apparently unworn reverse. Who said grading was simple!

Edited February 10, 2011 by Red Riley

[1949threepence 3,367]

Is it me or does this one look machined.

Error?

ROFL!

I'm struggling to see what's means to be so interesting about such a coin as that!

and me......

[1949threepence 3,367]

Another case of outrageous overgrading? Looks no better than good fine to me.

1908 Halfcrown

I'd rate it an average of VF (obverse not quite there, reverse a bit better)

I'd say just about VF as well. Note the rubbing to the letters on the reverse near 3 and 9 o' clock

[Peckris 579]

I don't have your grading book Derek, but if the Y P and I in the garter are missing I call them fair, barely visible gives it a Fine as I grade. The obverse of this particular coin is certainly better than Fine, the reverse...?

I am maybe harsh on grading this reverse type halfcrown as I have sold quite a few Poor/Fair 1905's over the years that now are Fine/GF in everybody elses grading scales!

I did do a bit of research on this, the concensus I got being that most people considered the garter to be part of the design rather than the legend. Since this bit wears so readily, if it was treated as part of the legend, there would be no coins (or at least the reverse of them) in Fine or Fair at all, the grading effectively dropping from VF straight through to Poor.

I'm old school when it comes to grading Derek. It costs me money but I never get complaints or coins sent back due to overgrading. Even my grading seems very lax when you look at some of the graders from the old days at Spinks and their likes though! I can safely say that if Jim Brown at DNW saw this 1908 HC he would not give it more than Fine, if indeed it made it that high.

I remember a Coin Monthly piece of advice (late 60s) given out to this very question of garter reverse halfcrowns. The questioner wanted to know if he could grade such items as 'Fine' if some garter letters were worn away. The answer given was that lower standards applied than to the main legend, but if more than a few letters were 'faint' it might be hard to award 'Fine'.

How times have changed. Derek's book certainly shows the way, though we might all argue the 'fine points' to some extent. But judging by those pictures, I'd find it hard to justify not giving it an average 'VF' (though a long way from EF!). There's too much hair detail present - always an early casualty on Edw VII, and the reverse is pretty good apart from the high spots.

I think grading standards have come down rather, but in one case I'm all in favour. 'Old school' EF said "wear so faint it is not detectable to the naked eye". Well, that argues that if it can not be seen without the aid of a strong glass, there shouldn't be a massive discrepancy between the prices for EF and UNC. But as we know, that differential can be MASSIVE - and it's no coincidence that it's opened up at the same time as EF has become much more 'noticeable' than strictly UNC. Who'd pay a massive difference in price for a virtually invisible difference in condition? I know I wouldn't, for one.

[TomGoodheart 403]

Well to my untrained eye this looks like a replica though I could be wrong. Anyone with strong views want to tell me if I'm wrong (or the seller he's got a dud 'coin' for sale)?

STUNNING CHARLES II FARTHING 1674

[Peckris 579]

Well to my untrained eye this looks like a replica though I could be wrong. Anyone with strong views want to tell me if I'm wrong (or the seller he's got a dud 'coin' for sale)?

STUNNING CHARLES II FARTHING 1674

You're right to feel uneasy. It just doesn't 'feel' kosher at all. The colour on the obverse is iffy - looks like (perhaps) lead given a coppery coating. The date is suspiciously blurry (normally one of the clearest parts of those issues). And in places it has a cast look about it. I'm not sure I'd want to risk big bucks on it.

[1949threepence 3,367]

I don't have your grading book Derek, but if the Y P and I in the garter are missing I call them fair, barely visible gives it a Fine as I grade. The obverse of this particular coin is certainly better than Fine, the reverse...?

I am maybe harsh on grading this reverse type halfcrown as I have sold quite a few Poor/Fair 1905's over the years that now are Fine/GF in everybody elses grading scales!

I did do a bit of research on this, the concensus I got being that most people considered the garter to be part of the design rather than the legend. Since this bit wears so readily, if it was treated as part of the legend, there would be no coins (or at least the reverse of them) in Fine or Fair at all, the grading effectively dropping from VF straight through to Poor.

I'm old school when it comes to grading Derek. It costs me money but I never get complaints or coins sent back due to overgrading. Even my grading seems very lax when you look at some of the graders from the old days at Spinks and their likes though! I can safely say that if Jim Brown at DNW saw this 1908 HC he would not give it more than Fine, if indeed it made it that high.

I remember a Coin Monthly piece of advice (late 60s) given out to this very question of garter reverse halfcrowns. The questioner wanted to know if he could grade such items as 'Fine' if some garter letters were worn away. The answer given was that lower standards applied than to the main legend, but if more than a few letters were 'faint' it might be hard to award 'Fine'.

How times have changed. Derek's book certainly shows the way, though we might all argue the 'fine points' to some extent. But judging by those pictures, I'd find it hard to justify not giving it an average 'VF' (though a long way from EF!). There's too much hair detail present - always an early casualty on Edw VII, and the reverse is pretty good apart from the high spots.

I think grading standards have come down rather, but in one case I'm all in favour. 'Old school' EF said "wear so faint it is not detectable to the naked eye". Well, that argues that if it can not be seen without the aid of a strong glass, there shouldn't be a massive discrepancy between the prices for EF and UNC. But as we know, that differential can be MASSIVE - and it's no coincidence that it's opened up at the same time as EF has become much more 'noticeable' than strictly UNC. Who'd pay a massive difference in price for a virtually invisible difference in condition? I know I wouldn't, for one.

Very interesting ~ maybe the garter halfcrown non legend reverse lettering, is even more vulnerable to early wear, than the pre 1881 bun penny convex shield. In which case, if you applied the aforesaid Jim Brown's exacting grading standards, such coins could rarely or never be mid grade. They'd pretty much go from EF straight down to fine or lower.

Ah, I see this point has already been made. Just read it.

[Red Riley 2]

Well to my untrained eye this looks like a replica though I could be wrong. Anyone with strong views want to tell me if I'm wrong (or the seller he's got a dud 'coin' for sale)?

STUNNING CHARLES II FARTHING 1674

I don't know... the colour of the obverse is similar to a well-worn specimen that I have (http://pennycrowncoins.co.uk/shopping/pgm-more_information.php?id=103&=SID) whilst the reverse colour is either in need of Photoshopping or has already been 'shopped. Purely on the strength of the photograph I'm going for genuine.

[Colin G. 147]

Well to my untrained eye this looks like a replica though I could be wrong. Anyone with strong views want to tell me if I'm wrong (or the seller he's got a dud 'coin' for sale)?

STUNNING CHARLES II FARTHING 1674

I don't know... the colour of the obverse is similar to a well-worn specimen that I have (http://pennycrowncoins.co.uk/shopping/pgm-more_information.php?id=103&=SID) whilst the reverse colour is either in need of Photoshopping or has already been 'shopped. Purely on the strength of the photograph I'm going for genuine.

I agree, I think it is genuine, but the image has been altered making it look a bit dodgy

[TomGoodheart 403]

"The photos do not do this coin any justice in our opinion."

Odd. I have the same problem. Partly because if a coin looked as good as I wish it looked in the photos I wouldn't be selling it in the first place!

[Peckris 579]

Sometimes it can work the other way. I just took delivery of a high side of VF 1934 halfcrown for £12, which I thought was a fair price. He advertised it as Choice Uncirculated but anyone could see that it wasn't, so maybe a lot of potential bidders thought "come off it, choice UNC?" and backed out.

It certainly kicked my straight VF into touch, and it's not an easy year beyond VF, so I was happy with £12.

Maybe people are getting wise to the regular and horrendous overgraders and ignoring them, leaving the field open for those of us who just look at the pictures and don't read the blurb.

Somewhere I still have a Coin Monthly from around 1970 where a dealer is advertising a BU 1932 and 1934 for £125 the pair. That's probably near £1000 in today's money.

[ski 1]

enjoy............

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1889-Queen-Victoria-Silver-Double-Florin-/290533589950?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item43a526c3be

[ski 1]

Somewhere I still have a Coin Monthly from around 1970 where a dealer is advertising a BU 1932 and 1934 for £125 the pair. That's probably near £1000 in today's money.

whats his name.....ive £125 waiting

[Beebman 2]

Ever so slightly out-of-focus...

1858 penny

[argentumandcoins 70]

Ever so slightly out-of-focus...

1858 penny

I like the "in good condition for age"

From that we can assume that his graet granny was born in 1858 and she looks awful now

[Accumulator 52]

I like the "in good condition for age"

From that we can assume that his graet granny was born in 1858 and she looks awful now

I think he meant "it's polished up a treat for it's age"

[Peckris 579]

enjoy............

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1889-Queen-Victoria-Silver-Double-Florin-/290533589950?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item43a526c3be

Oh shucks. "Bidding.." (i.e. none) "..has ended for this item." There went my opportunity

Somewhere I still have a Coin Monthly from around 1970 where a dealer is advertising a BU 1932 and 1934 for £125 the pair. That's probably near £1000 in today's money.

whats his name.....ive £125 waiting

Blimey - even at today's prices £125 for those two wouldn't exactly be a steal!

[Accumulator 52]

1847 penny

"Needs a clean" apparently!

[Colin G. 147]

1847 penny

"Needs a clean" apparently!

And its a farthing!!

[Accumulator 52]

1847 penny

"Needs a clean" apparently!

And its a farthing!!

:)

[Colin G. 147]

Can anyone else see anything

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120682046117&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.co.uk%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp5197.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D120682046117%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

[Accumulator 52]

Can anyone else see anything

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120682046117&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.co.uk%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp5197.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D120682046117%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

If you take "hammered" to mean his state of mind on returning from the pub, then it makes perfect sense.

I've closed the window now, but did he say "jester seeks village idiot"?