1839 Una & Lion £5 Coin

[Mat 2]

Hi, just a little interesting peice of knowledge. I was clearing through some of my old paper work and I came accross a stack of the old coins newspapers that coincraft send out monthly to its members. I looked in a 1994 one and they had a 1839 Una & Lion £5 for sale for £10,000. (If only... if only if only runs through you head!!!)

To be honest that was very cheap for that coin in 1994, especially for coin craft! My 1980 Seaby catalogue quotes £10,000 for the coin then and that was 14 years prior.

The investment value from 1994 on that would have been the equivalent of putting £10k in a in an account in 1994 at 20% interest which would have yeilded you if you cashed it out today about £25k which is the approx value of a 1839 £5 now.

[Peckris 579]

Hi, just a little interesting peice of knowledge. I was clearing through some of my old paper work and I came accross a stack of the old coins newspapers that coincraft send out monthly to its members. I looked in a 1994 one and they had a 1839 Una & Lion £5 for sale for £10,000. (If only... if only if only runs through you head!!!)

To be honest that was very cheap for that coin in 1994, especially for coin craft! My 1980 Seaby catalogue quotes £10,000 for the coin then and that was 14 years prior.

The investment value from 1994 on that would have been the equivalent of putting £10k in a in an account in 1994 at 20% interest which would have yeilded you if you cashed it out today about £25k which is the approx value of a 1839 £5 now.

1980 was around the peak in an artificial "high" of coin prices - if you'd bought then, you'd have been buying at the top of the market. From the mid-80s to the mid-90s there was, following an early fallback, a stagnation of values. You can't compare commodities to bank accounts. Buying a Una & The Lion in 1980 would have proved unwise, whereas buying one in 1994 would have turned out well in the end, as you've noted, though no-one has a crystal ball.

[Mat 2]

1980 was around the peak in an artificial "high" of coin prices - if you'd bought then, you'd have been buying at the top of the market. From the mid-80s to the mid-90s there was, following an early fallback, a stagnation of values. You can't compare commodities to bank accounts. Buying a Una & The Lion in 1980 would have proved unwise, whereas buying one in 1994 would have turned out well in the end, as you've noted, though no-one has a crystal ball.

[Peckris 579]

I honestly didnt know that about coins in the 80s, I was born in 1985 and started collecting at coin fairs in 1993, and my first coin catalogue book was the seaby 1980 one I picked up for £0.50 so for many years I kind of just used that book and just added on % to judge a rough price. When I was a kid I hated the thought of spending £15 for a new price guide book when that could be spent on a coin, so for years I took the most up to date book out of the library and renewed it every month opposed to buying one. Its funny you should mention that it just clicked..... in about 1994 I remember picking up coins for the same value they were graded at in my 1980 book! Coin collecting as a child was so much more fun when I was not concerned with the investment values.....

Oh that's so true! And it still is. If you're in the hobby for the long haul, and collect for fun, and always buy the best you can afford and choose for what looks good, then in the end your collection will be worth more than you paid for it and you will have had the pleasure out of it too.

(P.S. Don't tell Spink, but I generally go and consult their latest guide in the library, transcribe the prices of coins I own and transfer them into my database at home. Shhhhhh. )

[Rob 3,152]

(P.S. Don't tell Spink, but I generally go and consult their latest guide in the library, transcribe the prices of coins I own and transfer them into my database at home. Shhhhhh. )

Doesn't this cost more in petrol if done on a regular basis than buying the book outright? And it's always to hand.

[Mat 2]

Good call, I think the 2010 prices are most unrealistic, when I finish my DCATS which will allow me to specialise in a particular field as a trading standards officer, I hope to investigate into the way spinks create their guide, I feel there is a certain use of their guide acting as a vehicle to ensure highest prices are obtained at their auctions, which if it is the case it contravenes certain trading regulations and is not in the interest of the consumer. Antiques are a sector which is least regulated unfortunately.

[azda 979]

Good call, I think the 2010 prices are most unrealistic, when I finish my DCATS which will allow me to specialise in a particular field as a trading standards officer, I hope to investigate into the way spinks create their guide, I feel there is a certain use of their guide acting as a vehicle to ensure highest prices are obtained at their auctions, which if it is the case it contravenes certain trading regulations and is not in the interest of the consumer. Antiques are a sector which is least regulated unfortunately.

/quote]

Would be nice if you could keep the forum updated of any findings you may find about the Spink book, i had a 1797 2 penny Geo III, spink quoted an EF at 400 pounds and 1400 for UNC the CCGB has UNC at only 300, so where does this huge gap in price come from, i am only a mere novice but i am reading etc most days about coins etc, but if i were to just start 2 weeks ago and came across both these books i'd be very confused about the huge price gap and probably not bother again. Someone needs to point out WHY a price in 1 book is so much less in another. It has been said that the CCGB is more a realistic price guide, although good in that respect, it doesn't cover every coin, so where do we look next if not spink?

Edited January 23, 2010 by azda

[Gary D 76]

Good call, I think the 2010 prices are most unrealistic, when I finish my DCATS which will allow me to specialise in a particular field as a trading standards officer, I hope to investigate into the way spinks create their guide, I feel there is a certain use of their guide acting as a vehicle to ensure highest prices are obtained at their auctions, which if it is the case it contravenes certain trading regulations and is not in the interest of the consumer. Antiques are a sector which is least regulated unfortunately.

/quote]

Would be nice if you could keep the forum updated of any findings you may find about the Spink book, i had a 1797 2 penny Geo III, spink quoted an EF at 400 pounds and 1400 for UNC the CCGB has UNC at only 300, so where does this huge gap in price come from, i am only a mere novice but i am reading etc most days about coins etc, but if i were to just start 2 weeks ago and came across both these books i'd be very confused about the huge price gap and probably not bother again. Someone needs to point out WHY a price in 1 book is so much less in another. It has been said that the CCGB is more a realistic price guide, although good in that respect, it doesn't cover every coin, so where do we look next if not spink?

Although CCGB is a very good book it's only a guide like any other book. From experience if you buy regularly from say ebay you won't win many bids using CCGB, it's becoming difficult even with Spink, especially for anything half decent.

[Rob 3,152]

I think all this worry about the differences in prices between publications is a non-problem. If you look at the prices of various coins in Spink, some regularly go for over book and some under book. As a result you can only ever use it as a ball park figure because 4 figures for 4 grades can only ever give an approximation to what someone is prepared to pay. I suspect that much of the problem is that buyers want to refer to the cheapest publicised price and sellers the most expensive. Life is all about people making an educated assessment of an item's worth. After all, if you want to regulate everything from cradle to grave, why do we not have a state regulator determined price for 800g of bread?

You can't tell people what to pay for a coin. If someone wants to reference their prices (both buying and selling) to Spink's then that is their choice, as is another's who uses CCGB. This doesn't need regulating, rather that buyers do adequate homework establishing what similar coins normally trade at instead of living in a nanny state. Nobody ever says mea culpa these days, it is always the fault of somebody else.

The examples in Spink go both ways. A 1797 1d can frequently be bought for around a third to half of Spink's cost for a coin in UNC, but when was the last time you saw an FDC Godless Florin pattern sell for £1150? Double this would be closer to the truth as the last Spink sale would bear out. At the same sale an 1887 £2 made about £4K including premium against 2009 book prices of £650 (currency) or £1200 (proof). You can't blame Spink for the prices people voluntarily pay at auction any more than you can proscribe a selling price for a particular coin in a predetermined grade. And if you do that, then you must also regulate the maximum price a seller is allowed to pay when buying in material so that the dealer can make a living.

Come on everybody, do your homework and find out what others are willing to pay. If you think it too much then don't buy or bid at a sale. Nobody is a forced buyer.

If any regulation has to take place it would be much better directed at the nonsensical purveyors of dross on ebay where a fool and their money are frequently parted on the basis of the seller's frequently overgraded sales pitch together with the uneducated person's desire for a coin described as being worth a certain amount in Spink. To boot, many of the coins offered aren't even worth the lower values given in CCGB or other publications. My heart does not bleed for these people.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Rob

[Gary D 76]

I think all this worry about the differences in prices between publications is a non-problem. If you look at the prices of various coins in Spink, some regularly go for over book and some under book. As a result you can only ever use it as a ball park figure because 4 figures for 4 grades can only ever give an approximation to what someone is prepared to pay. I suspect that much of the problem is that buyers want to refer to the cheapest publicised price and sellers the most expensive. Life is all about people making an educated assessment of an item's worth. After all, if you want to regulate everything from cradle to grave, why do we not have a state regulator determined price for 800g of bread?

You can't tell people what to pay for a coin. If someone wants to reference their prices (both buying and selling) to Spink's then that is their choice, as is another's who uses CCGB. This doesn't need regulating, rather that buyers do adequate homework establishing what similar coins normally trade at instead of living in a nanny state. Nobody ever says mea culpa these days, it is always the fault of somebody else.

The examples in Spink go both ways. A 1797 1d can frequently be bought for around a third to half of Spink's cost for a coin in UNC, but when was the last time you saw an FDC Godless Florin pattern sell for £1150? Double this would be closer to the truth as the last Spink sale would bear out. At the same sale an 1887 £2 made about £4K including premium against 2009 book prices of £650 (currency) or £1200 (proof). You can't blame Spink for the prices people voluntarily pay at auction any more than you can proscribe a selling price for a particular coin in a predetermined grade. And if you do that, then you must also regulate the maximum price a seller is allowed to pay when buying in material so that the dealer can make a living.

Come on everybody, do your homework and find out what others are willing to pay. If you think it too much then don't buy or bid at a sale. Nobody is a forced buyer.

If any regulation has to take place it would be much better directed at the nonsensical purveyors of dross on ebay where a fool and their money are frequently parted on the basis of the seller's frequently overgraded sales pitch together with the uneducated person's desire for a coin described as being worth a certain amount in Spink. To boot, many of the coins offered aren't even worth the lower values given in CCGB or other publications. My heart does not bleed for these people.

So why do we buy these books if they are that useless. Agreed they are only a ball park but we have to start somewhere.

[Mat 2]

What the trouble is: The spink catalogue has become more than a guide, its arguably the industry standards for British coin values, and when something is the industry standard there should be a form of regulation over it, especially with how big the coin market is becoming and how valuable some of these transaction are. The other major factor is the level of biasness from their own auction sales.

Section 20 of the consumer protection at 1987 does not apply to antiques in all cases as such and Trading Standards has very little to do with this sector but if it did there would be several contraventions of the provisions.

As mentioned I am sure us all coin people exercise a significant amount of due diligence and do our home work, but the vulnerable people do not and it’s those that need to be protected.

If spink put the price up in the 2011 catalogue of a 1905 half crown to £20,000 in UNC, there would be hundreds of sellers putting their prices up to the ridicules amount when we all know it’s not worth that, but the fact is it theoretically would become worth that because sellers would sell the coin reflective of the spink guide, vulnerable buyers would buy it at that price if they could afford, the buyers would not resell at a price lower than they paid for it and a new market is created. There is absolutely nothing in place in the form of consumer protection regulation to stop that happening in the coin world. If Tesco put the price of beans up for £0.55 to £1.25 the OFT would be down on them like a ton of bricks because there is a consumer expectation of Tesco, and they would be using their Tesco-opoly power to get away with it and it would eventually become the norm as their 2800+ stores dominate the market, just as Spinks do with the coins guide but no one with trading enforcement power is bothered or knows about coins.

[Peckris 579]

(P.S. Don't tell Spink, but I generally go and consult their latest guide in the library, transcribe the prices of coins I own and transfer them into my database at home. Shhhhhh. )

Doesn't this cost more in petrol if done on a regular basis than buying the book outright? And it's always to hand.

Not if it only takes you 3 visits, and you happen to be in town for those visits anyway

Would be nice if you could keep the forum updated of any findings you may find about the Spink book, i had a 1797 2 penny Geo III, spink quoted an EF at 400 pounds and 1400 for UNC the CCGB has UNC at only 300, so where does this huge gap in price come from, i am only a mere novice but i am reading etc most days about coins etc, but if i were to just start 2 weeks ago and came across both these books i'd be very confused about the huge price gap and probably not bother again. Someone needs to point out WHY a price in 1 book is so much less in another. It has been said that the CCGB is more a realistic price guide, although good in that respect, it doesn't cover every coin, so where do we look next if not spink?

As has been said, these price "guides" are only that, guides. Having said that, most insurance companies use Spink to agree valuations where necessary. In the days when it was Seaby's, that book was rightly regarded as 'the bible' - Seaby had no axe to grind, but on the other hand (as it proved) they could become out of touch with the market.

CCGB is under for an Unc 1797 2d IMO - £300 would be my estimate for a true EF, but then I think CCGB has always been under on these twopences. To be fair, their £300 is for an Unc coin, where Spinks £1400 is for a BU specimen. That's not unrealistic - the number of Unc specimens is fairly low, but a true BU is EXTREMELY rare - quite probably significantly rarer than the average proof.

If any regulation has to take place it would be much better directed at the nonsensical purveyors of dross on ebay where a fool and their money are frequently parted on the basis of the seller's frequently overgraded sales pitch together with the uneducated person's desire for a coin described as being worth a certain amount in Spink. To boot, many of the coins offered aren't even worth the lower values given in CCGB or other publications. My heart does not bleed for these people.

Agreed - though my heart does bleed for people who have bought from eBay many times but are new to coins; they are badly let down, both by the e-charlatans and the e-ignoramuses. Some of those gradings ought to be prosecuted, they are so far out.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Peckris

[Rob 3,152]

Good disagreement across the board here - excellent for a sensible debate.

The point I take issue with is the concept of needing to regulate what is a minor discretionary purchase. If the public is legally or otherwise obliged to purchase an item or a service then a case can be made for regulation of some form or other. What we are talking about here is a hobby - a pastime that people dip into and out of at their leisure depending in all probability on the weather and to a greater extent how much spare cash they have. Please do not suggest it should be regulated in the same way as investments etc. If someone's spare time is occupied with rebuilding old cars, you don't expect them to fit the steering wheel where the spare is kept because you assume they have made the effort to inform themselves where it should go and if they did fit it in the wrong place you would rightly call them a ****. There are plenty of books available on coins, it just requires the individual to make a few cheap purchases and learn. If they can't read and write, that is not the fault of the coin market. You do not go on safari to the Maldives. You do not rely on Thunderbirds to rescue you from a desperate situation - they may not get there in time.

The whole concept of consumer protection is a moot point. Why the need to protect someone from paying £5 for a 1967 1d, when the government happily legalises the National Lottery and allows people to spend £1 on the Dream Number which pays you a tenner when you get the first two numbers right despite the odds being 1 in 100. Or is it just a case of trying to earn political brownie points by pretending to be caring? Frankly, the odds of being screwed by politicians or politically designed instruments are greater than that of an ebay con-merchant. At least you have an option not to buy into the ebay purchase

As regards pricing, those quoted in Spink are frequently gross underestimates of reality in the saleroom. At a sale with half decent material, both the estimate and the book price are regularly beaten simply because demand outstrips supply. Most items I bid on end up going past both these figures. Sometimes I will pay over book and sometimes not, but at no point am I restricted to either an upper or lower price level based on Spink. I bid & pay according to how badly I want the piece or whether I think it is undervalued. Spink's annual tome has become a de facto price guide simply because it is the only one that covers the whole series. It doesn't cover everything though, because there is insufficient room to accommodate all the price variations for rarities within a type, a point they freely acknowledge. They aren't driving the market, in fact they can't get sufficient new material in for resale because it is all going elsewhere. Their prices are taken from those realised around the country and further afield. A couple of weeks ago in the Heritage sale, an MS65 slabbed 1901 penny sold for about £600! I paid £2.21 for mine on ebay about 6 years ago. Spink currently lists them at £35. Does it require full scale government intervention on the basis that I bought it too cheaply. I think not. A couple years ago I bid about £3K on a coin that was listed in VF at £400. I came second. Does the government feel so aggrieved at my loss of self control in ignoring the "official price" that it sends me to the funny farm for a bit of re-education? Of course not - yet. If the market is to be regulated, then below fair value items would also not be permitted. Be careful what you ask for.

If somebody loses out because they have done no homework regarding pricing, it isn't my fault, the government's fault, trading standards fault or Spink's fault. The person involved could have read, asked questions on a forum such as this or asked people attending coin fairs for an opinion. The buck stops squarely with the individual and there is no case for wasting valuable public funds on such a trivial matter.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Rob

[Rob 3,152]

So why do we buy these books if they are that useless. Agreed they are only a ball park but we have to start somewhere.

I quite agree we have to start somewhere. I just don't think we need to get exercised over deviation from what is an already wide range of prices, nor do we need to waste time holding hands when there is an onus on the individual regarding self-help. We are also in great danger of having a government sponsored minder free with every roll of Andrex.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

Ooh, I can't resist.

Surely one of the fundamental cornerstones of human society is caveat emptor ?

'Buyer beware'. In other words, the responsibility is firmly upon the purchaser to carefully assess his potential purchase and then, if happy, pull the trigger. After all, it's your money - you're not being forced to part with it, you're choosing to, so the consequences are your responsibility ?

And, also, let's not lose sight of the fact that all regulators, in whatever walk of life, are ultimately self serving.

The numismatic industry just isn't big enough to sustain a parasitic Quango.

BUT, *p**k do take the **** and so do the others, the way they try and crack the prices on.

The answer, though, isn't more regulation - it's more people taking responsibility for their own actions.

[Rob 3,152]

BUT, *p**k do take the **** and so do the others, the way they try and crack the prices on.

In all fairness to Spink, they also reduce them where they consider it appropriate. e.g. In the 2004 - 2006 tomes, a 1671 5/- with T/R in ET was listed as £950 in fine. In 2007 it was reduced to £575 and in 2008 further reduced to £350 where it has remained ever since. Although this is only one example and which is now priced about right IMO, there are others. In the final analysis, Spink do not set the market any more than anyone else does. It is driven by excess demand relative to the available material. If anyone wants to reduce prices in the market place - stop buying coins.

[Mat 2]

I believe SPINK influences the UK coin market more than most other factors with its guide, especially with very high value coins.

Ok, putting aside regulation in the form of trading standards other than for the regulating significant trading offences, despite coins collecting being just a hobby its really serious business when you look at the figures. Just looking at genuine completed sold ebay listings there are approx 50,000 a week, I have no idea the value of all coins sold in the UK over the course of the year but including all the traditional auction houses I bet we wouldn’t be too far off £500m a year. (ebay contributing to a significant amount of that). I have never really looked at the BNTA website much but I dont ever see them step in and challenge anything.

I take it the BNTA is pretty much the only real members trade body for coins in the UK? I think it would be most relevant for them to step in now and again and actually challenge SPINK on why X was valued at £120,000 in 2009 but valued at £137,500 in 2010 when there was not a single specimen sold that year so what could you be possibly basing that increase on? Or other things such as that.

Im just trying to get at the fact that for something that we all heavily use, and with the values of some of the transactions we participate in, there is no form of regulation to ensure spink is acting in the absolute interest of consumers in its trading practises.

[Rob 3,152]

I believe SPINK influences the UK coin market more than most other factors with its guide, especially with very high value coins.

Ok, putting aside regulation in the form of trading standards other than for the regulating significant trading offences, despite coins collecting being just a hobby its really serious business when you look at the figures. Just looking at genuine completed sold ebay listings there are approx 50,000 a week, I have no idea the value of all coins sold in the UK over the course of the year but including all the traditional auction houses I bet we wouldn’t be too far off £500m a year. (ebay contributing to a significant amount of that). I have never really looked at the BNTA website much but I dont ever see them step in and challenge anything.

I take it the BNTA is pretty much the only real members trade body for coins in the UK? I think it would be most relevant for them to step in now and again and actually challenge SPINK on why X was valued at £120,000 in 2009 but valued at £137,500 in 2010 when there was not a single specimen sold that year so what could you be possibly basing that increase on? Or other things such as that.

Im just trying to get at the fact that for something that we all heavily use, and with the values of some of the transactions we participate in, there is no form of regulation to ensure spink is acting in the absolute interest of consumers in its trading practises.

Spink is virtually the only listing available for say five figure coins. It is also the only publication covering coins from the earliest issues to the present together with some additional proofs and patterns and so must inevitably have some influence on the market. Some coins are valued despite there not being any available to collectors, but based on prices prior to them entering a museum (think in terms of the Coenwulf gold mancus). This doesn't affect your typical "uneducated" collector however who is at a guess looking at a collection worth no more than a few hundred pounds in value. The mind tends to get focussed when you are spending thousands of pounds, and the person doing so rarely needs advice from a third party as to whether a particular coin would be a good buy or not and certainly doesn't need government led interference into whether he should be allowed to collect these coins or not at the prices he is prepared to pay. A coin valued at 120K one year and 137K the next will in all probability be revalued on where prices are relative to the previous year if no examples have appeared in recent times. This is a basic fact of life. I have a couple dozen pieces that are unique, what am I going to be permitted to sell them at in this regulated world of predetermined prices based on historical evidence? Have I offended by paying too much for them in the first place? Prices can be volatile, but that is something people spending appreciable sums of money already realise. A collection is a thing of averages. Some coins I will have paid too much for whilst others were an absolute bargain. If I realise a modest profit when I come to sell, then I will be happy.

I suppose the ultimate answer to your problem would be for a government sponsored publication drawing on all available sales data which rivalled Spink and so introduced competition into the market place for "advisory" prices. I don't know how you would arrive at a fair value for a coin, but it seems obvious to me that what the market is willing to pay is a pretty good starting point. As to what price I should pay for an unlisted coin, God only knows, and to reiterate, I have never been forced to buy any coin. With every purchase I have made, the buck stops here.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Rob

[Rob 3,152]

I forgot to add that there is an alternative to Spink for later material. For the majority of collectors that in your view need protecting, there are at least 3 annual price references as in the main they restrict themselves to modern (post 1797) low value pieces.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Rob

[Coppers 58]

I think it would be most relevant for them to step in now and again and actually challenge SPINK on why X was valued at £120,000 in 2009 but valued at £137,500 in 2010 when there was not a single specimen sold that year so what could you be possibly basing that increase on? Or other things such as that.

Many coins seldom come up for sale and when they do that sale may not always be reported. Spink may be setting that higher valuation based on prices realized for similar items. There's nothing wrong with that and unless it could be shown that Spink somehow unfairly enriched themselves by adjusting prices in their guide then I would leave well enough alone.

[Mat 2]

"There's nothing wrong with that and unless it could be shown that Spink somehow unfairly enriched themselves by adjusting prices in their guide then I would leave well enough alone."

That is my exact point! There is nothing in place to ensure that Spink are not doing that and that they never will be doing that, and there is no form of regulation that anyone can ever go to in the need for redress if they feel they need to. There needs to be some industry body in place in the eventuality of such...

If Spink appraises a sellers coin at £250,000 then the client bought it for that amount based on spinks experience, skill and judgement, (appraisals are legal services under the Consumer Protection Act For Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) then the client tried to sell it for £250,000 but found that its only worth £140,000, who is there for him to go to in the need for redress if spink will not uphold the complaint? No one other than maybe BNTA or trading standards. In UK law it is an unfair commercial practice that has lead the average consumer to make a transactional decision he wouldn’t have otherwise made. (Section 5(1)(.

If a chartered surveyor valued you house at £250,000 but the highest market value offer you had for your house was £140,000, you would escalate your complaint to the ombudsman for estate agents or the ombudsman for chartered surveyors and they have the legal power to order the surveyor company to proved a compensating remedy reflective of the difference in value. Who is going to do that for your coin that you have overpaid £90k for?

You might argue that a buyer forking out £250k for a coin should know what his is doing but English law is not allowed to discriminate that, it must be based on the average consumer whether it’s £5 for a t-shirt or £250k for a coin, antiques are no exception, but in practise they are very often overlooked by regulation apart from the occasional painting that appears on the market with a value of £50k but its only worth £3k.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Mat

[Mat 2]

That wasnt meant to be a smiley it was supposed to be the Letter 'b' in brackets

[Peckris 579]

"There's nothing wrong with that and unless it could be shown that Spink somehow unfairly enriched themselves by adjusting prices in their guide then I would leave well enough alone."

That is my exact point! There is nothing in place to ensure that Spink are not doing that and that they never will be doing that, and there is no form of regulation that anyone can ever go to in the need for redress if they feel they need to. There needs to be some industry body in place in the eventuality of such...

If Spink appraises a sellers coin at £250,000 then the client bought it for that amount based on spinks experience, skill and judgement, (appraisals are legal services under the Consumer Protection Act For Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) then the client tried to sell it for £250,000 but found that its only worth £140,000, who is there for him to go to in the need for redress if spink will not uphold the complaint? No one other than maybe BNTA or trading standards. In UK law it is an unfair commercial practice that has lead the average consumer to make a transactional decision he wouldn’t have otherwise made. (Section 5(1)(.

If a chartered surveyor valued you house at £250,000 but the highest market value offer you had for your house was £140,000, you would escalate your complaint to the ombudsman for estate agents or the ombudsman for chartered surveyors and they have the legal power to order the surveyor company to proved a compensating remedy reflective of the difference in value. Who is going to do that for your coin that you have overpaid £90k for?

You might argue that a buyer forking out £250k for a coin should know what his is doing but English law is not allowed to discriminate that, it must be based on the average consumer whether it’s £5 for a t-shirt or £250k for a coin, antiques are no exception, but in practise they are very often overlooked by regulation apart from the occasional painting that appears on the market with a value of £50k but its only worth £3k.

Mat, your argument is unsound. You cannot apply Trading Standards law to antique price guides. House prices (which by the way, themselves do not form any kind of 'standard' compared to a tin of beans, a gallon of petrol, or a unit of electricity) cannot be compared to coin values. There is an 'intrinsic' value to a house, which as any surveyor and insurance company will tell you equates to the "cost of rebuilding". Yes, as you point out, advertising and the process of buying and selling may well fall under regulations, but price guides do not, and never will, for the simple reason that they are not "offers to sell", they are simply guide prices.

I'm not sure why you have a bee in your bonnet about Spink? That guide is NOT a Spink creation, but was authored and devised by BA Seaby who ceased coin trading long before they sold the title to Spink. The format and content of the "Standard Catalogue" is much as it was under Seaby, though with more additions, e.g. modern varieties. It is used by insurance firms, by dealers, by collectors, or as a general public reference. Yet at bottom, its prices cannot ever be guaranteed. Coins are intrinsically worth only their metal content. Above that, they are worth only what collectors are prepared to pay, and if that is over or under "book price" then so be it. Different sales, different parts of the country, different dealers, different days, different buyers, different competition, even different times of the year or traffic conditions en route to auctions or even the weather, will all conspire to form a huge variety of prices for any given coin. What hope for any price guide compiler to cope with that?

What MIGHT be useful is if guides like Spinks gave a RANGE of values for a given coin condition, but that would be unwieldy and would result in a book twice its present size. And since Spink are the oldest existing coin dealers and one of the biggest and founder members of the BNTA (the industry body of which you speak), isn't it better that they, rather than some fly-by-night, produced the Standard Catalogue?

[Rob 3,152]

"There's nothing wrong with that and unless it could be shown that Spink somehow unfairly enriched themselves by adjusting prices in their guide then I would leave well enough alone."

That is my exact point! There is nothing in place to ensure that Spink are not doing that and that they never will be doing that, and there is no form of regulation that anyone can ever go to in the need for redress if they feel they need to. There needs to be some industry body in place in the eventuality of such...

If Spink appraises a sellers coin at £250,000 then the client bought it for that amount based on spinks experience, skill and judgement, (appraisals are legal services under the Consumer Protection Act For Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) then the client tried to sell it for £250,000 but found that its only worth £140,000, who is there for him to go to in the need for redress if spink will not uphold the complaint? No one other than maybe BNTA or trading standards. In UK law it is an unfair commercial practice that has lead the average consumer to make a transactional decision he wouldn’t have otherwise made. (Section 5(1)(.

If a chartered surveyor valued you house at £250,000 but the highest market value offer you had for your house was £140,000, you would escalate your complaint to the ombudsman for estate agents or the ombudsman for chartered surveyors and they have the legal power to order the surveyor company to proved a compensating remedy reflective of the difference in value. Who is going to do that for your coin that you have overpaid £90k for?

You might argue that a buyer forking out £250k for a coin should know what his is doing but English law is not allowed to discriminate that, it must be based on the average consumer whether it’s £5 for a t-shirt or £250k for a coin, antiques are no exception, but in practise they are very often overlooked by regulation apart from the occasional painting that appears on the market with a value of £50k but its only worth £3k.

In that case it would be easier to ban collecting coins in the same way that this interfering government has banned the personal holding of legal handguns, stopped smoking in pubs, won't allow me to buy more than 2 packets of paracetamol in case I top myself (whilst ignoring the fact that I can always go around the shop a second time) and treats me as a paedophile unless proven otherwise etc. etc. All because we are deemed to be incapable of leading our lives in a government approved manner.

Every time I buy a coin for selling on it is with the intention of making a profit. If I told someone it was worth selling at £10, there is no reason whatsoever why they would sell it to me at £5. i.e. to trade in any shape or form requires you to advise the seller that his coin is worth less than you can sell it for. If you buy a coin from another person, the price you pay is going to be a combination of how much you think you can sell it for, how long it will take you to sell it (i.e. the demand) and how much profit you require. If someone wants to buy a very common coin from me - say a 1967 1d, I would charge a minimum amount to cover the fact that I have taken the risk of never selling it despite having listed it and displayed it, carried it around to fairs etc. Say I charge that person £1. I wouldn't even consider buying back that same coin unless as a goodwill gesture and as part of another transaction because I would never expect to sell it again and can guarantee I can pick one up as part of a job lot elsewhere. So I have sold something that is worthless, but that was what my customer wanted and was happy to pay the price. So - the discount to the resale price could be anywhere from say 5% to outright rejection (100%) depending on desirability of the coin. If that makes me a criminal - mea culpa, but I can safely say that I would have no intention of mopping up the world's supply of 1967 pennies just to satisfy trading standards. At this point I would leave the country and switch the lights off.

The world is full of examples where a coin is bought for a certain amount, yet fails to reach that when subsequently sold at auction. I have personally both gained and lost in this respect, but don't expect praise or sympathy. Ultimately, very few people will buy a coin with the guarantee they were going to lose 50% or more on resale, but equally, nobody expects to be receive the same amount as it would cost them to buy. Hindsight is a wonderful thing as it overwrites your memories concerning your previous enthusiasm when things go wrong. As said before, caveat emptor.

In the case of the surveyor, if you actually want a written valuation of something worth £250K, you would get two quotes in any case. Deceit with the intention to defraud is one thing, the stupidity of an individual is another. Sadly, stupidity is not an offence and manipulation of the system rife. Just about all items have a resale value lower than the purchase price, so why should coins be an exception to this? Don't forget that my new car depreciates by say 30% on leaving the garage, but I hear no complaints and see no action from the government on this matter.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Rob

[Mat 2]

I think I deviated off my original qualm too much sorry I apologise for that.

I still don’t think anyone realises the actual point I was trying to make, its not coin guides in general I was suggesting should be regulated by trading standards, just Spinks catalogue only!

Reasons:

Spink are the leading coin auctioneers in the UK.

Spink also produce the leading coin price guide in the UK. (They are conflicting interests to begin with so there is immediate potential for them to be naughty)

The two above facts put them in a unique position, and those factors together give them great power above anyone else in the industry which is why them in particular need some form of regulation in their commercial practises to make sure (just in case) they are acting purely to satisfy their own economic interest. Just some form of external auditing would do!

Now where I think the regulation needs to come in:

What is in place to prevent Spinks from producing a guide which assists them in yielding higher auction prices or helps them achieve higher private treaty prices? There does not appear to be anything, and it could be occurring now and we wouldn’t know otherwise as there is no body looking over this. It is a possibility! Thats where the CPA Unfair trading 2008 regs come in.

Spinks power is so influential to the UK coin market that if they wanted to (I am not saying they do or will) they are in a unique position to artificially rise the prices of coins (steering the market in their direction) and they would get away with it because there is nothing in place to prevent them from doing so.