1839 Una & Lion £5 Coin

[Coppers 58]

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.

Mat... Can we be certain that you are not working for Baldwin's? Most of what I see Spink selling and auctioning are rarer, higher-value coins. Valuing a coin in either guide books or in auction catalogs at too high a price may actually work to depress bidding and result in a lower price realized. I've seen a number of auctions in which price estimates are far below what I and others know the coin will bring which serves to draw in bidders who might not otherwise consider trying for a coin and in the end which may actually result in a higher price realized and allow the auction firm to advertise that a coin it estimated at one price actually achieved double or triple that price. There are a number of areas in which government regulation is both worthwhile and necessary. This is not one of them.

[Gary D 76]

A very interesting discussion although a bit over my head in places. I would suggest that Spink now days is just trading on past glories, they are no longer pre-eminent in the UK coin world. I would suggest in recent years their crown has slipped in favour of a new pretender, dare I say it, ebay with on average over 5,000 coins a day passing through their auctions. If ebay were to produce a coin guide based solely on the material passing through their portal it would be a far more accurate snapshot of UK coin values, did I hear a cry for regulation. Crazy and nonsensical perhaps, but much closer to the reality of what coins on average are realising. I will leave you to mull over my last thought, "would ebay resist any opportunity to inflate prices to their own gain".

[Rob 3,152]

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.

I'm not convinced that Spink is the leading auctioneer of British Coins in this country. In 2009 they had 4 coin sales with about 1600 lots of British. In addition they had their first online sale incl. a couple hundred British coins.

Other salerooms include:

Baldwins with 5 sales including 850 lots of British. Plus a couple of lists with coins priced way in excess of Spink prices, yet these coins were selling well as I understand. I know I personally bought off the list.

DNW 4 sales with over 2200 lots of British plus their first two online sales again with a few hundred lots. Much smaller offerings compared to the previous 2 years where they were much bigger than Spink.

Morton & Eden 2 sales with 346 British lots.

St. James's with 2 sales and about 1400 British lots.

These are the main London sales which carry the bulk of the quality material, but if you also bear in mind sales at Lockdales (6), London Coins (4), Warwick & Warwick (6), Brock (4), Corbitts, Croydon, Bonhams, Wallis & Wallis plus a good sprinkling of other provincial locations I think you would be hard pressed to say that Spink rule the market. This year the Circular was reduced from 6 issues to 5, almost certainly because they can't obtain enough material to sell in it. It is much thinner than in previous years. Ebay is unquestionably the biggest market place on the planet, but prices there are a law unto themselves in either direction. Nowhere else do you see things such as Gary's 1935 proof crown selling for £15 or a scrap value cartwheel penny selling for hundreds. In recent years DNW has been more important than Spink in terms of volume of comparable quality and St. James's has been more important in terms of outright quality. Nobody has a monopoly on anything. Spink's buyers premium at 20% on the first £2K plus 15% on any excess (both + VAT) is greater than anyone elses which discourages high bidding, but people still pay well over book on some lots and below on others. The whole market is driven by supply and demand. Based on the above sales, Spink accounts for no more than 10% of British lots excluding eBay and probably less. This is neither a monopoly nor a defining share and if you suggest they are defining the market, I must say they aren't doing a very good job.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Rob

[Mat 2]

I think the only way I am going to be able to support my argument which is based largely on assumptions and probabilities is if I introduced some evidence which I think could only be obtained through carrying out an investigation.

The closest thing I can offer in comparison is the Sotheby’s case:

Sotheby’s and Christies, slightly different scenario with being an illegal cartel but in 2002 the office of fair trading had to step in because one of price fixing methods they used to ensure their fine art reached certain sales is to offer guide prices and value art at a level which allowed them to guarantee certain prices to the sellers. There is such a lack of regulation in the antiques market and look what happened, all kinds of illegal price fixing market driving things happened because there was absolutely nothing in place to keep an eye over things to make sure it doesn’t happen.

However I am not alleging that these things are currently happening now with coins and spinks, or are likely to in the future, I am saying there is nothing in place to stop them from happening if they did which is a problem. I would also have to re-evaluate spinks position within the market after some of the other comments, but I firmly believe that spink are the most influential driving force in the market with the popularity and use of their guide, and their skill, knowledge, expertise and reputation. My concern is that if they were ever to abuse that power there would be nothing to stop them. I feel if they wanted to (although its probable it would never happen) they are in a strong position to devalue or increase the value a coin or delve into some method of price fixing, especially where the more rarer ones are concerned because the they are not subject to the sheer volumes of that specimen for sale on ebay which as you rightly put it appears to help dictate the real value of what some one is prepared to pay for a coin.

I believe that if... lets say for example Spink dropped the value of a charles II crown from £5000 to £1000, as always supply and demand applies and prices would be beyond and below the guide price, but I believe the charles II crown would generally be traded at a lower price more reflective of the £1000 opposed to the £5000 on average taking into consideration all the sales of that particular coin.

If any other guide did the same I believe it would have no effect, or no where near the same effect as it did with the Spink book. That can be considered as a form of price fixing which is illegal.

I know that is a bit of a silly example any price drop to that extreme 400% would never happen, but I believe if Spink wanted to for what ever reason they are in a position of power to do so, and when anyone has that kind of power in any industry, I believe there needs to be some form of regulation in place just in case things start to happen like it did with Sotheby’s.

Even if we take spink out the equation, what regulating body is in place in the coin world to stop all the UK coin guides from forming some kind of cartel and fixing the price of certain coins in certain ways... probably will not happen but there is no watchful eye to make sure it doesnt.

[Red Riley 2]

Whatever the merits of your argument, and I accept it is not ideal that a major auctioneer should also publish price guides, in the real world regulation or even an investigation into their activities just is not going to happen. If Sotheby's and Christie's are the Tesco and Sainsbury's of the auction world, then Spinks are Patel's Corner Store. In all honesty, I have yet to see anything which I regard as fishy. Incompetence and muddle yes (does anybody remember the 2007(?)Coins of England debacle?), but anything designed to defraud, no. Any investigation would be horrendously expensive and could never be regarded as being in the public interest.

Like Rob and most other posters on this subject, I would underline that a 'guide' is just that and cannot take on a gospel-like status. To paraphrase Solon (and I'm not casting any aspersions here!), 'Price Guides are for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men'.

[Rob 3,152]

I think the only way I am going to be able to support my argument which is based largely on assumptions and probabilities is if I introduced some evidence which I think could only be obtained through carrying out an investigation.

The closest thing I can offer in comparison is the Sotheby’s case:

Sotheby’s and Christies, slightly different scenario with being an illegal cartel but in 2002 the office of fair trading had to step in because one of price fixing methods they used to ensure their fine art reached certain sales is to offer guide prices and value art at a level which allowed them to guarantee certain prices to the sellers. There is such a lack of regulation in the antiques market and look what happened, all kinds of illegal price fixing market driving things happened because there was absolutely nothing in place to keep an eye over things to make sure it doesn’t happen.

However I am not alleging that these things are currently happening now with coins and spinks, or are likely to in the future, I am saying there is nothing in place to stop them from happening if they did which is a problem. I would also have to re-evaluate spinks position within the market after some of the other comments, but I firmly believe that spink are the most influential driving force in the market with the popularity and use of their guide, and their skill, knowledge, expertise and reputation. My concern is that if they were ever to abuse that power there would be nothing to stop them. I feel if they wanted to (although its probable it would never happen) they are in a strong position to devalue or increase the value a coin or delve into some method of price fixing, especially where the more rarer ones are concerned because the they are not subject to the sheer volumes of that specimen for sale on ebay which as you rightly put it appears to help dictate the real value of what some one is prepared to pay for a coin.

I believe that if... lets say for example Spink dropped the value of a charles II crown from £5000 to £1000, as always supply and demand applies and prices would be beyond and below the guide price, but I believe the charles II crown would generally be traded at a lower price more reflective of the £1000 opposed to the £5000 on average taking into consideration all the sales of that particular coin.

If any other guide did the same I believe it would have no effect, or no where near the same effect as it did with the Spink book. That can be considered as a form of price fixing which is illegal.

I know that is a bit of a silly example any price drop to that extreme 400% would never happen, but I believe if Spink wanted to for what ever reason they are in a position of power to do so, and when anyone has that kind of power in any industry, I believe there needs to be some form of regulation in place just in case things start to happen like it did with Sotheby’s.

Even if we take spink out the equation, what regulating body is in place in the coin world to stop all the UK coin guides from forming some kind of cartel and fixing the price of certain coins in certain ways... probably will not happen but there is no watchful eye to make sure it doesnt.

The sheer volume of sales at diverse locations will ensure that there is no organised cartel operation within the coin auction business to ensure price fixing or whatever. The different buyers and sellers premiums charged is evidence that healthy competition is present across the market. If one house has a 5% charge and the next one 10%, it would be difficult to accuse anyone of fixing the hammer price as it would require the lower commission house to regularly record prices double that found at the 10% house. It simply isn't going to happen. There is also a voracious worldwide appetite for non- financial assets, other than the assets held in and by banks or other financial institutions where regulation applies and has demonstrably failed.

If you believe that Spink could rewrite the prices in their annual tome to their advantage, you must also believe that no parallel change in prices in the other main guides must be indicative of no collusion. I see collectors at fairs which fall into several categories. Assuming a guide is carried at all, the poorest and presumably least well educated collector in numismatic terms will carry around one of the two main alternative guides, whilst the most affluent will carry a copy of Spink by choice. Most of the purchases by the former are at the melt value end of the market, most of the latter are primarily concerned with quality. A mental note will be made of the Spink or CCGB etc price, but the overriding influence on whether to purchase will depend on the required boxes being ticked. Although never completely ignored, the price quoted will take second place to the scarcity or desirability of the piece in question. This alone will determine the price paid. If a coin is the best known for its type, the price is somewhat superfluous. If the only one available, the price will depend on demand (likely to be low in most instances). If the coin is common there will be sufficient data from past sales to know what the going rate is.

The main thrust of your argument appears to be what if something were to happen. In the absence of any evidence that it has happened or is happening, the logical thing is to do nothing. What would your opinion be if Spink adjusted their Fine prices in line with those achieved on ebay? You could end up with distorted guide prices where a lower grade coin was worth more than the mint state example in many cases, particularly for the modern stuff where ludicrous prices are achieved for material that should end up in the pot. As quality is relatively rare on ebay, this would distort prices at the top end because you would have to rely on conventional sales. As £400 for a penny noted, regulators are also self serving. Being a slave to a wage packet that comes from a body whose whole reason for existence is interference in the market place means you are hardly a disinterested party. In the absence of a concrete reason to interfere, leave well alone and let the individual make up his or her own mind.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

The thing is Mat, you've said yourself, there is no evidence that Spink behave in an underhand way.

OK, you may have half a point, but if we did have regulation, who is going to pay for it ?

Answer - all of us; dealers, auction houses and ultimately us collectors. As the new entity grew, it would become more and more expensive and to justify this, would suck in more and more of the independent talent that exists to drive up the quality of it's output and eventually we would have an organisation with the power to do exactly what you're saying Spink 'could do if they wanted to but aren't'

And we would have built a monster to deal with a problem that isn't happening but could, theoretically.

Ask the Banks how much fun that is, or the Merchant Navy, or Farmers.....

NURSE, Bring me my wine early today..

Love and respect to all, as always.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

By the way Rob,

I'm £450 for a Penny now...

[AardHawk 73]

Who left the asylum door open. Mat check yourself back in pronto.

[Rob 3,152]

By the way Rob,

I'm £450 for a Penny now...

Very good. What was the offending coin?

NB. If you want to get into proofs and patterns I could help you become four figures for a penny instead.

[Peckris 579]

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.

It depresses me immensely that you have come back to this forum without apparently reading any of the above reply I gave you, over which I spent quite some time and care. I've nothing more to say. Goodbye.

[Mat 2]

Sorry all I had a call out. And I am afraid I this will be my last post, and a short one because of my work schedule next week.

Peckris: I am sorry I didn’t mean to offend you, I did read all you wrote I just didn’t have a direct reply to what you wrote.

Rob: I have changed my perspective a little based on some of the things you have written in your post, I agree there is less likely hood of things happening with coins due to the sheer volume and nature of the industry, but I still tend to disagree with the idea of leaving them well alone without any concrete evidence. That’s how Sotheby's and Christies got away with their illegal operations for so long, no one had any idea what they were doing and no one knows how long for.

Rob & £450 for a penny: What my suggestion would be is the BNTA (or if there is a more relevant body in UK coins) have more of an active role in being a little bit of a big brother in practises that go on. After all BTNA ask for subscriptions don’t they? If people are going to spend the kind of amounts they do with coins, some transaction are more than the value of a house, there should be some form of redress if something is not right and the seller does not uphold the complaint, whether the issue is in regards to value, authenticity... or anything.

Each industry has some body they can turn to for redress, I just think coins should have something too, especially now all these Chinese fakes are rife anywhere. If spink or another auction house sold you a fake and they were adamant its real and refused to refund you, as far as I am aware there is no one really you can turn to that has the power to make the auction house secure the value of your funds until the investigation has been carried out, if the auction house were to then become insolvent during that process you have lost your money for sure. I don’t think it would take much effort and cost to have some simple form of regulation in place, or even a voluntary code of practise.

Sorry if anything I ever wrote offended anyone I had no intention of that

Kind regards

Mat

[Coppers 58]

Mat. I doubt very much that you offended anyone. It would take far more than having a sincere difference in opinion to do that. I certainly hope you will reconsider making the above post your last on this forum.

[coin watch 1]

I feel I have to commend all on this post, a brilliant and very relavent one. Well done to all above.

My input is simple, I am a collector and allways have been since a child. As a child my interest in coins was fuelled by the only books available to me at that time and that was the Seaby`s guide in the school library, I remember looking through it and thinking I would just love to own one of "those" coins but even then I knew that all I could do was admire the photo, as even then as a 12 year old coin novice I was able to see that the prices were out of my pocket money range but I was able to make this resposable decision myself.

So my point is that even as I child I recognised that the book in my hand was a guide and only that. I do not consider myself that well educated but I do like to consider myself able to make my own decisions. The hobby of coin collecting is just that a HOBBY and the reason that I am just as interested and more involved now in my 40`s than I have ever been before is the feeling it gives me of getting out of my every day life of rules and regulations which I find a constant drag.

Over the years I have tought myself in my chosen coin field with many coin references and books on the subject and also I have asked knowledgeable heads just because I have a genuine interest in my collecting. I know the prices have gone up considerably year on year but this has much to do with investment, even though in my opinion I don`t think the prices are that way out of what they should be, but if regulation ever enters the coin world it would be to control investment and greed, and if this day should ever come {god forbid} then this is when I would turn my back on my hobby and sell up, and I think others would too.

So please let the only thing in my life that is unregulated stay that way, and don`t underestimate the everyday coin collector - even the uneductaed one!

[Mat 2]

I feel I have to commend all on this post, a brilliant and very relavent one. Well done to all above.

My input is simple, I am a collector and allways have been since a child. As a child my interest in coins was fuelled by the only books available to me at that time and that was the Seaby`s guide in the school library, I remember looking through it and thinking I would just love to own one of "those" coins but even then I knew that all I could do was admire the photo, as even then as a 12 year old coin novice I was able to see that the prices were out of my pocket money range but I was able to make this resposable decision myself.

So my point is that even as I child I recognised that the book in my hand was a guide and only that. I do not consider myself that well educated but I do like to consider myself able to make my own decisions. The hobby of coin collecting is just that a HOBBY and the reason that I am just as interested and more involved now in my 40`s than I have ever been before is the feeling it gives me of getting out of my every day life of rules and regulations which I find a constant drag.

Over the years I have tought myself in my chosen coin field with many coin references and books on the subject and also I have asked knowledgeable heads just because I have a genuine interest in my collecting. I know the prices have gone up considerably year on year but this has much to do with investment, even though in my opinion I don`t think the prices are that way out of what they should be, but if regulation ever enters the coin world it would be to control investment and greed, and if this day should ever come {god forbid} then this is when I would turn my back on my hobby and sell up, and I think others would too.

So please let the only thing in my life that is unregulated stay that way, and don`t underestimate the everyday coin collector - even the uneductaed one!

Hi coin watch,

So what if... you bought the guilt proof 1806 and 7 halfpennies warwick and warwick were selling last year, you didnt have time to go to the viewing days so you placed an internet bid and won them. When they arived they were just normal halfpennies which goldish paint on them (which is true I think some forum members can vouch for me on these). If warwick and warwick wont let you return them because its their policy: sold as seen or somthing like that, what are you going to do? just accept the loss? Call trading standards? It would be nice if there is a body you can turn to that has the legal power to make the desicions on behalf of both parties such as an obmudsman or an alternative dispute resolution. In this particular case its a clear cut case that trading standards would be able to step in as the Distance Selling regulations apply on the basis of a misdescription otherwise auctions are normally excluded, if you bid on the day in person there is only contract law and the sales of goods act which are not strict liability in auction situations and the only real option is to go to a small claims court.

[Rob 3,152]

I think you will find that any responsible auctioneer will take back an item that has been wrongly described. As you say, in this instance the distance selling regulations already allow for cases such as this, so why introduce yet another (publicly funded) body to do the same job. In the last few years I have returned at least half a dozen items that were not as described to auctioneers as far away as the US and Australia. They have always refunded me despite the obvious difficulties I would have bringing a case for restitution in their local court should they decline to settle. Most businesses on this planet are legitimate and treat their customers fairly because they wish to have ongoing trade. Any business that tried to defraud someone of a large sum of money would soon have no customers because word of mouth is a very effective conveyor of good or bad news rather than a regulator which is frequently dealing with failures of procedure rather than substance. Large sums of money lost would rarely go unchallenged in the courts.

As regards the two 'gilt' pieces at W&W, one was a penny and the other a 1/2d as I remember. Nobody would have bid having viewed the lots, and if they were purchased blind by a bidder that person must have returned them because they appeared in the following sale as I recall and so the system would appear to be working. As a member of the BNTA, W&W would be obliged to adhere to their rules as a condition of membership. They are unlikely to relinquish their membership on the basis of an unwillingness to forego £100 or so in premiums.

If an item is listed sold as seen, I think this should be a binding statement. The seller has laid his cards on the table and the auctioneer has conveyed the message. If you haven't seen, then don't bid. The same could and should apply to ebay items. Caveat emptor. A person who needs to be saved from their own stupidity will only learn the hard way - if at all.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Rob

[Mat 2]

Caveat emptor. A person who needs to be saved from their own stupidity will only learn the hard way - if at all.

I couldn’t resist having a dabble back into this during my work lunch break!

In trading standards a phrase like "A person who needs to be saved from their own stupidity will only learn the hard way" theoretically has no place in regulatory services, all the stupid people that we could place in that boat would be considered as vulnerable consumers, and no matter how stupid they are regardless of fault or circumstances, they are still just vulnerable consumers and its trading standards job to protect them because the trader must always exercise all due diligence to ensure what they are selling is legitimate and must not mislead the consumer in any way.

As you said before its a specialist field and we cannot look at all aspects of coins in the same way we can at Levi Jeans or a Gucci Handbag, but the same trading laws should be applied to the transactions just as any other item in terms of buying, selling, descriptions etc unless there is explicit implied terms otherwise. In regards to "As a member of the BNTA, W&W would be obliged to adhere to their rules as a condition of membership." That’s very good, I admit I have not actually looked anything the BNTA do and requirements of their membership, that specific requirement is a good form of regulation in its self, I am guessing most of the auction houses or larger traders are all members of the BNTA, if not maybe it there should be some sort of rule that if a coin traders turnover exceeds a certain threshold maybe it should be compulsory for them to subscribe to the BNTA.. or somthing along those lines.

The gilt coins from w&w, I think I saw them at the auction after the one you saw them at, they sold at the auction I attended for I think £80 and £120 to a phone bidder, that’s the last I think any of us saw of them, it looked like car touch up paint to me!

In regards to regulating the trading of coins on ebay, that’s just a colossal task and x amount of additional laws come into play including several EC directives that would take us forever to get through, although as a platform for selling, theoretically ebay should regulate it.

In the Tiffany’s v Ebay US case, Tiffany’s had to employ two full time members of staff to just monitor ebay transactions to ensure all the items that were being sold were genuine. Ebay argued that its just a platform for people to sell and have no responsibility in the content listed as per their terms and conditions. The judge ruled that those terms and conditions are unenforceable and ebay have full responsibility in ensuring that the selling platform they provide protects buyers and trademarks and regulates seller listings accordingly, and were ordered to pay for the costs of employing the extra staff, and an amount of compensation reflective of the damage caused to Tiffany’s brand by allowing 1 in 7 (or some figure like that) Tiffany items to be sold that are fake. The figure came to millions!

Ebay’s Vero protection program should maybe extend to coins.

[coin watch 1]

Hi coin watch,

So what if... you bought the guilt proof 1806 and 7 halfpennies warwick and warwick were selling last year, you didnt have time to go to the viewing days so you placed an internet bid and won them. When they arived they were just normal halfpennies which goldish paint on them (which is true I think some forum members can vouch for me on these). If warwick and warwick wont let you return them because its their policy: sold as seen or somthing like that, what are you going to do? just accept the loss? Call trading standards? It would be nice if there is a body you can turn to that has the legal power to make the desicions on behalf of both parties such as an obmudsman or an alternative dispute resolution. In this particular case its a clear cut case that trading standards would be able to step in as the Distance Selling regulations apply on the basis of a misdescription otherwise auctions are normally excluded, if you bid on the day in person there is only contract law and the sales of goods act which are not strict liability in auction situations and the only real option is to go to a small claims court.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

You're not offending anybody Mat, maybe your views are, but that's not the same thing - it's always important to remember to separate human beings, from human doings.

I oppose your view that 'vulnerable' consumers need to be protected, I look at that as a licence to be lazy and not take responsibility for one's own actions. How does the saying go ? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

A healthy hobby needs a number of things; a regular flow of new blood (probably in this case provided by ebay), a network of dealers who are prepared to scour the ground for new items, stage fairs, auctions etc because it's worth their while and it's Aldermen, the experts.

If we regulate, ebay will stop coins like they stopped replica bullets, Iron crosses etc, because it becomes a ballache for them. The dealers will deal in something else because it's easier and more lucrative. The Aldermen will retire to their villas in Tuscany, shaking their heads in disgust.

And then we will have a very fair regulatory framework, but no hobby.

Many governments have had a very close look at gold coins in particular. My position does get harder to defend when one starts to talk in terms of triple unites, rose ryals, Henry VIII sovereigns etc. And I believe I'm right in saying that the last time I bought a gold coin from a London dealer, he asked me for my address as he is obliged to file a return, so if you were desperate for some more rules, I wouldn't object to something being put in place for individual coins with a value in excess of £20K - hell, there might even be something for all I know.

But leave the rest of us alone please ?

Rob, re £450 for a penny - I was being mischievious - arbitrarily inflating my self worth, without reference to any material, simply because I can.

Regards, as always.

[Rob 3,152]

Caveat emptor. A person who needs to be saved from their own stupidity will only learn the hard way - if at all.

I couldn’t resist having a dabble back into this during my work lunch break!

In trading standards a phrase like "A person who needs to be saved from their own stupidity will only learn the hard way" theoretically has no place in regulatory services, all the stupid people that we could place in that boat would be considered as vulnerable consumers, and no matter how stupid they are regardless of fault or circumstances, they are still just vulnerable consumers and its trading standards job to protect them because the trader must always exercise all due diligence to ensure what they are selling is legitimate and must not mislead the consumer in any way.

As you said before its a specialist field and we cannot look at all aspects of coins in the same way we can at Levi Jeans or a Gucci Handbag, but the same trading laws should be applied to the transactions just as any other item in terms of buying, selling, descriptions etc unless there is explicit implied terms otherwise. In regards to "As a member of the BNTA, W&W would be obliged to adhere to their rules as a condition of membership." That’s very good, I admit I have not actually looked anything the BNTA do and requirements of their membership, that specific requirement is a good form of regulation in its self, I am guessing most of the auction houses or larger traders are all members of the BNTA, if not maybe it there should be some sort of rule that if a coin traders turnover exceeds a certain threshold maybe it should be compulsory for them to subscribe to the BNTA. or somthing along those lines.

The gilt coins from w&w, I think I saw them at the auction after the one you saw them at, they sold at the auction I attended for I think £80 and £120 to a phone bidder, that’s the last I think any of us saw of them, it looked like car touch up paint to me!

In regards to regulating the trading of coins on ebay, that’s just a colossal task and x amount of additional laws come into play including several EC directives that would take us forever to get through, although as a platform for selling, theoretically ebay should regulate it.

In the Tiffany’s v Ebay US case, Tiffany’s had to employ two full time members of staff to just monitor ebay transactions to ensure all the items that were being sold were genuine. Ebay argued that its just a platform for people to sell and have no responsibility in the content listed as per their terms and conditions. The judge ruled that those terms and conditions are unenforceable and ebay have full responsibility in ensuring that the selling platform they provide protects buyers and trademarks and regulates seller listings accordingly, and were ordered to pay for the costs of employing the extra staff, and an amount of compensation reflective of the damage caused to Tiffany’s brand by allowing 1 in 7 (or some figure like that) Tiffany items to be sold that are fake. The figure came to millions!

Ebay’s Vero protection program should maybe extend to coins.

The rejection of the stupid person tag by the system is a fundamental reason why faith in government policies and institutions is sorely tested. Most thinking people take the view that few "vulnerable" people are unable to see that their actions may have consequences and feel that most know full well what they are doing and what they are trying to achieve. The vast swathes of people in this country who are unable to work through low educational standards, yet have knowledge befitting a doctorate in the operation of the benefits system and how to make the most of it leads to much well founded cynicism. Apologies for the digression, but I think we are talking about a parallel sample group to the uneducated buyer here.

You can't subscribe to the BNTA, you are invited to join. There is a minimum period (3 years) required for you to trade before you become eligible, but you still have to be invited. Chris who owns this forum is a member. There is no obligation on dealers outside the BNTA to follow any code other than to work within the law, but there is nothing to stop one following their code of conduct even if not a member and many choose to do so.

I don't know what eBay's Vero protection program is exactly, so can't comment. From a quick glance it appears to protect intellectual property, which would not apply to coins. I can say however, that when I contacted them regarding fraud on the site, I was informed that they don't deal with members of the public, I had to discuss it with the police who invariably are too busy and so nothing gets done. Since eBay have made accepting Paypal compulsory and therefore a virtual monopoly for payments I have mostly avoided eBay. I certainly haven't sold, as the automatic resolution in favour of the buyer with a full refund is a scammers paradise. They are making too much money to willingly crack down on any underhand behaviour.

[Rob 3,152]

Many governments have had a very close look at gold coins in particular. My position does get harder to defend when one starts to talk in terms of triple unites, rose ryals, Henry VIII sovereigns etc. And I believe I'm right in saying that the last time I bought a gold coin from a London dealer, he asked me for my address as he is obliged to file a return, so if you were desperate for some more rules, I wouldn't object to something being put in place for individual coins with a value in excess of £20K - hell, there might even be something for all I know.

Ironically, the rare or high end of the market is probably where the greatest security lies. As the really top pieces have in the main been illustrated somewhere over the past 100 years, a clear picture has been built up of where the choice and thus desirable rarities have been and currently are. Their recurring appearance is frequently illustrated time and time again for posterity. e.g. I have Brooker 1153 - a Worcester 2/6d. It isn't a particularly attractive coin and has quite a flat obverse, but is a unique example of a 2/6d known from the reverse die (although a single 1/- struck from the same reverse die is also known, Brooker 1170). As a result it was illustrated in the catalogues of Hamilton-Smith (1913), Vaughan Morgan (1935), Ryan (1952) and Vincent's article (1956) plus of course Brooker. If it wasn't rare it wouldn't have been illustrated. This gives a degree of comfort when trying to establish whether a coin is genuine or not. Hammered coins are as easy as anything else to make copies of, but very difficult to replicate as a coin with a specific provenance due to the many imperfections in shape and strike unless you have it in the hand and make a direct copy.