THE NEW COIN CLUB
| # | Post |
|---|---|
| 7451 | Welcome to the Coin Club. We are an assortment of newbies and oldbies, amateurs and experts with questions and answers for oldbies and newbies, amateurs and experts in coin collecting, also known as numismatics. Whether you are just getting started, have been collecting for years or have simply found some old coins about the place that you’d like to sell, this is the place to ask your questions. No one has all the answers, and you may get five differing answers to the same question, yet each may be right in a manner of speaking, especially if opinions are involved. Opinions often vary. If you receive no answer to your query within 48 hours, please ask again. echoriath - 2016-03-29 13:03:00 |
| 7452 | wasgonna wrote:
He turns into a pumpkin. echoriath - 2016-03-29 13:04:00 |
| 7453 | wasgonna wrote:
I turn into a dangerous creature that's too tired to drive. translateltd - 2016-03-29 13:48:00 |
| 7454 | Ok, at the risk of asking a silly question, why is the Aussie $2 smaller than the $1? The internet had answers, but they did not really make sense. one argument is that the $2 was released after the $1, and since the latter was already quite big, they had to make the former smaller. But then I read somewhere else that the planning for the $2 went back to the 70s, which appears to have been true of the $1 as well. Had the Aussie mint officials spent the evening at the pub the night before the big planning meeting? echoriath - 2016-04-02 20:14:00 |
| 7455 | Time keeps on slipping, slipping.... echoriath - 2016-04-03 02:58:00 |
| 7456 | into the future..... echoriath - 2016-04-03 02:01:00 |
| 7457 | echoriath wrote:
I understood the higher-value coins were to to be in proportion, too, and the future circulating $5 will be struck on a pinhead. translateltd - 2016-04-03 15:47:00 |
| 7458 | Turned up in my change. Is it of interest? Edited by bambam at 9:31 am, Mon 4 Apr bambam - 2016-04-04 09:30:00 |
| 7459 | bambam wrote: 35 - 2016-04-04 09:57:00 |
| 7460 | bambam wrote:
Yes of interest it was mentioned here a few weeks ago and the trader posted it to me for photos for my website (currently not working after a server upgrade) jym wrote:
I also purchased on on trademe a couple of weeks ago for $20 listing 1053944845 so 35's pricing is spot on mudeki - 2016-04-04 19:04:00 |
| 7461 | This message was deleted. svenk - 2016-04-04 20:46:00 |
| 7462 | svenk wrote:
Maybe worth a local trip down to Battys Road to see if genuine or just a token. gammoner - 2016-04-04 22:04:00 |
| 7463 | This message was deleted. jym - 2016-04-04 22:52:00 |
| 7464 | svenk wrote:
Large copper coin, 37 or 41 mm? Would depend entirely on condition - can you post a pic of each side pse? translateltd - 2016-04-05 10:31:00 |
| 7465 | Know this is called coin club, I have a banknote question is there a book with values of NZ specimen notes in it? Thanks 35 - 2016-04-08 18:08:00 |
| 7466 | Listing 1061624267 is probably what you're after. New issue each year. wasgonna - 2016-04-08 19:06:00 |
| 7467 | 35 wrote:
Not really. Alistair's books list some of the earlier trading notes with values although those are outdated now for the most part. Scott De Young's books detail many of the decimal ones but no values. There is no comprehensive guide and pricing. Best bet is to check past auctions. numismatist - 2016-04-08 19:23:00 |
| 7468 | Hi guys, I have an 1884 Carson City Mint Morgan Dollar in a presentation case with a piece of paper of authenticity... Roughly what would i be looking at price wise on trade me? cashintheattic - 2016-04-08 20:52:00 |
| 7469 | cashintheattic wrote:
Pretty sure this was the highest mintage year for the CC Morgan. gammoner - 2016-04-08 21:07:00 |
| 7470 | So I would be better to list on another auction site then as they are going for between $200-$400 USD. This was one that was put into a presentation box by the GSA gammoner wrote: cashintheattic - 2016-04-08 21:59:00 |
| 7471 | cashintheattic wrote: gammoner - 2016-04-08 22:03:00 |
| 7472 | The 2012 Red Book actually shows more than 1,100,000 of the 1884-CC Dollars having been made. As always, a lot will depend on the condition. Book (retail) value shows from U$135 in VF up to U$225 in MS-60. You might get half that on TM, and more is not impossible. Depends on how well the photos show the state of it and who turns up on the day. As you doubtless know, you could also get less. Carson City coins have a certain allure because some of them ARE exceptionally rare, and since it ceased operations in the late 1800s, there's an immediate sense of age, and an assumed sense of value, for all coins produced there. Rules of quantity and quality still apply. Gammoner makes a very relevant comment about large hoards of silver dollars found in storage in US Treasury vaults in the 1960s, many of which, with the exception of a fair few CC ones, were released to the public at the time. The CC ones were held back and sold at a premium as gammoner explained. It turns out that dollar coins have never really been popular for circulation in the US, and that remains true with more recently minted dollar coins. Maybe one day they will realize that they need to retire the greenback if they want people to use the coins. echoriath - 2016-04-09 12:10:00 |
| 7473 | This message was deleted. jym - 2016-04-09 12:48:00 |
| 7474 | jym wrote:
Thanks Jym . Will see how long it lasts as I still can not access the entire database or install anything to it so may still have to reload most of it. So much for this being a simple upgrade to a faster server that the hosting company would do for me. I have called them so many times it is not funny but have managed to tidy up the image files a bit so it should not take to long if I need to start again mudeki - 2016-04-09 18:53:00 |
| 7475 | bump cashintheattic - 2016-04-14 11:40:00 |
| 7476 | has noble sent out any invoices yet? dtpapa - 2016-04-14 14:19:00 |
| 7477 | Am I missing something here? 1065528039 dtpapa - 2016-04-14 19:34:00 |
| 7478 | Good Xmas Pudding fodder ? funho1 - 2016-04-14 19:57:00 |
| 7479 | echoriath wrote:
The US1 coin will never be popular because the Americans want to retain the $1 note for their dreaded tipping habit. Many Americans would be embarrassed to hand over a coin as a tip but a note is handed folded to a waiter, a door hop or somebody parking your car and quickly put into the pocket and you are off before the person tipped can check out that it is only a $1 note and not one of higher value. That's also why their size and colour is similar. kiwisteven - 2016-04-14 22:02:00 |
| 7480 | echoriath wrote: kiwisteven - 2016-04-14 22:06:00 |
| 7481 | This message was deleted. oldecurb - 2016-04-14 22:40:00 |
| 7482 | oldecurb wrote:
I think insurance is out of the question, and if it's anything larger than an ordinary envelope, I understand some folks use the NZ Post print-your-own-postage-label function now to avoid awkward questions. You still need a Customs slip that describes the contents accurately without using the word "coins" though. translateltd - 2016-04-15 10:04:00 |
| 7483 | jym wrote: Minting machine maybe? lol hunter69 - 2016-04-16 13:52:00 |
| 7484 | kiwisteven wrote:
Haha, yes, that may be, though as you hinted at, a mere single is a tip you only give when no one can spit in your food or brutalize your luggage. Nowadays, it's probably gotta be a minimum of a five. The one place this may not be the case is in nude bars, and my working theory is that THAT is the principle reason they won't do away with the single: It's hard to get a coin to stay in a g-string. I guess it could be inserted into a slot of some sort.... echoriath - 2016-04-16 14:38:00 |
| 7485 | kiwisteven wrote:
Interesting. Thanks for that. echoriath - 2016-04-16 14:39:00 |
| 7486 | echoriath wrote:
Just waiting for the day a debit card using a swipe action will be the order of the day. gammoner - 2016-04-16 14:59:00 |
| 7487 | The member deleted this message. heslington - 2016-04-18 18:52:00 |
| 7488 | Looking at the edge of the coin should tell you all you need to know. If you see a brown colour sandwiched between silver-coloured outer layers, it is the standard issue, cupro-nickel-clad copper. If it is solid silver-coloured, then it certainly has a chance of being the rare one. How about posting a picture of the edge of it here? echoriath - 2016-04-18 20:26:00 |
| 7489 | 1059803059 This is going down the gurgler quickly, as one might expect. echoriath - 2016-04-18 20:39:00 |
| 7490 | This message was deleted. heslington - 2016-04-18 21:15:00 |
| 7491 | Sometimes otherwise normal planchets (blank coins yet to be pressed with the design) can be overweight due to irregularities in the thickness of the metal when rolled out. Technically, this could be considered an error, and if they are unusually thick (or thin), as in noticeable to someone who would not normally pay attention to such things, they may have collectable value. Sometimes that thickness or thinness affects the details in production. As for the normal silver planchets, they were 90% silver and 10% copper, but the metals were mixed together (an alloy), which is why the silver planchets have one uniform colour on the edge. The idea is that the last of those would have been made officially in 1964, but maybe a few of the old planchets were stuck in the production line or something and got manufactured on the 1965 dies. It happened with US pennies in 1943 and 1944 as well, the 1943 meant to be a zinc-plated steel penny. Some 1943 pennies were made on copper planchets left over from the 1942 run, and some 1944 pennies were made on steel ones left over from 1943. I have not read about it recently with the quarters, but your query had me searching the web: So in the 1965 quarter, there is a pure copper core sandwiched between outer layers of 75% copper alloyed with 25% nickel. This is the same mix as used in the US Nickel coin, though the nickel (silver) colour is dominant in the alloy. However, the Nickel is made entirely of the 75/25 mix. The Quarter has that center piece of pure copper with a piece of 75/25 copper/nickel alloy stuck on either side, giving it the appearance of a very thin Oreo cookie, so to speak. Hope that makes sense. FWIW, it is also possible to find the same thing with the Dime, which had the same composition change at the same time. Edited by echoriath at 9:44 pm, Mon 18 Apr echoriath - 2016-04-18 21:40:00 |
| 7492 | This message was deleted. heslington - 2016-04-18 22:20:00 |
| 7493 | echoriath wrote:
$605 for a bunch of Chinese forgeries? translateltd - 2016-04-18 23:22:00 |
| 7494 | translateltd wrote:
OK, hadn't noticed it was an old auction ... translateltd - 2016-04-19 00:16:00 |
| 7495 | Yeah, sorry, my attention was only drawn to it by the buyer, who came onto the MB at the weekend in Trade Me Discussion to get some thoughts on the pile of rubbish he ended up with, and to say he was having no joy with the seller, who was playing ignorant on the authenticity. That despite the $250 Buy Now that the auction apparently started with. I don't know who to fault more for not checking up on the coins, since the Trade Dollar would have told anyone that these were likely rubbish. The Buy Now and the location of the auction (NOT in Coins) got my dander up concerning the seller, but clearly two buyers (or a sucker and a shill bidder) thought they were onto something. Don't look for the thread in the TM Discussion, as it got deleted amidst allegations of libel! There's a thread on libel now that's sort of taken the place of the original thread. Edited by echoriath at 6:14 am, Tue 19 Apr echoriath - 2016-04-19 06:13:00 |
| 7496 | Seems it was listed in the wrong category. Otherwise it no doubt would have come to the attention of those who could ask a relevant question or two before auction ended. While I would agree it is unfair to make an accusation against the seller based on what he might or might not have known prior to auction end, I do believe that once he was made aware that the coins were fake he was honour bound to offer a return with full refund. dtpapa - 2016-04-19 06:43:00 |
| 7497 | I did notice on the auction question page the bidder who finished second offering their congrats to the winner!! dtpapa - 2016-04-19 06:45:00 |
| 7498 | With that profile pic I would have second thoughts about bidding on any of the other crap that seller might have on offer! dtpapa - 2016-04-19 06:47:00 |
| 7499 | Nice, positive feedback today from a buyer who made it a little difficult to reciprocate, unfortunately - sale was on 18 March, I didn't hear anything for a while so contacted him and he blamed his remote location and no mail pickups over Easter (25-27 March) ... the cheque finally arrived on 12 April, written on the *4th* and posted a few days after that. More hassle than a small trade was worth, including going back to TM to cancel the transaction and then uncancelling it again. translateltd - 2016-04-23 14:13:00 |
| 7500 | Who's using cheques in 2016?!?!? Hell, he might have just paid you with a collectable item!! 7500!!! Woooooooott!!! Edited by echoriath at 4:45 pm, Sat 23 Apr echoriath - 2016-04-23 16:44:00 |
