THE NEW COIN CLUB
| # | Post |
|---|---|
| 7801 | 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 - 2016-09-06 20:07:00 |
| 7802 | The seller who routinely calls things "rare" is once again selling some thing that actually is, and I remain on his blacklist. Ahhh, the irony. echoriath - 2016-09-06 20:09:00 |
| 7803 | This message was deleted. jym - 2016-09-06 21:58:00 |
| 7804 | Cheers for the coin error links! brett21 - 2016-09-06 23:09:00 |
| 7805 | jym wrote:
He blacklisted me because I would ask him what he meant by "rare" when the coins so described had millions, sometimes tens of millions, made. No explanation was ever offered. I was just eventually blacklisted. He just sold a 1913-S Barber dime for $55. I'd have paid at least $75, maybe more. His loss. echoriath - 2016-09-06 23:56:00 |
| 7806 | echoriath wrote:
Wow looks like he might not of cleaned that one that is amazing. Just had a look at his other auctions and compared them to his other trademe account he uses for buying looks like all the NZ coins are cleaned again :-( mudeki - 2016-09-07 00:27:00 |
| 7807 | Yes got blacklisted for asking if a coin was cleaned, got no answer. So coin was cleaned, is dipped shame as l would pay a lot more if he didn't clean them. 35 - 2016-09-07 20:25:00 |
| 7808 | Bump ... translateltd - 2016-09-12 20:58:00 |
| 7809 | And another. Nothing interesting happening, coin-wise? translateltd - 2016-09-16 09:40:00 |
| 7810 | Been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon. Actually, I've been working so much, I've had little time to attend to numismatic matters. I did find a few more flawed one-dollar coins, though: I find so many flaws on the dollar coins, it's ALMOST not worth looking. On the other hand, it's fun to have such a high success rate. echoriath - 2016-09-17 22:14:00 |
| 7811 | This message was deleted. jym - 2016-09-17 23:21:00 |
| 7812 | This message was deleted. jym - 2016-09-17 23:27:00 |
| 7813 | jym wrote:
There sure is. Actually, I think the cud in the "D" is what I picked first on it. I set aside any coins that seem to have issues, then look again a few days later to see if the flaw was noticeable enough to merit saving. In looking back at them, I saw the lump behind the leg and missed the "D"! Thanks for that! echoriath - 2016-09-18 01:01:00 |
| 7814 | Egads, just got an FPO from someone selling 32 silver US quarters. They were listed for $324.50. They acknowledged in the listing the bullion value was what they were basing the list price on. I posted a question (well, a statement) saying that the bullion value was more like NZ$150. The response? "technically based on spot price but getting silver coins less than an oz for anywhere close to spot is impossible unless you get really lucky. 1/10 oz coins are around 5 or more each so $50 an oz. The pricing is comparable. Single silver quarter coins are listed on here for $10 - 25 or more for very rare ones. 30s and 40s quarters are valued slightly higher than 50s and 60s. The 1932 coins are rare. I put a lot of research into getting the price to where I feel it is about right for a set." The FPO? $324.50. echoriath - 2016-09-18 01:08:00 |
| 7815 | The FPO? $324.50.[/quote] Yes, and how many times do you also get the FPO at well above the shown reserve . gammoner - 2016-09-18 19:06:00 |
| 7816 | Prime example, listing 1160141509 closed tonight gammoner - 2016-09-18 22:12:00 |
| 7817 | gammoner wrote:
Maybe the message is "If you wanted it cheaper you should have bid while it was live"? :-) translateltd - 2016-09-19 08:58:00 |
| 7818 | translateltd wrote:
Was overpriced for me before it closed so sure as the sun comes up I wouldn't be remotely interested at a higher offer after the event. gammoner - 2016-09-19 18:04:00 |
| 7819 | Wide and narrow-date varieties of the 2014 20c have been confirmed, courtesy of Jason G. When the "narrow-date" (Type 2) coins first appeared in circulation it was clear that both obverse and reverse dies had been recut compared to the 2008 coins. Both sides of the newly discovered "wide-date" (Type 1) coins match the 2008 types, however, and would therefore appear to be earlier strikes than the Type 2 coins. translateltd - 2016-09-22 21:07:00 |
| 7820 | Very significant discovery as two easy to spot and intentional die types for the same coins have not circulated at the same time since the Strapless coins from 1956//57. As anyone else managed to find one in loose change? Before someone mentions it I dont count the 50 cent rope / no rope coins as I still believe this to be a mistake by the royal mint but that is a long story and still being researched mudeki - 2016-09-25 10:04:00 |
| 7821 | This message was deleted. jym - 2016-09-25 11:23:00 |
| 7822 | jym wrote:
There's a bit of urban myth about them but the basic story is they weren't quite the same spec as the existing $2 coins then in circulation (1990-91) and coin-operated machines rejected them. They weren't officially withdrawn but as I understand it, they were meant to be filtered out from coins returned to the banks and not re-released because of those problems. The South African Mint, which made them, claimed their coins matched the official spec correctly, but the previous ones made in Britain didn't - and that our machines had been calibrated wrongly as a result. Never quite sure about the actual facts regarding that part, however! translateltd - 2016-09-25 11:37:00 |
| 7823 | mudeki wrote:
I've not looked for any of the 2014 20 cent coins, but I will start now. What year(s) is the 50 cent rope/no rope? echoriath - 2016-09-25 14:35:00 |
| 7824 | Regarding the 1997 $2, I am intrigued. I know I have heard the story, but I need to keep things like that more present in my mind as I'm hunting for oddities. It seems odd to me that nearly two decades on the issues with it are still in the urban myth category. Presumably one could check against the specs on any piece circulating prior to 97, or since, for that matter. Or maybe I'm not fully understanding the issue. echoriath - 2016-09-25 14:43:00 |
| 7825 | Oh, I came across a 2010 $1 with a spikey chin. I think I've seen images of one previously, so nothing ground-breaking. I also have a couple of 2013 $1 pieces with an obverse die crack that runs from the bottom of the II of Queen Elizabeth II up to the bottom of the effigy, then parallel to the bottom edge of it a few mms above that bottom edge. Both also have a reverse die crack from the rim to the terminal end of the fern leaf behind the kiwi's bum. One of them also has a die crack that runs up along the same bit of fern and out to the rim up higher behind the kiwi's bum. Edited by echoriath at 3:10 pm, Sun 25 Sep echoriath - 2016-09-25 14:58:00 |
| 7826 | echoriath wrote:
1988 is the best year for circulation examples. You have to look closely but pics are in the "guide" part of the John Bertrand/Premier catalogue to help. A more immediate diagnostic is the shape of the J in the designer's initials, one of which has a much more prominent "curl" than the other. As Jason says, this is the subject of ongoing research as Type II coins are also found in 1984 unc and proof sets, and it's possible both dies date back to 1967 - more on this once more is known. translateltd - 2016-09-25 15:07:00 |
| 7827 | echoriath wrote:
We'd have to know what the intended specs were. If the 1990-91 coins were indeed "wrong", they became the de facto standard, with machines calibrated to suit them, and coins dated 1998 and later also had to match the standard of the 1990/91 issues. So 1997 is the odd one out, either way. translateltd - 2016-09-25 15:10:00 |
| 7828 | Any farthing collectors interested in a brockage. QV Early Head. Nice example. Cheers iamriff - 2016-09-25 20:17:00 |
| 7829 | This message was deleted. oldecurb - 2016-09-25 22:24:00 |
| 7830 | This message was deleted. jym - 2016-09-25 23:19:00 |
| 7831 | oldecurb wrote:
But they do look great in UNC but I do not recall seeing true UNC examples for sale in years. Some of the other staff I work with have 10 or 20 each in bags that now doubt are just sitting in a draw somewhere. One of them showed me at work a few months ago but wouldn't let me put them in flips. She also did not want to sell them when I showed the catalogue value according to her they should be worth more lol. mudeki - 2016-09-26 00:35:00 |
| 7832 | echoriath wrote:
Nice finds are the 2013 on the website? always interested in new faults mudeki - 2016-09-26 00:37:00 |
| 7833 | After a cursory search through 20 cent pieces, I found 12 of 100 dated 2014, one of which was a wide date. I'm left with a question: Why does the bank require that I be a customer before giving me change for a $50? A few banks in the US had the same policy officially, though most do not enforce it. Similarly, I've been asked if I'm a customer here before, but this was the first time in a while where the teller insisted on seeing my card. echoriath - 2016-09-26 17:37:00 |
| 7834 | Depends on the staff some times but one bank regardless of branch always ask me if I am a customer. I dont recall any policy enforcing it just comes down to customer service in my opinion. Nice find btw :-) Edited by mudeki at 5:57 pm, Mon 26 Sep mudeki - 2016-09-26 17:56:00 |
| 7835 | Sounds like Westpac. wasgonna - 2016-09-26 18:22:00 |
| 7836 | Hi pixelbutterfly - 2016-09-26 21:44:00 |
| 7837 | Year: 1933 Grade is key and hard to determine when starting out and remember the catalogue is a guide not a guaranteed value :-) mudeki - 2016-09-26 22:03:00 |
| 7838 | wasgonna wrote:
It's happened at both Westpac some tome ago and Kiwibank today. I asked the teller is they don't give change to non-customers. She said, "That's correct." Edited by echoriath at 11:41 pm, Mon 26 Sep echoriath - 2016-09-26 23:40:00 |
| 7839 | This message was deleted. jym - 2016-09-26 23:48:00 |
| 7840 | echoriath wrote:
I've had so many bad experiences with Westpac in its various incarnations in the past 30 years that I won't go near it and nothing surprises me. Disappointing about Kiwibank, though. translateltd - 2016-09-27 09:01:00 |
| 7841 | jym wrote:
Random find or were you searching 2014-dated coins for one? If the latter, how many did you look through before finding it, pse? translateltd - 2016-09-27 09:03:00 |
| 7842 | jym wrote:
Nice spotting mudeki - 2016-09-27 11:48:00 |
| 7843 | The member deleted this message. jym - 2016-09-28 13:54:00 |
| 7844 | echoriath wrote:
From the banks, are these in loose coins or the rolls? gammoner - 2016-09-28 21:56:00 |
| 7845 | The 20 cent pieces have been loose. I rounded out the first lot with one dollar coins, 25 of which came in a roll, the rest loose. I got another lot of one hundred 20 cent pieces yesterday from Westpac with no questions asked. I'm a customer at both Kiwibank and Westpac. I got the rest in loose two dollar coins. In 100 of the 20 cent pieces from yesterday, from memory there were four narrow date and three wide date 2014s, but don't hold me to that. I will double check when I get home. echoriath - 2016-09-29 10:11:00 |
| 7846 | echoriath wrote:
Wow that is not bad I have been getting an average of 2.2% of all the 2014 coins being the wide date the rest are narrow. mudeki - 2016-09-29 20:11:00 |
| 7847 | 2.2%? Interesting. The numbers on the second lot were correct: three wide, four narrow. A search of a further 100 this afternoon revealed another eight 2014s, one wide, seven narrow. I got the same Kiwibank teller as earlier in the week, though she did not appear to remember me and asked for ID again. She also commented that 100 twenty-cent coins was a lot of change. I gave some vague reply about , "It depends on your needs." I then pressed the question about why they don't give change to non-customers. She gave weak response about it being "a security issue" and refused to be drawn on further questions. If I get her next time and she makes a comment about how much change I'm after, I'll tell her I can't explain because it's a security issue. Since this was Kiwibank, I asked her if NZ Post had the same policy. She seemed uncertain, but speculated that, probably, yes they did. echoriath - 2016-09-29 21:39:00 |
| 7848 | echoriath wrote:
Haha "Security Issue" is a new one I have worked for a couple of banks and never heard that before. Must be something to do with the 2 banks you bank with they are the only two that ever ask me and I frequently visit all the others and never get asked. Others still let me exchange quantities of coins and notes. If you were changing smaller notes for larger I guess that would flag as suspicious transactions. Chances are your westpac branch have a change machine that will issue rolls of coins at no fee if you are a customer so you could do that without even talking to someone. Edited by mudeki at 8:28 am, Fri 30 Sep mudeki - 2016-09-30 08:20:00 |
| 7849 | You know, I go into the downtown Westpac so seldom now, I must have walked right by their change machine several times since whenever it was installed. Of four five dollar rolls of 20 cent pieces, three were straight from the reserve bank and contained nothing but narrow date 2014s. In the other roll from the armor guard company, there was one narrow date 2014. The rest were mostly 2006 and 2008. I did also go to BNZ (I think) in South Dunedin, which is also where I've been going to Kiwibank and Westpac until today. The lot of 100 coins from BNZ yielded 2 wide date 2014s and 14 narrow dates. echoriath - 2016-09-30 17:42:00 |
| 7850 | And over we go..... echoriath - 2016-09-30 17:42:00 |
