THE NEW COIN CLUB
| # | Post |
|---|---|
| 7901 | 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. gammoner - 2016-10-22 10:57:00 |
| 7902 | gammoner wrote:
Indeed, our very own mudeki sold one recently for $8. echoriath - 2016-10-22 19:24:00 |
| 7903 | Any thoughts on this? 1186800417 paulmc - 2016-10-24 15:18:00 |
| 7904 | paulmc wrote:
Struggling to make sense of what they've done - have photocopied bits with the same design been pasted on top to try and create a 3D effect? translateltd - 2016-10-24 17:24:00 |
| 7905 | This message was deleted. jym - 2016-10-26 19:59:00 |
| 7906 | jym wrote:
The ANZAC is a real find, since so few seem to have actually made it into circulation :-) translateltd - 2016-10-27 06:40:00 |
| 7907 | paulmc wrote:
I suspect it must be a defect in the paper manufacture rather than something done while the note was in circulation -I'd ask the seller. dtpapa - 2016-10-27 07:22:00 |
| 7908 | Listing #: 1186800417 ? My thoughts.... pants front zipper with pocket creases + hot iron = for $338 i think i could make one. coins-online - 2016-10-27 20:48:00 |
| 7909 | doesn't look to me like a zipper did that? dtpapa - 2016-10-28 12:49:00 |
| 7910 | I don't know about the note. It's a strange one, but looks like it came that way from the factory, in which case the market sets the price. I have no idea how it would get like that. echoriath - 2016-10-30 20:41:00 |
| 7911 | the 1965 1/2Cr is said to have a mintage of only about 10, so the chances were not really very good! 1187496143 dtpapa - 2016-11-02 08:46:00 |
| 7912 | wow! talk about shock and awe bidding tactics! 1181733036 you can just imagined how stunned opposition bidders were after seeing this brilliant shot, probably by the time they had regathered their senses the auction had ended! Who knows what the final price might have been had the bidding proceeded by the usual small increments, $200, $250 perhaps? Kudos to the winner! dtpapa - 2016-11-02 10:35:00 |
| 7913 | dtpapa wrote:
And I'd better regrade my AU items as super-cameo wonder proof 70+++ into the bargain. translateltd - 2016-11-02 10:52:00 |
| 7914 | dtpapa wrote:
Pop one out of a polished set and could you really tell the difference compared to a full proof? I've heard claims they were all part of the same run and the difference is just in the packaging, but have no way of substantiating it without access to the 1965 mint report. translateltd - 2016-11-02 10:54:00 |
| 7915 | translateltd wrote:
I think the coins in the 1965 ballot sets and the polished set in the cellophane packaging are identical (both polished specimen coins), what I was referring to when I mentioned the mintage of 10 was a genuine proof coin. I suppose the ballot sets were earlier strikes than the latter polished set, so might be a little better? dtpapa - 2016-11-02 11:39:00 |
| 7916 | dtpapa wrote:
I'm talking about the 10 "full proofs". The strike quality of the polished coins is very good and the point one of our colleagues made is that if they're virtually indistinguishable, could that not mean they were just part of the same run anyway? It's pure speculation and I genuinely don't know. Just putting the idea out there. translateltd - 2016-11-02 11:44:00 |
| 7917 | Here are the dollars from the "full proof" and "polished" sets. The photos are old, and not of great quality, for which I apologise. How different do they look? Or even, which is which? translateltd - 2016-11-02 11:50:00 |
| 7918 | I'd say the 2nd one is the genuine proof, but if they are identical dies then I would agree it would not seem to make much sense to pretend they are different(could be argued it is a bit tricky to do so, like with the ballot sets which cost a lot more, basically you are paying for the nice case, who knows what coins are really in there?) But they do seem to have done low mintage runs in the past. The 1947 florin is supposed to have a mintage of about 20, and here's one on ebay right now! Edited by dtpapa at 12:22 pm, Wed 2 Nov dtpapa - 2016-11-02 12:20:00 |
| 7919 | Nope, first is the proof. I'm aware low-run proofs (sometimes even just pairs) were made in many years prior to 1965, but there weren't commercial runs being done at the same time in those other years. That's why I'm tempted to agree that the situation could be different in 1965 (and 67, and 70). There's a 1970 VIP proof set in the RNSNZ collection too, which I must try and compare alongside the commercial semi-proofs sometime. translateltd - 2016-11-02 12:30:00 |
| 7920 | yes I don't recall seeing any 1965 or 1967 proofs for auction, but there have been 1963 proofs offered, for e.g. http://www.noble.com.au/auctions/lot/?id=260548 and a whole bunch of them dtpapa - 2016-11-02 19:47:00 |
| 7921 | I see nzinverters is now in the coin SELLING business, probably no point in continuing with the pretence once you have been exposed! dtpapa - 2016-11-03 18:48:00 |
| 7922 | hi people, there's a thread over in General, a question regarding a Chinese coin (a large one by the looks of it, 11cms width). Interested in answers too, so anyone? dutchlegz - 2016-11-05 14:21:00 |
| 7923 | dutchlegz wrote:
Posted on the other page just now too: I've checked further and there was an emperor with that reign title from 1506 to 1521 - but the "coin" is much later, as I noted. Edited by translateltd at 3:29 pm, Sat 5 Nov translateltd - 2016-11-05 15:22:00 |
| 7924 | Here's a Japanese auction page that lists several different varieties of different sizes with this character combination. The one toward the bottom of the page with two characters on the reverse rather than a picture might be a real coin. Edited by translateltd at 3:26 pm, Sat 5 Nov translateltd - 2016-11-05 15:26:00 |
| 7925 | Here's more on the emperor himself, for anyone interested: translateltd - 2016-11-06 07:21:00 |
| 7926 | Please someone ... stop me from buying this beauty. I can hear it calling meeeeee. Edited by wasgonna at 9:43 am, Sun 6 Nov wasgonna - 2016-11-06 09:42:00 |
| 7927 | On initial inspection, I felt like this was a big scratch. I'm having difficulty under magnification deciding if it's possibly actually incuse or relief, so to speak. From the photo, I feel like it is actually a raised crack. https://trademe.tmcdn.co.nz/photoserver/full/527622961.jpg Anyone seen anything similar, or an early or later stage of this? The date is 2010. echoriath - 2016-11-06 22:06:00 |
| 7928 | echoriath wrote:
Cant say I have seen that one before. mudeki - 2016-11-06 22:27:00 |
| 7929 | echoriath wrote:
Odd - it looks incuse on the 2nd photo but relief on the 3rd. Are you able to run a fingernail over the line below the beak to see if you can distinguish by feel? translateltd - 2016-11-07 09:09:00 |
| 7930 | lol, http://www.noble.com.au/auctions/lot?id=366991 dtpapa - 2016-11-07 10:06:00 |
| 7931 | dtpapa wrote:
There's quite a jump in wear between that and lot 647! A bit slack if the folks at Noble's just looked at the US grade on the slab and "translated" it without looking at the actual coin. translateltd - 2016-11-07 15:09:00 |
| 7932 | dtpapa wrote:
My 1934 has stronger detail than that - I should have sent it to NGC, or Noble's! Edited by translateltd at 3:40 pm, Mon 7 Nov translateltd - 2016-11-07 15:38:00 |
| 7933 | Hi Martin -what grade do you reckon your 1934 florin is? MS 62 I'd say, as a bit of a guess? I reckon noble did look at that 1936, and I'm fairly certain they know the grade is very dodgy, and their value estimate is far too much, I'd say no more than $100 would be closer to the mark, and that still might be on the generous side!. dtpapa - 2016-11-07 16:09:00 |
| 7934 | dtpapa wrote:
I don't really do numbers but definitely in the AU range as a minimum by me. US grades would doubtless push it into the range you're talking about. As I say, it was in a "calibration set" of different grades by an older dealer as the "UNC" example. Maybe I should have hyped it up a bit more - I don't really want to give it away. translateltd - 2016-11-07 16:42:00 |
| 7935 | dtpapa wrote:
Because you can get more by overgrading a '36 than you can for other years? translateltd - 2016-11-07 18:47:00 |
| 7936 | what is the best way to photograph a coin? Or is scanning it the better option? kiwihawk - 2016-11-07 18:56:00 |
| 7937 | kiwihawk wrote:
Scanning will work, but using the 'macro' function on a digital camera will get a better result. I find I can get reasonable pictures by placing a coin on a black background, making sure I'm not going to cast a shadow, and holding my phone steady above it by resting my elbows on the bench-top. translateltd - 2016-11-07 19:31:00 |
| 7938 | dtpapa wrote:
I thought this happened with every "rare" low mintage coin even the 1942 6d in the auction looks less than UNC compare it to the next listing of the 1943 that is better detail. Would rather buy your ones dtpapa ;-) mudeki - 2016-11-07 19:50:00 |
| 7939 | this looks like one of the better noble's, at least for NZ coins, I'd almost be tempted to spend up big, except for the prospect of almost certainly having to pay gst? Did anyone spend up at the last noble but managed to avoid gst? I know when buying from ebay I've on occasion spent way more than the alleged 400 threshold, but as yet have not been charged gst, even though the value was declared. I don't think customs look very closely, if at all, at small packages? Btw, some interesting NZ proofs there! dtpapa - 2016-11-07 19:59:00 |
| 7940 | yes Martin I was hoping I might pick that 1934 up cheap, but I see rhino45 has made an appearance. Given the prices he has recently paid for some very very average coins I don't fancy my chances so much! Edited by dtpapa at 8:04 pm, Mon 7 Nov dtpapa - 2016-11-07 20:03:00 |
| 7941 | dtpapa wrote:
I have only heard one comment and that buyer got charged heavily. :-( Better to pop over I suspect cheaper to. Now I just need a passport oh and some spare money to take with me mudeki - 2016-11-07 20:19:00 |
| 7942 | kiwihawk wrote:
Depends what you are trying to achieve and what type of coin it is. Highly reflective or proof coins are annoying and scanners tend to have issues but older duller coins are easier. As Translateltd said new phones do quite well or making sure you have the macro (flower button) on you camera turned on. The key thing for me would be getting the coin all in focus showing the right amount of detail. mudeki - 2016-11-07 20:36:00 |
| 7943 | mudeki wrote:
maybe we could have a whip-round, and send you over there with our bidding directions, and then you can sneak our winnings back into the country? dtpapa - 2016-11-07 21:21:00 |
| 7944 | Hi all. Just thought I would share a recent purchase from an auction house in Canada. I recently purchased this lot for around $200 NZ shipped. https://trademe.tmcdn.co.nz/photoserver/full/528077807.jpg bd30 - 2016-11-08 10:01:00 |
| 7945 | bd30 wrote:
Sounds like a very nice result. I am not the greatest fan of grading companies but see the advantages of it and they do seem to be getting better with grading. I have even been wanting to send stuff to PCGS for a few months not but haven't got around to working it all out yet mudeki - 2016-11-08 10:16:00 |
| 7946 | When PCGS release the photo's I'll post them. I agree with the comments about the 1936 florin. Both PCGS and NGC seem to over grade the lower spec coins. Not sure why. bd30 - 2016-11-08 10:28:00 |
| 7947 | bd30 wrote:
holy sh!t, that 1940 MS64 is a result alright. That's $1000+ alone. dtpapa - 2016-11-08 10:33:00 |
| 7948 | out of interest what was the estimated value given as? dtpapa - 2016-11-08 10:56:00 |
| 7949 | Between $250-350CAD. I thought that was quite a low est. bd30 - 2016-11-08 11:01:00 |
| 7950 | a very low estimate if the coins were accurately described. dtpapa - 2016-11-08 11:03:00 |
