dicker

Nice fingerprint. £1.05 postage…..more than the coin is worth!

I think yes! These appear across a wide range of die numbers in 1871. I have not looked at Sovs in adjacent years - would be interesting. Die cracks do seem to repeat in the same areas on specific years, most interestingly sometime with different obv and rev errors.

Quite a tricky one but on balance the bit at the bottom looks quite regular and prob a “1” The 2 on the Die number is not that well executed but not unusual! Some more examples Die 22 Die 47 Die 30 Die 18 There are more that I have looked at but none that look like a 1 over 1! The links are embedded so I have not nicked the images!

Still think this is an interesting coin. if anyone has a similar coin it would be great to see a high def image. The ones I have seen are way less detailed.

So this is basically a failure of eBay to innovate. I wrote them a letter (not email) a year ago suggesting that they use some of the rarity and other “population” date for coins and gave them a basic design around how they could do this. I even suggested that I could do this for them for a fee… No reply received.

No excuse for misrepresenting what you are selling when there are standard references that confirm rarity.

You can price it at a million on eBay. Doesn’t mean it’s rare.

Sadly not an M!

Anyway the seller above seems to be a bit easily riled if anyone else wants to ask about his “Rare” coins!

Good on you! I don’t mind trying to help although what I find is people are defensive because they are either advertising counterfeit goods or mid describing the coins.

There is a particular type of photographer who can manage to get the background in focus not the subject of the image. All too common on eBay.

There are many candidates this week. Some for obvious fakes, some with photography that is just so awful you would think that someone had rubbed a tub of Vaseline on the lens. But this one was worth a mail to the seller. This 1885 is advertised as rare, it is not - Common in Marsh. I did the good eBay citizen thing and asked why the seller thought it was rare when it is common in Marsh - was there a feature that was not obvious from the poor quality photos? He was not a happy bunny AT ALL, and is arguing it is rare. I despair He has at least one other listed as rare…. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/304273045858?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=CsYvh18SRQG&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=bYgKomkjQOW&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Interesting more sold / available this year than I would have thought for a Marsh R3, but could just be random appearance on the market.

Sorry - I forgot to add that it looks like the rim is not of even thickness!

So this is for me an interesting coin. - The pearls of the necklace are almost popping off of the coin! More so than others I have seen of the 1887 S variety. - It is worn / polished - almost too shiny. - It looks to have been very well struck, with a lot of detail that is not seen on others I have seen. Take a look at the Drake Sterling example below. - There is an odd dot just adrift of the dragons head - But most interesting (odd) for me is the part I have attached as a pic. Looks more detailed than even proofs of the same date and mint! The detail I have put an arrow on I have not previously seen on a Sov in such defined detail - but is partially there on Double Sovs….just more clearly defined - I am pretty sure yours is a Sov rather than a double as the necklace consists of 13 pearls, whereas the Double has 14. Plus the more obvious difference in the number of jewels on the crown (6 on a Sov 7 on a Double) - The horses tail looks a little different to a couple of reference examples (but I am being picky) - What is the die alignment like - should be spot on - obv to rev when flipped. - 1887 doubles are heavily counterfeited….not sure about Sovs Anyone else have thoughts? Best Dicker https://www.drakesterling.com/1887-sydney-gold-sovereign-pcgs-ms63-17240931