Once more, the hypothesis of "the smaller/worse the picture, the higher the price" appears

wybrit · October 22, 2006 9:41PM

Exhibit "A"

Who can tell what condition this coin is in, or whether or not it's been cleaned? Yet, it is at $41.00.

Aethelred · October 22, 2006 9:50PM

Hard to tell from the photo, but to me the coin looks like it has been cleaned, buffed and then cleaned again for good measure.

farthing · October 22, 2006 9:54PM

Sure looks well cleaned!

laurentyvan · October 22, 2006 10:05PM

I have learned to beware the background color on certain coins, makes it more difficult to spot cleaning to the untrained eye. This looks like such an instance.

FilamCoins · October 22, 2006 10:38PM

I agree with above posts. Guess winning bidder can always return it if not happy. Might be worth a shot if coin is truly rare.

MacCrimmon · October 22, 2006 10:48PM

Pumpkin.

....apropos for the season, eh?

Geeez, one of my earliest acquisitions was this "very rare" date farthing.......cool

AuldFartte · October 22, 2006 11:27PM

Even from the small pics, I'd avoid the thing because of the color (as Mac said) - it's been dipped, stripped and polished.

wybrit · October 23, 2006 9:55AM

I am amazed how many people want to take a chance on auctions such as these.

Now, I will concede that the coin may well be a BUFL gem. I have a lot of trouble with photographing full red pieces - some look washed out and even whizzed or cleaned - and they're not.

coinkat · October 23, 2006 10:03AM

I agree with the dead one. I really think the dead one's comments sum it up nicely... no need to repeat what was already written in a condensed and accurate manner.

coinpictures · October 23, 2006 10:05AM

Looks like it was ultraheavily cleaned. The copper is too "light" in color and exhibits no mint lustre whatsoever. If it were really an uncleaned BU, but with blown out highlights due to poor photography, you would most likely still see *some* evidence of lustre. XF cleaned, net VF IMO.