Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

oldcopper

Newmismatist
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    410

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by oldcopper

  4. Posted

    10 hours ago, secret santa said:

    I agree (although the Victorian copper proof penny prices seem to be going through the roof), but I used the comparison just to say that I didn't think the Medusa price was unreasonable. 

    I think the key desirability factor in the Medusa if it you can see her face, and this SARC specimen isn't too bad an example of that.

  6. Posted

    I wonder if everyone has found this, but when I type "Noonans" or "Noonan's" into Google all the results are for the (previously unknown to me) genetic disorder Noonan Syndrome. So I wonder how they are going to differentiate their website location from that? I don't think they've thought this through.

    They'll hardly want to, or even be able to, displace important medical information off the top of the search results.

  7. Posted

    On 5/6/2022 at 4:40 PM, 1949threepence said:

    Well he didn't with the bronzed ones mentioned. Are we to assume they were bronzed post mint as well?  

    Yes, of course, they are bronzed, mainly currency pieces. The reason he didn't list them is they're unofficial as well.

  8. Posted · Edited by oldcopper

    26 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

    At page 408 he mentioned the gilded coins, alongside the bronzed versions, as though they were official Royal Mint issue. If you'd missed the earlier point on page 391 (not difficult in a book that size), regarding no officially gilded copper or bronze, post George III, you could be forgiven for thinking he meant they were from the Royal Mint. It's the way it reads anyway.    

    Perhaps he phrased it ambiguously but if he did think they were official surely he would have given them a Peck number.

  10. Posted

    3 hours ago, secret santa said:

    I bought a bronzed 1857 from Sovreign Rarities a while ago.

    1195179512_1857P1514PTBronzedSovRobv.jpg.b6ba99ee5cd773585227f5a5050735c6.jpg

    That might be the coin originally sold by Baldwins as a bronzed proof (sale no.52) where Roland Harris bought it for ~£600. I saw it then and it was obviously a currency piece, so why Baldwins said it was "undoubtedly a proof" I don't know. 

    People presumably sussed this as it only made £190 at the Harris sale (LC 2009), with LC's description somewhat ambivalent about the proof designation.

  11. Posted

    51 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

    Should have noticed that the footnote in question continues over the page into 408, to include the 1858/7, the small date 1858, the 1858 no ww (and the 1859 copper proof, which isn't a currency penny).

    In the same footnote, Peck also goes onto say that there are gilded specimens of the 1841 no colon after reg and the 1853 OT. Although that somewhat contradicts his comments on page 391 where he says: "Gilt specimens of the copper and bronze coins of George IV to Victoria are occasionally met with, but these are only current pieces which have been gilded after leaving the Mint: no gilt specimens have ever been issued by the Mint".

    There was an unofficially gilded 1841 in the Colin Adams sale of 2003. Peck is saying that these post Soho examples are all unofficially gilded so he isn't contradicting himself.

  14. Posted · Edited by oldcopper

    On 4/7/2022 at 4:17 PM, PWA 1967 said:

    Thank you so much for the lists which arrived today ,i am really greatful 👍

    Pete.

    My first list from FS was just after John Minshull had got this fancy new typewriter with all the new fonts. Pre-computer it was cutting edge. It was a bound A4 light blue catalogue. The ones after that were just stapled I think and were always different colours, light green, orange etc. Always an exciting moment when his latest one popped through the door! They were all chucked out after I went to University but the dates were ~1977-1983. I wish I 'd kept some for memory's sake. 

    He really went to town on the rarities,  I remember a 1685 Charles II tin farthing got about a page of write-up.

    • Like 1

  16. Posted · Edited by oldcopper

    12 hours ago, VickySilver said:

    Ah thanks, when I saw it for sale I had to jump. Sadly, where we live the humidity is not kind to copper and so some of the "redness" has subdued. The lustre however is astonishing. Yes, wish it was the italic date/number 5.

    Here's mine, bought DNW auction Sept 2008 - quite a steep price (£260 hammer), and good lustre on the obverse, but a dark reverse. 

    https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?lot_uid=158753

    DNW's photography is somewhat flattering to the reverse!

    • Like 3

  23. Posted

    31 minutes ago, Bruce said:

    Crazily high.  Not only this one, but also other Crown, Halfcrown, Florin.....

    Hope it's not one of those fake Godless that were doing the rounds not so long ago in "NEF" condition. The colour does seem suspiciously uniform! 

  24. Posted

    10 hours ago, azda said:

    Cheers, sometimes you need to have dinner plates too see the finer details. I'm sending the files onto Rob, they'll be 20meg each as they are RAW files instead of jpegs. The actual coin is darker in colour, I just upped the brightness to get more visible detail. Once I can confirm the Peck number I'll try and get a more representative picture.

    Looked at Peck earlier and the of two obverses it could be, KH22 and KH23, Peck says the only difference is a flaw on the first G of GEORGIUS in KH23 - I can't  seen it at all in Peck's plaster cast photograph of KH23! Perhaps other people can spot it. However, your photographs give better resolution I suspect, and I can't see any flaw on these either.

  25. Posted

    10 minutes ago, azda said:

    The 1242 has a sub reference KH22 (1242 has a 7 jewelled brooch and as you mentioned is copper proof)the 1242 KH22 ists as

    Struck from current die, with K added before do (so only 1 dot) on the shoulder

    K on lowest fold of drapery

    Brooch with 6 square jewels

    Wreath has 11 leaves but no branching views visible

    Tie ribbons show 1 loopmwith 2 loose ends, not straited

    Small rust spot to the cheeks and another Ron lower lip

    REV

    Middle prong of trident points to left of first limn on N

    3 raised dots on rock

    Shield has thin raised rim

    14 leaves olive branch

    Ship has a poop with very small flag with 3 or 4 very minute relief gunport (pic isn't great to see this detail)

    It could be another variant, but was throwing it out there as my ballpark reference

    I've just checked and P.1242 is KH21 and has 3 dots instead of a K on the truncation.

    https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?lot_uid=404661

×