oldcopper

Being 1696 it's first bust - sometimes the ties did not strike up, maybe a facet of this Chester die.

I'm straying off the subject here Rob, apologies, but while you were there did you see the 1672 silver proof halfpenny in the Blackburn Museum? Probably unique and in beautiful condition. They sent me a photo of it once and it looked the equal of the BM 1673 silver proof (Peck plate coin). And separately again, whatever happened to Noble's silver pattern quatuor maria vindico halfpenny P403 (Glens 1973). Disappeared into the ether? That was a fantastic coin as well.

Here's a spectacular one - recently a coin went at DNW for £300 hammer, then advertised by a dealer (presumably the auction buyer) at £1200 then another dealer sold it at £2,950 (and it has sold). All in the space of a few months. However, it did go for £1900 in 2004 and later Spink (in an SNC) had it for £1550. That's some sinusoidal curve!

Possibly, but the Boulton family coins were privately sold, usually immaculate restrikes, and usually slabbed with "ex Boulton family" on the slab. This coin was sold HA June 2006 (Lot 13032) unslabbed and unprovenanced, which I would be surprised by if it had been ex-Boulton. It was subsequently sold DNW 2009 Coinex Auction Lot 3079 (Dave Wallis collection) before I picked it up in a Baldwin's sale late 2012. The two tiny green spots below bust and in exergue are good identifiers. I don't know of any photographic archive of the Boulton family collection and would be interested to know of one.

It's worth checking on provenances (ie comparing photo from the original source if available) sometimes because even the most reputable sellers can get it wrong. I bought an 1806 proof penny at auction a few years ago, couldn't tell whether it was bronzed or not so I sold it on. I had traced it previously through a couple of earlier sales (as it had distinctive marks so was easy to identify), but never was any provenance given. Anyway, it then turned up at LCA a few months later which said "vendor states ex Boulton" then later it was in the Copthorne collection where this had turned into a definitive "ex Boulton".

You should see what some people try and flog 1913 1/3 farthings for - now that's inflation for you!

Final update on the H/KN mintages, James Sweeny in his book "A Numismatic History of Birmingham Mint" gives the calculated mintages of each Heaton year (which he says are "based on RM and Heaton's records, and are deemed acurate by the RM"): 1918H - 2,572,800 which gives 1918KN - 1,088,000 1919H - 4,526,034 which gives 1919KN - 683,566 by subtraction from the Coincraft combined totals.

Quoting myself, first sign of madness. I've looked at Coincraft now and they combine the H and KN mintage figures: 1918 Royal Mint - 84 million 1918 H+KN - 3,660,800 1919 Royal Mint - nearly 114 million 1919 H+KN - 5,209,600. So 1918 provincial issues should be rarer than 1919; which if 19KN was lower mintage that 18KN, means 19H much higher mintage than 18H, which backs up the findings. I'm surprised the RM went to all the trouble of contracting out when the extra output only added up to a few percent.

I think Coincraft's catalogue mention mintage figures for 1918/19 H/KN's but I haven't got it to hand. From memory the rarest is as expected the 1919KN and it may be more19H's than 18H's were minted. I don't know where Coincraft (if it were them) got the figures from as I haven't seen them anywhere else.

The W.W. seems too large as well.

The Waterboard collection (sorry, I thought I'd crack that lame joke before anyone else did!) is now on Spink's website. Some die number/die letter Victorian bronze but mainly gold and silver. Nice to look at and many fantastic coins! Many are in Waterbird-customised slabs, which is the main attraction of course. I notice the collector (Al Batross?) bought a few items from Mark Rasmussen's Noad list but they haven't mentioned the modern provenance of these pieces for some reason, only the old ones. This is a habit some auction houses are forming.

In my experience, the archive has never worked - always comes up with "no lots found" however broad the search parameters

Yes, it was the Alderney coin, went for £3250 back then ( in 2007).

I think the Wm III double obverses are slightly less rare than sometimes claimed - I picked one up at the Midland coin fair for ~£100 15 years or so ago. Lustrous as struck...no, pretty awful condition as usual.

Bramah mentions Very Good and Good as grading terms (below Fine as nowadays), and that was in the 20's. So it's been around for some time in the UK and thus maybe originated here. Don't know either way. It might be like putting a z in words like realize - now American English but in fact old English.

Yes, they're all nice examples.

The 1808, 1937 and which other?

I think both the recent decent grade ones (the Bates and Pywell-Philips) were both from different dies and had thinner 8's. Doesn't mean there aren't other dies out there, but it would be a massive figure if it was an 8. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=316038 and the Pywell-Philips one:

Could be the far commoner 1696 with a different 6. You may have trouble selling it as the rare '98.

I remember viewing a 1694 and 1717 halfpenny in the first Gregory sale (Baldwins May 206) and their orange lustre was breathtaking for copper of that age. Anyway, they turned up again for auction at Baldwins several years later (maybe 2014?) and they just weren't the same, I'm sure there had been a very noticeable fading/darkening of the colour and it wasn't just my eyesight. They were described in the auction catalogue the same as in 2006. The person who bought the 1694 did well though, as the coin got slabbed (significantly it was now a BN) and sold for ~$8K hammer at HA a year or two back (from memory)!

Sorry Pete - I mean even more of a fortune! The bottom line for me is why buy a coin when you can't enjoy it's beauty in all lights, especially directly reflected light to show off any brilliance. Apart from as an "investment" maybe. Surely reflectivity (ie brilliance) is one of the main reason people like proofs for instance. Ah, the dazzling reflection of....perspex! It's not quite the same. But if you find it hard to store or care for your coins properly (I've been there!), then slabs do have their plus points.

If they found a way to make the plastic non-reflective of a light source they'd be onto a fortune. So you'd actually be able to see the coin (especially if it has reflective surfaces) properly.

You're talking in terms of modern numismatics which meticulously analyses minute differences within a modern coin type. I wouldn't think it was a variety your average Joe or even coin collector circa 1908 would have noticed or paid much attention to if pointed out.

You can pick up worn examples of 1926ME without too much difficulty for a few quid, so presumably the 1908 F164A is much rarer, although it is probably still often overlooked - it's a sort of "micro-variety" if you know what I mean. And as for higher grade.....But of course no-one was putting specifically 164A's aside when they were issued as no-one knew (or would have thought it important even if they had known I suspect). I always find it interesting that the H's and KN's were valuable back in the 60's and probably earlier, only 40 odd years after issue. Some contemporary employees from these mints must still have been alive then. Perhaps they packed up 1919KN BUs in mint rolls for instance!

Divide the NGC prices by 10 and the Baldwins prices by 2 and you'll probably get a more accurate figure.