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

Sterling Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    611

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Posts posted by oldcopper

  3. 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! 

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. Posted

    51 minutes ago, azda said:

    Reverse

    Screenshot 2022-03-30 at 10.28.06.png

    I haven't got Peck to hand but from memory isn't P.1242 the copper proof with a sequence of dots instead of or next to the K?

    It's not the 1233-1235 series as it lacks the die flaw on the drapery (I can't see it), so is it the bronzed analogue (P.1244?) of the gilt P.1243. I take it it's got an engrailed edge.

    There may be other choices though but P.1244 is the common alternative to P.1234 I guess. From memory again I say quickly!

  7. Posted

    53 minutes ago, Rob said:

    Tyrant II for comparison

    Tyrant II.jpg

     

    2 hours ago, Rob said:

    No it's not. The Slaney coin was bought by Geoff Cope and is vastly superior to this one. This is the ex Norweb coin which Roddy had for a while before selling it in one of the NY sales.

    This is Bergne no.7 (NC 1855) which was described as:

    No. 7.  

    Abraham Edmonds (bought by him casually),  

    Thomas Dimsdale. Bought at his sale in 1824, for 110, by  

    Thomas Thomas. do. 1844, for 48, by  

    The late James Dodsley Cuff.  

    (In a very good state ; but there is scratched on the field

    of the obverse, C. W., Oct. 12, 1799.")

    You can see traces of where the graffiti was subsequently polished out. However, in my view and that of others, it has also been plugged, which goes a long way to explaining how a dealer could pick it up so cheaply relative to other offerings around the end of the 18th century. If you look at II in the obverse legend, the facing uprights of the two characters are defective at the top giving a rounded profile to the vertical line. Compare that with the Slaney, Glenister or any other coin and these have perfectly formed Is.

    The Slaney coin wasn't known to Bergne, so doesn't appear on his list.

    CW may well be the initials of the jeweller or silversmith on the Strand that Edmonds acquired the coin from. Graffiti on a holed coin is not much more of an impediment to value, so this may be the coin that someone was touting around the 1740s but struggled to sell. Can't find the relevant document at the moment to give a name.

    Discuss.

    GC Petition Crown II.jpg

    161022-01_f - Copy (2).png

    Thanks Rob - very interesting. Fascinating about the removal of the graffiti and possible plugging.

  8. Posted

    51 minutes ago, Iannich48 said:

    I cannot see an 1819 Sovereign in his collection. Disappointing I think.😁

    He's missing some biggies -  Anne Vigo 5 guineas, Wm IV crown in gold. I think it's more a type set from the look of it. 

    It looks like the Slaney Petition crown, not the better Glenister one. But on the whole, I might consider swapping my collection for his......

    • Like 1
    • Haha 2

  9. Posted

    17 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

    https://thetyrantcollection.com/

     

    Unbelievable ,there is that many in Dan O Dowds collection it takes a while for some of the pages to load ,includes the Edward V111 set.

     

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/12/billionaire-tyrant-unveils-collection-coins-minted-every-english/

     

     

    Yes, amazing! I recognise the 1853 proof set, with that distinctive die flawed halfpenny - ex Norweb and The New York Sale of several years ago.

    Surprised he hasn't given provenances, some of these pieces must have pretty spectacular ones.

    • Like 1

  11. Posted · Edited by oldcopper

    9 minutes ago, jelida said:

    They are much cheaper direct from China.

    https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33037661091.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.74f4359e6fBpvU&algo_pvid=51167541-c1e6-4da6-95ee-01fb214ad011&algo_exp_id=51167541-c1e6-4da6-95ee-01fb214ad011-47&pdp_ext_f={"sku_id"%3A"67398536291"}&pdp_pi=-1%3B1.18%3B-1%3B-1%40salePrice%3BGBP%3Bsearch-mainSearch

    Jerry

    Well spotted!! It is that coin with all its plasticky quirks. Latest offer £1.18. Could go lower!

    That seller's page needs to go direct to DNW, this is what they say, memo to DNW:

    • our store only sell for the copy coin,  so please do not treat it as the original coin,I sell these replica coins just to make your collection more perfect.     

  12. Posted

    9 minutes ago, secret santa said:

    It's still in there as Lot 428. I can't believe they didn't remove it as soon as they received emails about it. Their credibility is plummeting.

    https://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=626&lot_uid=418653&search=1

    They need to quickly stick on a saleroom notice saying it has been withdrawn. Presumably the catalogue had made it to the printers before they were informed. Hopefully they're not going to "double down".

    I presume the faker changed parts of the design so as to evade the accusation of making an intentional counterfeit. I'd love to know its "provenance" and who entered it for sale right at the last minute - did they buy it in good faith (and then who from?) or are they trying to pull a fast one?

  13. Posted

    This is coming up in the next DNW general sale - an 1859 proof penny, or is it? It's either an exciting new variety to rival the Medusa penny, or it's a fake. I'm going with fake, but perhaps it needs to be seen in the hand.

    It's got poor blobby legends, especially the date, nothing like the real 1859 proof date. Badly drawn underneath of Victoria's eye, back fillet more bordered, under-fillet finely lined. Also the top of the ponytail isn't struck up properly plus part of her hair by the temple. These bits are struck up on currency but if it is a much later striking, maybe they wouldn't necessarily be.

    The reverse, raised peripheries on the shield bars, different and wavy scale edging.

    The weight is 19.96g; this is very overweight, some 1841 proofs are just over 19g, but I don't know any Victoria copper penny this heavy.

    And it looks like a Patina-type copy. But maybe I'm wrong - perhaps some Mint employee was playing around with the currency dies in the 1860's.

    https://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=626&lot_uid=418653

    Here's that recent London Coins proof penny for comparison:

     

    img.php?a=175&l=2175&f=o&s=l

    and an 1859 currency penny for comparison:

    https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?lot_uid=399839

  14. Posted · Edited by oldcopper

    On 2/10/2022 at 4:19 PM, oldcopper said:

    It was ex Hopetown House 1989 Spink auction where Spink also graded it VF. So DNW probably just lifted the grade.

    At that sale, there were better Charles II halfpennies, so that probably depressed the grade. I think that's psychology though - I find the same with lustre, a lustrous coin looks far brighter if placed next to a lower lustre example but not so good when placed next to a more lustrous one. 

    Sorry my memory failed me - Spink graded it EF with weak patches at the Hopetown House sale, but it did go for less than the 1672 and 1675's also graded EF in that sale. The last bit stands though - that's definitely true about lustre!

     

  15. Posted

    On 2/4/2022 at 8:13 PM, copper123 said:

    That seriously is a very dificult coin to grade and I agree VF is far to low - its badly struck or more likely weekly struck .

    Its not far off EF in my opinion the trace of lutre says it all

    It was ex Hopetown House 1989 Spink auction where Spink also graded it VF. So DNW probably just lifted the grade.

    At that sale, there were better Charles II halfpennies, so that probably depressed the grade. I think that's psychology though - I find the same with lustre, a lustrous coin looks far brighter if placed next to a lower lustre example but not so good when placed next to a more lustrous one. 

  16. Posted

    Here's another: This was graded VF in 2013 DNW auction, MS63 in Heritage Auctions 2014 sale. You can see where the grading comes from for both auction companies, but one takes the poor strike (and perhaps stain) into account and the other doesn't.

    Internet%20Image%201.jpg

     

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

    10 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

    Out of interest, who thinks this is a proof?

     

    ploof 1889 rev cropped.jpg

    proof 1889 rev cropped.jpg

    A Spink SNC from the 70's or 80's specifically commented on these 1889 proof pennies, saying that they thought from their appearance they were not genuine proofs. I don't know which issue the comment was in, and they may have been mistaken but that was one of their cataloguer's views.

  23. Posted

    On 12/18/2021 at 12:02 AM, ozjohn said:

    I wouldn't like to comment of whether the 1859 coin is a proof. However the parallel lines on the reverse of the coin may be due to some cleaning or wiping in the past.

     

    I have seen a similar "marbled" effect on 1850's proof Victoria pennies before - Mark Rasmussen's 1859 proof in list 14:

    C112.jpg

    and the 1856 proof penny last sold LCA 2009:

    London Coins : Auction 124 : Lot 663 : L663r.jpg

    The only thing that I would be concerned about with LCA's 1859 proof is the apparent wear ie lighter tone to the highpoints of the hair. But it might look different in the hand.

×