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.

Menger

Unidentified Variety
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Menger last won the day on May 1

Menger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

16 Neutral

About Menger

  • Rank
    ---

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting. As I comment above - my take is that the inverted axis for the 1839 proof groat was found in the original 1839 proof set. This being the case in the MDC Monaco set - which is certainly one of the finer ones. By contrast I have 1839 Maundy proofs with both medal and coin axis. Here, I have a always assumed that the medal strikes were more likely from the original proof sets and the coin axis strikes from later restrikes. This is because my coin axis proof Maundy is clearly inferior quality (die cracks and wot not) compared to the medal strike.
  2. Correction: I have only seen obverse 1 for the 1839 proof groat. I have only the coin strike variety. This came from what I believe was an original proof set (the set sold in the MDC Monaco sale in Oct 2020 for record money and it had a provenance from Sotheby’s 1856) and so presumably that was the original striking? (I did not buy the set! Only the little groat when it was seemingly broken up after the Monaco sale).
  3. Yes - perhaps they were net grading as the obverse is notch or two nicer. Or perhaps they just missed the scoring. CGS had it as UNC 90.
  4. Thanks. Yes. That was my guess. Not to produce a circulating coin or a new proof but to recreate marketable restrikes of the 1862 proof (given that we know the obverse being used was not the original from that year and the reverse seems to have been cobbled together - see the lettering all over the place). There was clearly a market for these proof groats from 1837, 1853, 1857 and 1862 (all that appear with later obverse effigies) that appears to have been catered for into the late 60s to 80s (given the first appearance of those effigies). Or perhaps it was just a bloke in a pub with a penknife after all.
  5. Yes. The onus would be on a seller if seeking a buyer. I agree the minting stops in the strike. I do think it matters however thereafter whether marking up lines are done by the Mint as part of a process or done by some bloke in a pub with a penknife. It matters to me anyway. 🤣 The groat was graded PF65 by NGC The other coin (which is not mine) is a pattern crown that NGC graded AU55
  6. I agree with the definition. It certainly seems reasonable to presume all post mint changes are graffiti. But how to know if it is post mint? I think that requires judgment based on whatever evidence we can glean. So I will keep an eye out for any further evidence as to whether the marking up practice was common in the Royal Mint. Here is another that seems to be “marked up” with a score line horizontally through the horse.
  7. Thanks. Yes that is my view. It seems far to precise and deliberate to have been done casually. Like the photo of the US One cent - the lines are professional but not perfect - and clearly done by hand. Here is a link showing how for the one cent (above) the score lines were part of a design process in the mint. If anyone has seen anything similar at the Royal Mint it would be great to hear. I suspect my groat is an example of this - though it may be my wishful thinking. https://rexrarities.com/pages/the-1843-engraved-mature-head-cent-design-model
  8. I suspect graffiti/cleaning appears to afflict rarer coins because more common coins that have graffiti or cleaning have over time been jettisoned from the worldwide pool of collectible coins. Graffiti is not an evolutionary advantage in coin-world - unless particularly artful. A Bansky perhaps …
  9. Thanks. That is right. ESC lists it as 3357 R5. I also have a 1853 proof groat muled with the forth young head 3d obverse (attached). As these young head obverses did not appear until the late 1860’s and 70’s respectively, presumably the coins were some kind of restrike / hanky panky by the mint. That is why I wonder if the lines reflect some deliberate scoring by the mint - some kind of lining up muled parts as they experiment to create a new Frankenstein? The legend on the reverse of the 1862 is all over the place - with the U back to front!
  10. Thanks. The lines on the 4d seem quite considered though - as if somehow dividing up the design to some end. That is clearly the case in the US coin example above. I wonder if the mints themselves engaged in such exercises. It would certainly take some skill to mark up a tiny groat.
  11. Correction - The mule is 3d obverse young head #3 not #2 as stated above.
  12. Someone kindly shared this - which seems more accomplished.
×