1949threepence

This is why hardback editions of any reference book are so much better. The binding stands up to long term continued use.

You can have mine if I can find it. I did buy one in 2016 or 2017, but to be honest found it very little different in content to my old hardback 1985 edition, so carried on using that. I'll have a look for it in a bit.

It very much is, I agree. Most named sellers give their own written preview of the factors which started them off in the hobby, what interested them about the area they concentrated on, and why they ultimately decided to sell up. Those who want anonymity tend to call their collections by the area they live in, or some such, eg: the Elstree collection. Of course, he may be dead, but surely then the collection would be noted as "the late Philip Richardson".

Hmmm, yes a slight puzzler there. I can see the vertical line above Britannia's helmet which appears to be pretty much identical in both cases. But I can't see the two puncture type dings to the immediate right of them, on example 20. That might be my browser though. Also, as you say, the photography on example 20 is not the best. You may well be right. See what Richard thinks.

I have now you've pointed out that the coins have been posted. Had a feeling it would be a good collection and was right. Some magnificent items, and a once in a decade (or more) opportunity to obtain a few.

Oh sure - I was only referring to the pennies in the auction, which is why is I posted it on the "More Pennies" thread. I agree there are some spectacular proof sets

I note the September LCA catalogue is now out on their website. For the accomplished collector, it's a bit run of the mill to be honest. But for those who aren't quite there, some interesting possibilities. There's a hgh grade F14 LCW under foot, but with very prominent die cracks. There's also a distinctly suspect slabbed 1863 touted as a proof, but with poor photography. A F169 is on offer which doesn't appear to be on Richard's rare penny list.

The top pop trend Is insane. There are 70 points on the NGC scale, each one of which is worth 1.43% - a very small amount when one considers the extent to which subjectivity, inconsistency and carelessness must go into each grading. To pay thousands extra for a top pop is crazy, considering a) that it can be beaten, or b) that the grader may be having an off day/his colleagues are stricter/softer than him, has to be the height of stupidity, unless you are literally the initial seller about to make a killing from someone prepared to pay. The only true winners are those ex graded items from the first seller, who knows, that for a short time at least, he has the lead item. Comparison with the coins just under top pop would probably reveal examples that were superior to the current top pop.

A great shame in my view. Past sales documentation add to the entire positive experience of buying a new coin.

Unfortunately no. In fact there was no provenance provided by TheCoinery. In comparing, it was obvious that the coin was the same specimen as in the Sawden collection, so went from there. I really wish there was more provenance to coins such as this. Not sure all dealers take the issue very seriously.

.....and here it is. An 1860 restrike gilt copper pattern penny by Moore for Shorthouse. Very pleased. Peck 2115, Freeman 842. Provenance:- To Coinery N/K (lot 38 Coinery auction 29th July 2023 - link Ex: Ian Sawden collection (lot 157, DNW auction 12th October 2021) Ex: Colin Adams collection (lot 171, Spink auction 23rd July 2003) Ex: D.E.Magnay collection (lot 276, DNW auction 3rd February 1999: bt Seaby April 1980)

That's a great point. It's doubtful whether any of the 1853 proofs, other than the full sets, would have been issued rolling around loose in a plain envelope - or, if collected, that they would have been in a raw pile on a desk. Surely they would have been in some form of dedicated packaging, however rudimentary. You mention the plush case above, but it's likely that other forms of packaging would have survived given that some people tend to keep everything, and they might well have survived through the 170 odd years (or less) since. The psychology of the public doesn't change. Then as now, many would deliberately dispose of or quickly lose track of the packaging. Probably about half would diligently keep it. So it's quite surprising there isn't any meaningful evidence of such, with the exception of the original full set cases.

Actually, it's not a bad specimen. If I hadn't already got one, I might have bought it.

You may well be right. I can't speak for denominations other than the penny, but it appears there is only one confirmed 1853 bronzed copper with an inverted reverse penny. What I do wonder about is the number of en medaille 1853 copper proof pennies. There were only 40 proof sets minted, but there has to be more than 40 extant proof pennies even now. Possibly as many as 40 again. So what is the reason for them? Were they ordered separately by members of the public after the original sets had been issued, for those who couldn't afford a full set? I susoect we will never know the answers to thse questions unless, possibly, some obscure newspaper article turns up, or some official mint briefing is found.

Looking at it, I'm not sure it's linkable. Or if it is, it might be out of my skillset. Excellent and really interesting couple of articles though.

That might explain why things didn't accord with Rob's experience. Thanks for the extra info, Bruce.

Oh....right thanks. Not sure what went wrong there. Will have to pay more attention next time.

If you're working from a standard desktop PC, Chris, you should be able to see it at the bottom left of the screen a few seconds after clicking. Just click on it to read. It will in any case be saved in your downloads.

If it had just been £3, I'd have dismissed it as a minor anomaly, but as you can see from this extract from the invoice, it was considerably more than that. Out of sight is the £592 buyer premium.

Spot on Bruce. I actually found this out when I called The Coinery late yesterday and spoke to Guy. I'd forgotten, but last year I went through easy live auction because of technical issues (couldn't get sound) - hence the extra surcharge. This time I went throughThe Coinery's website so there will be no surcharge.

Thought it was too good to be true. Just received a revised invoice with the buyer's premium added, and had to pay a further £232.00. Apparently there is no seller's fee on items over £1000, and on this occasion the no fee was applied in the wrong place. I'll await with baited breath to see if an internet surcharge is also added.

Thanks, and also well done on your win, albeit not necessarily your No 1 choice. I received my invoice via e mail earlier on, and was very pleasantly surprised to find there was absolutely no premium payable. None - just straight hammer price plus postage. Whether that's re-couped via higher estimate ranges, I'm not sure. But it certainly stands in contrast to my previous win from The Coinery which had, I think, just under 20% premium and an "internet surcharge". That was May 2022.

Indeed so. According to the NGC rankings there are now 7 at PF66.

Hmmm......oh well, whatever. I'm just very pleased I managed to get the coin I was interested in today.

Well, whoever sold it, assuming they were the previous buyer at £10k, sustained a huge loss as it just went for £4,900 hammer at the Coinery live auction.