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.

1949threepence

Expert Grader
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    8,081

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    262

Posts posted by 1949threepence

  1. Posted

    1 hour ago, secret santa said:

    It's a pity that the catalogue doesn't contain a narrative description of Philip Richardson and his collection.

    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".  

  2. Posted

    1 hour ago, Martinminerva said:

    I think it was! Specimen 20 and 21 appear to be the same coin... Look especially at the vertical scratch and dings above Britannia's helmet and head. But the photography of spec 20 is not the best!

    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.

  3. Posted

    1 hour ago, oldcopper said:

    I don't think gold and early proof sets really count for many collectors - they're now mainly collected by investors from what I can see. Which of us is going to fork out the best part of 100k (or the best part of half a million upwards for a good 1839!) for one of the old proof sets? Especially as you could pick up a nice one for 10-25K 20 years ago.

    Anyone seen the Philip Richardson mainly Soho collection now listed on DNW? There's 200 lots on there. Some nice coins....

    I notice one anomaly, to do with the gilt 1797 inscribed edge KP5 penny. DNW refer to the coin as a one off, and the inscription was referred to in Peck as a later adulteration in a footnote. Now, whether it is or not I don't know, but In Baldwins 47 (Gregory II) one of these was the front cover coin, in beautiful and brilliant mint state no less. A stunner. However, a more ropey one turned up in their auction a few years later, scratched and edge knocked, but it was given exactly the same provenance as their supposedly unique earlier mint state one. This is the one in DNW.

    So either someone bought it in Baldwins 47 (£2,800 hammer), kept it in their pocket for several years, then resold it (£460 hammer!), or more likely there are at least two of these coins in existence, both identically and incusely inscribed. In which case it is more likely that the edge is a contemporary and official addition. 

    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.  

    • Like 2

  4. Posted · Edited by 1949threepence

    46 minutes ago, DaveG38 said:

    Run of the mill!! The first lots I found were the 1826 and 1831 proof sets - estimated at £60-120k and £35-70k. If they are run of the mill, then my collection must be regarded as meagre and scarcely worth the trouble of collecting. However, I do take your point regarding the rest.

    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

  5. Posted

    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.      

  6. Posted

    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.  

    • Like 4

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, Rob said:

    And ex me. I bought it in the Adams sale and sold it off the website in September 2009.

    Did it come with the tickets? It left me with 4.

    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. 

  9. Posted · Edited by 1949threepence

    On 7/29/2023 at 3:53 PM, 1949threepence said:

    I'm just very pleased I managed to get the coin I was interested in today. 

    .....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)

     

     

     

    pattern reverse cropped.jpg

    pattern obverse 2 cropped.jpg

    • Like 3

  10. Posted

    1 hour ago, oldcopper said:

    What surprises me is that, as there obviously seem to be more of some of these proofs than were issued in the sets, why haven't any survived with an original case, Royal Mint envelope or whatever packaging they would originally have been put in? There are no contemporary official boxes around for any individual proofs of the Wyon proof set years as far as I know. Same with the pattern florins of the late 1840's for instance. About 25 years ago in SNC there was a fantastic set of all three main Gothic crown varieties (2 x1847, 1853) plus several of the different florin patterns in a plush velvet case, but that my have been a later case.

    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.  

  12. Posted

    11 hours ago, Rob said:

    The question of the 1853 bronzed proofs has occupied my mind one more than one occasion since the article was written.

    A stumbling block in resolving the outstanding questions is the images in Baldwin's 44 catalogue are not good enough to determine the positions of the pitting to the reverse rim on the 1853 bronzed halfpenny, which is unfortunate as the 1839/41 bronzed proof in my possession also has a pitted rim. If in the same positions, it would imply the same reverse die and by extension that quite possibly the two dates are contemporary.

    Following my acquisition of the 1841/39 bronzed proof halfpenny in 2007 I wrote an article in the May 2009 Circular outlining some thoughts for the existence of the dozen or so known inverted die 1841 halfpennies, which are all struck from the same worn reverse die and point to a striking for a specific reason. The bronzed 1853s have an inverted die axis, as does the 1839/41. As the anomalous 1839 proof sixpence is struck from an obverse that was only used from 1880 on and similarly has the wrong die axis, speculatively I wonder if the non-standard die axis coins are all from this late period. Assuming they were from sets made to order before the mint was refurbished and the old Soho equipment replaced, with a maximum window of 2 years for the sixpence, it would point to a minimal number of the other coins - as is seen.

    It would also help to know if the die fixings were compatible on both the Soho presses and their replacements.

    I can't help feeling that all the information is currently known, but different bits are in different places.

    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.    

       

     

     

  14. Posted

    19 hours ago, Bruce said:

    I also use £80-100 as benchmark to bid through easylive.  if i guess my winning lots exceed that sum, i will pay for the £3.  

    Back to Coinery case, i remember there is no flat £3 option, and bidding through coinery website is less expensive than easylive portal.  However, i am not sure about this now, coz i changed to bid through Coinery website since 2nd auction held by them because of the auction premium issue.

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

  15. Posted

    35 minutes ago, Rob said:

    When you sign in to Easylive to register to bid on an auction it gives you the option of either a flat fee of £3 which is taken whether you win anything or not, or a 3% of hammer surcharge. That's a no-brainer. I've spent thousands on many occasions for the same £3 a pop. On very rare occasions I have not won anything, but happily paid £3 to give me the ability to bid live, particularly with less prestigious auctioneers, where you might be wary of leaving commission bids. 

    As I said, it's the cost of a pint and you need to do incredibly badly to spend more in wasted £3s than the 3% charge on any winnings.

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

  17. Posted

    4 hours ago, Rob said:

    Easylive isn't extortionate. A flat fee of £3 is a pint - not going to break the bank. Spend over £100 and you are winning compared to the %age route.

    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.

     

    coinery 2 cropped.jpg

  18. Posted

    9 hours ago, Bruce said:

    You bid through easylive, so that there's internet surcharge?

    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. 

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

    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.     

    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.

  20. Posted

    1 hour ago, Kipster said:

    Well done. 

    I didn't get the one I was after as it went for about 40% more than I was prepared to pay for it, but I did pick up an alternative which is an improvement on my current one. 

    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.     

  22. Posted

    2 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

    Yes , as i was trying to explain shows that paying daft prices for the highest graded can all change tomorrow when one gets graded higher 😀

    There was another penny today i sold a couple of years ago and that also only went to less than half of what i sold it for,due to others now being higher.

    Hmmm......oh well, whatever.

    I'm just very pleased I managed to get the coin I was interested in today. 

  23. Posted

    On 7/22/2023 at 12:10 PM, 1949threepence said:

    A case in point regarding the ongoing rise in coin prices.

    "The Coinery" are offering an 1839 proof penny at their auction of 29.7.23, with estimates of between £5,000 and £6,000, and a minimum starting bid of £4,000. The coin is NGC slabbed in a special "Coinery" holder, and is graded as PF66 BN - link 

    I won an 1839 proof on 22.5.22, also from The Coinery for £3,700 hammer. But I had to fight for it, from the £2500 commission bid I'd left. Mine was also in a special NGC Coinery slab, but PF64 BN. 

    So my theory is that yes, although almost certainly the difference between PF64 & PF66 makes a price difference, I wouldn't have thought it would account for such a sizeable difference. Much of the increase is surely due to overall price rises in coins.

    Incidentally, any differences betwen this coin, and the one I got, are Rizla paper thin. In fact I'd venture that my reverse is superior to this one. There are marks (scratches) on the coin currently offered, although as with many slabbed coins, it's often difficult to determine whether the mark is on the coin itself, or externally on the plastic holder.  

    1839 pennies are scarce generally, but rare in undisturbed, issue free, high grade. 

     

    On 7/22/2023 at 12:42 PM, PWA 1967 said:

    Unfortunately the price difference in just a grade or two on most pennies determined by NGC are huge ,for the few collectors currently buying them.

    The 1839 PF66 for sale in "The Coinery auction " sold for £10,000 the last time it sold and at the time it was the highest grade.

    Now one is graded 67 (Maybe bought by the seller of this one) the one graded 66 has almost certainly lost its highest grade attraction.

    Unfortunately its not what we think the grade is but what NGC put on the label and if its high or the highest , there are a few collectors who will pay big money for them.

    Only my opinion but i have been watching the prices of NGC pennies for the last few years and ones graded really high or the highest can sell for daft money.

    Fortunately its only a few buyers though who will pay these high prices and what it does mean is the ones graded high but not really high 😀 ,we can buy for sensible money.

     

    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.

  24. Posted

    6 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

    "Excuse me, sir, did you print this yourself by any chance? I think you'd better come down the station to help us with our enquiries..."

    Realistically that only happens in George Floyd territory, where, rather than such polite and discreet questioning, he had some psychotic raving nutjob of a cop screaming obscenities and pointing a gun in his face, based on the assertion of a junior sales assistant, and he subsequently lost his life based on that - murdered.

    Of course, anybody with half a brain would first establish that the note was a fake, and even if it was, then entertain the strong probability that it was previously passed on in good faith to whoever subsequently decided to spend it, also in good faith (just as we did for many years with the numerous fake £1 coins) - as opposed to assuming that he's got a printing press in his back room. Not forgetting the actual hard evidence that the specific note in question was passed as payment by George, and not by another customer.  

    I'd venture to say that in Rhodes at the moment, checking the actual validity of notes passed, will not be high on their list of priorities.

×