brg5658

1797 Norfolk/Norwich Penny token, D&H 3 Scarce (75-150 struck)

Accumulator, great looking coin! I also visited your "website coin cabinet". Holy buckets! AWESOME collection!

The one advantage of scans is that the coin is in the correct plane relative to the 'camera', and in perfect focus. In fact, the only disadvantage - though it's a biggie, as I said above - is the poor tone. Taking photos of my coins is just not an option. When I take images, the coin is perfectly parallel to the camera sensor. And, I shoot with a lens that has a corner to corner flat field. If you decide to tilt the coin to show color, then you can either bump up your f-stop a little to increase depth of field, or you can use focus stacking (of multiple images) to get the full coin in needle sharp focus. I'd say that scans are massively limited in imaging coins. To say that the "only disadvantage" is that the final product basically doesn't look like the coin in hand is sort of an understatement. I could add to that list that scans 1) don't show luster, 2) they don't show color, 3) they don't show depth/shadows of a relief or incuse design, and 4) they don't optimize the use of the tool (a coin sized object on a very large scanner bed). Even with a $25 lens I can take images of a coin that are superior to a scan at more than 2000dpi, but I can also show all of the things that a scan cannot. So, in my opinion, scans are good for documenting coins, but are pretty bad at taking images for selling a coin or posting on websites. The biggest (and maybe only) advantage of a scanner is that it's easy...the advantages end there.

That's sort of what my collection has grown to be. I really just buy what catches my eye. I started about 20 years ago as a series collector of the Lincoln wheat cents, but "plugging holes" grew tiresome. About 5 years ago I started collecting lovely copper (to my eye), and coins with horses on them. That shift opened my eyes to non-USA coins, and I haven't looked back! I enjoy the hobby much more now that it's on my terms, not on the terms of filling some pre-defined slot in an album. Here's another set of coppers that I found quite attractive. It's a copper minors type set from Belgian Congo, 1887-1888. The 10 centimes is the hardest of the bunch to find in nice quality.

I bought 3 direct from the Royal mint, £60 (face) plus £12 shipping. Was your note meant to imply that we couldn't order them in the USA? Mine arrived early last week (Nov 5 I believe).

I think this is the one you are referring to. That's the one! Thanks Nick (and rpeddie too). My Lanarkshire token has the same blue iridescence when viewed at the right angle. Sadly, scans miss this with a spectacular Fail. All the more reason to learn how to photograph your coins instead of "scanning" them. Scanning coins is good for documentation/insurance purposes, but doesn't show most coins in their true form.

I'll get us back on track with copper here...this isn't a British piece, but is one of my favorite coppers in my collection. The surfaces are amazing, with lovely even tone throughout. It also happens to be 100 years old this year.

This is a whole philosophical debate that could be discussed ad nauseam. I will just say (in brief) that I think the number of collectors in the USA who collect for "investment reasons" is no more than in the UK and other places. There are a great number of us who collect for a lifetime, and do a great deal of research on the items we acquire. What I do think is more common in the USA is for a coin in plastic to be constantly sold, bought, sold again, bought again, etc. by speculators and "eBay dealers" -- much of what you see on Heritage and other auction houses are dealers purchasing coins to add to their inventory or to sell at shows. I have bid on several items on Heritage, often times what I think are strong bids -- only to lose the auction, and then see that exact same coin posted on eBay a week later for 3 times (or more) what it sold for at Heritage. These "dealers" are not educated or informed in all areas of numismatics, and because of ignorance they are left to only "buy the slab" and the numbers on the label. Once a nice coin makes it to a serious collector (regardless of the grade on the plastic), the coin will come off of the market and will be enjoyed by the owner for many years. I have purchased many coins on Heritage at good prices because 1) they were in the "wrong kind" of plastic, 2) they were in a "low grade" like MS63 or MS64, considered by non-specialists to be inferior regardless of rarity, or 3) they were incorrectly described or attributed. In summary, just because you see coins being sold in venues like Heritage, etc. at crazy prices, that doesn't reflect on the entire USA collector base. It is often more a reflection of the speculators and eBay trolls...which I will agree with you, are more prevalent here in the States.

If I remember right, Martin Coles Harman was an eccentric (American?) who possibly had bought Lundy Isle or at least owned a good deal of its land - he decided to issue his own currency but again (if I remember right) he was prosecuted by HM Government and told in no uncertain terms that he couldn't. That's a nice pair you have there. Harman was born in Sussex, so not an American. However, I think your assessment of him having been "eccentric" is probably accurate. He bought ALL of Lundy Isle in 1924, declared himself King, and issued the half puffin and puffin by 1929. Some of these coins did actually see circulation as money on the island, so I would not consider them strictly "fantasy" pieces. Eventually, Harman was prosecuted, but fined a laughably small amount. After his prosecution, the remainder of the coins were withdrawn and remain collector pieces today. The restrike/reissue pieces of 1965 (in both copper and gilt) of the same design are considered truly fantasy pieces. With regard to the "slabbing", I hear the deeply entrenched hatred of plastic on the other side of the pond and it's a little tiring. But, for my collecting interests, 1) I never pay a premium for plastic, and 2) the plastic does offer some additional protection from the elements and mishandling. As I have mentioned before, any collector who systematically and dogmatically avoids slabbed coins will miss out on a lot of high quality items. I buy what I like, and have over the course of the last decade or so developed a very picky taste. If it happens to be in plastic, so be it. The coin is the coin, anything else is a distraction from the hobby. I have myself bought about half a dozen slabbed coins and I see nothing wrong with them as a form of protecting the contents. I don't think it's slabbing par se that is disliked over here in the UK it's what appears to be the mindless chasing irrespective of the content of the highest numbers, continuous trading up and crossing to try and get a higher number. It makes one wonder if they are coin collectors or just slab collectors. I agree with you. The constant bickering of US collectors over such trivial things as "MS66" or "MS65" is annoying in its own right. And, the obsession with collecting numbered slabs is quite prevalent here. I don't partake of those shenanigans. The whole "resubmission" and "crossover" madness is just a huge waste of money. Competitive collecting is bizarre to me -- and often I think these types of collections are just ego-satiating for the hyper-competitive and super-rich.

If I remember right, Martin Coles Harman was an eccentric (American?) who possibly had bought Lundy Isle or at least owned a good deal of its land - he decided to issue his own currency but again (if I remember right) he was prosecuted by HM Government and told in no uncertain terms that he couldn't. That's a nice pair you have there. Harman was born in Sussex, so not an American. However, I think your assessment of him having been "eccentric" is probably accurate. He bought ALL of Lundy Isle in 1924, declared himself King, and issued the half puffin and puffin by 1929. Some of these coins did actually see circulation as money on the island, so I would not consider them strictly "fantasy" pieces. Eventually, Harman was prosecuted, but fined a laughably small amount. After his prosecution, the remainder of the coins were withdrawn and remain collector pieces today. The restrike/reissue pieces of 1965 (in both copper and gilt) of the same design are considered truly fantasy pieces. With regard to the "slabbing", I hear the deeply entrenched hatred of plastic on the other side of the pond and it's a little tiring. But, for my collecting interests, 1) I never pay a premium for plastic, and 2) the plastic does offer some additional protection from the elements and mishandling. As I have mentioned before, any collector who systematically and dogmatically avoids slabbed coins will miss out on a lot of high quality items. I buy what I like, and have over the course of the last decade or so developed a very picky taste. If it happens to be in plastic, so be it. The coin is the coin, anything else is a distraction from the hobby.

I thought this pair was interesting...

I'm curious if you can also list out the type of edge for these three tokens? All three of these have common varieties, and a handful of very uncommon edge varieties. In order, the tokens you listed are: Suffolk/Ipswich Conder's Halfpenny - D&H 25 Suffolk/Woodbridge Penny - D&H 15 Lanarkshire/Glasgow Halfpenny - D&H 8 The Suffolk token has a diagonal milled edge. The Lanarkshire token is completely plain. The Woodbridge penny says "PUBLISHED BY R.. LODER 1796 .* *." (incuse) Probably all those are the common varieties, right? All are common, but nice nonetheless Suffolk/Ipswich Conder's Halfpenny, edge milled - D&H 35 (Common, it's DH35 - not 25 [typo on my part])Suffolk/Woodbridge Penny, edge "PUBLISHED BY R. LODER..." - D&H 15 (Common)Lanarkshire/Glasgow Halfpenny, edge plain - D&H 8 (Common)

While the design of this token is a bit unflattering for poor "General Elliot"...I just loved the huge dentils around the design. Also, it's very well preserved for being 220+ years old.

Lovely examples of copper so far all. Just to clarify, I'd also love to see coins in copper in addition to medals and tokens! All copper welcome. Here's a little coin from my collection.

I'm curious if you can also list out the type of edge for these three tokens? All three of these have common varieties, and a handful of very uncommon edge varieties. In order, the tokens you listed are: Suffolk/Ipswich Conder's Halfpenny - D&H 25 Suffolk/Woodbridge Penny - D&H 15 Lanarkshire/Glasgow Halfpenny - D&H 8

Interestingly, the Ipswich token is one I do have, though it is just a shade less good than the one illustrated. That was my first exposure to the name Conder, so for quite a while when I read about Conder tokens, I used to think they were talking about "Ipswich tokens payable at Conder's"! So he is the same Conder who wrote the book, then? That I didn't know. Yessir, that's James Conder, one and the same. He wrote one of the first books indexing the provincial tokens (Pye and Birchall wrote earlier works, but they were less exhaustive and Conder's 1798 work surpassed their works in popularity). Fascinating - he wrote 'the book' while copper tokens were still at the height of popularity. I wonder how he reacted to the first regal issue of halfpennies for over 20 years appearing only the following year? Once the twopence and penny were issued in 1797, the writing was on the wall I believe. Interestingly, the provincial tokens circulated heavily and new designs were struck even through 1801 or so. The introduction of "for collectors only" tokens increased from about 1793 onward -- and Conder himself joined in on that. Some proprietors would issue very limited runs of tokens and then sell them for premiums to other collectors. That's why there are so many immaculately preserved examples of many of these coppers today. They sat in coin cabinets for years! Don't forget the renewed token 'splurge' in the early 19thC, when the Great Recoinage of 1816 failed to deal with copper coins (possibly assuming that 1797-1806 was enough, or because they were just too busy with gold and silver issues). I'm thinking - for example - of the very common Cornish penny of around 1815. Indeed, you are correct. My area of interest and where I know the most is limited to the 1787 to around 1801 era, which encompasses almost all of the tokens indexed by Dalton & Hamer in their reference. Those from the early 19th Century are indexed elsewhere...and their production was stopped almost overnight in 1817 when they were made illegal to produce by act of parliament.

Interestingly, the Ipswich token is one I do have, though it is just a shade less good than the one illustrated. That was my first exposure to the name Conder, so for quite a while when I read about Conder tokens, I used to think they were talking about "Ipswich tokens payable at Conder's"! So he is the same Conder who wrote the book, then? That I didn't know. Yessir, that's James Conder, one and the same. He wrote one of the first books indexing the provincial tokens (Pye and Birchall wrote earlier works, but they were less exhaustive and Conder's 1798 work surpassed their works in popularity). Fascinating - he wrote 'the book' while copper tokens were still at the height of popularity. I wonder how he reacted to the first regal issue of halfpennies for over 20 years appearing only the following year? Once the twopence and penny were issued in 1797, the writing was on the wall I believe. Interestingly, the provincial tokens circulated heavily and new designs were struck even through 1801 or so. The introduction of "for collectors only" tokens increased from about 1793 onward -- and Conder himself joined in on that. Some proprietors would issue very limited runs of tokens and then sell them for premiums to other collectors. That's why there are so many immaculately preserved examples of many of these coppers today. They sat in coin cabinets for years!

Interestingly, the Ipswich token is one I do have, though it is just a shade less good than the one illustrated. That was my first exposure to the name Conder, so for quite a while when I read about Conder tokens, I used to think they were talking about "Ipswich tokens payable at Conder's"! So he is the same Conder who wrote the book, then? That I didn't know. Yessir, that's James Conder, one and the same. He wrote one of the first books indexing the provincial tokens (Pye and Birchall wrote earlier works, but they were less exhaustive and Conder's 1798 work surpassed their works in popularity).

This token is nice, but not colorful at all when imaged straight on... BUT, tilt it into the light a bit, and the bronzed proof surfaces exhibit quite the array of iridescent blue tones. Very few of these DH342 tokens circulated, and most if not all of them were reported to have been struck as "bronzed proofs" in December 1794 or January 1795 by Boulton. Listed as "scarce" in D&H, this token was originally thought to have been struck in as many as 150 pieces; more recently, it has been estimated that as many as 250 to 300 may have been produced. The small boar versions (D&H 339 to 341) are must less common.

Sorry, it gets a little old hearing the same old thing. PCGS and NGC grade coins using the USA Sheldon 70-point scale. The letters and numbers they put on coins will not match the European/UK grading scale. For all intents and purposes there is a reasonable cross-walk between the two scales, but they will never be perfectly the same. We get that, and it's not that difficult to move beyond that. As an American collector, I understand that a UK graded gEF might "equate" to a USA graded MS62/63. That doesn't bother me. It's like complaining about different spelling of words in "Queen's English" versus American English. The two languages are still readily understood on both sides of the "pond", and it is what it is. The constant rumbling and aggressive behavio(u)r doesn't really serve any constructive purpose. Disclaimer: I am NOT a fan-boy of NGC or PCGS, but I take them for what they are. They have slabbed a lot of nice coins, and if I were to completely ignore coins in their "plastic tombs" then I would be doing myself a disservice as a serious collector. I also purchase plenty of raw coins and tokens, and know how to grade for myself. Adapt and survive -- whining about the "good ol'days" isn't terribly effective.

Isn't that axe you're grinding sharp yet?

Absolutely beautiful - no wonder you supplied the picture of it to illustrate the Wikipedia article on Conder tokens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conder_token Almost all of the Conder Token article in Wikipedia was written by me. It was really small and quite bad, so I undertook a complete re-write and reorganization of the article in mid-June 2013. It is almost ready to be submitted for "Good Article" status; I hope that will happen sometime this winter. All of the tokens pictured in that article are from my collection, except the Ipswich.

Those are not finger prints. They are textile pattern areas, consistent with the method of storage. Many of the old copper pieces in the US have been stored for decades in small cloth bags, keeping them away from moisture and the elements. It is a very common practice among the Early American Coppers (EAC) collectors, and the bags I use are supplied by Rod Burress. IF they were fingerprints then 1) they could go up over the devices, and 2) they would actually look like fingerprints, instead of small parallel dots of toning.

Nothing iridescent or wild, but some lovely toned surfaces on this red/brown copper token. This is my favorite 18th Century Provincial (Conder) token in my collection. The surfaces are immaculate, booming with luster, and nary a tic to be found. While the Druid design isn't the most exciting theme for these tokens, no collection should be without at least one example of the type -- afterall, it was the "first" design of many hundreds to appear during the period. I always love when pieces like this come with their old auction tickets...

I always presumed you had hummingbirds in Europe...just read (and learned) today that they are found only in N and S America. Interesting...