SPINK

[Colin88 54]

.....has anyone had any dealings with then recently ??

[Colin G. 147]

I wouldn't be selling through Spinks at the moment, they seem to have no end of technical issues when auctioning. As a result I think the prices realised would be less, unless you were auctioning something prestigious then I would be tempted just due to the name.

[TomGoodheart 373]

Last time I tried their website was unusable.  Mind you that was about a year ago.  But it was so bad I've just not bothered since then.  I can view their offerings on sixbid, though the fact that they couldn't sort out something like a website doesn't recommend them to me as a buyer or seller ...

.

[Peter 615]

My Spink circular stopped suddenly.I haven't bothered with them since. Any transation period just hasn't happened. If anyone knows the current status and their future plans I would like to know.

[DaveG38 385]

Not connected with buying through them, I approached them by email some 9 months or so ago about including the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny in the next edition of their Coins Of England book. Didn't get the courtesy of a reply, so I don't think I would have any interest in anything they might be selling, certainly not if this is their attitude. I don't deal with people like this, regardless of their 'name.'

[TomGoodheart 373]

It's not even clear from the website if the Numismatic Circular is still going.  As far as I know it ceased publication some time back, but anyone know for sure?  Rob?

I re-read the issues I have regularly.  And equally regularly, wish I still had the option of buying some of the coins listed. 

[Rob 3,000]

1 hour ago, TomGoodheart said:

It's not even clear from the website if the Numismatic Circular is still going.  As far as I know it ceased publication some time back, but anyone know for sure?  Rob?

I re-read the issues I have regularly.  And equally regularly, wish I still had the option of buying some of the coins listed. 

The last issue of the circular was Jan 2014. They have exited dealing. To be honest, it wasn't really surprising given the cost of overheads in central London as it costs as much to sell a £10 coin as a £10K one, and the number of customers that would shop there on a daily basis for coins at the £10K level wouldn't justify the expense given the levels of stock you would need to hold to have decent offerings to suit all tastes. It's money tied up and cashflow that's the problem. The circular offered a means of turning around stock quickly, which is the key to trading, but there simply isn't the quantity of decent material being offered to dealers to put together a decent list.

The internet has ensured that much more stock goes through auction these days rather than sold to dealers because these offer competitive bidding and therefore prices to the greatest audience. The seller also ends up with a greater %age of the hammer price with an auction because premiums are weighted towards the buyer who frequently ignores or forgets the additional cost of these. Today though, even auctions are struggling to get quality material, much of which is being stashed away in an attempt to preserve wealth given the current global finacial uncertainty

I wasn't aware that there were tech issues at the last sale as I had no problem logging on and bidding. When it was first launched 5 or 6 years ago it was a disaster with delayed bidding not keeping up with the aiuction in the room, but I thought that was sorted out when they had a period only offering bidding through the saleroom. They appear concentrating on auctions and books as far as I can see.

DaveG, was that before the tome went off to the printers or afterwards? I'll have a word with Phil if I remember for inclusion in the next one.

[jacinbox 36]

Their service is good and grading conservative.

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by jacinbox

[rooneydog 9]

On ‎12‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 5:25 PM, Rob said:

 

DaveG, was that before the tome went off to the printers or afterwards? I'll have a word with Phil if I remember for inclusion in the next one.

If that's Mr Skingley I am still waiting for a reply from 2014 when he was going to consult some people - good luck

[Rob 3,000]

12 minutes ago, rooneydog said:

If that's Mr Skingley I am still waiting for a reply from 2014 when he was going to consult some people - good luck

What was that about? An item for inclusion in the tome? If so I'll have a word just as with the 1695 halfpenny. I'll be seeing him in the near future.

[Guest SPINK]

On 12 June 2016 at 5:25 PM, Rob said:

The last issue of the circular was Jan 2014. They have exited dealing. To be honest, it wasn't really surprising given the cost of overheads in central London as it costs as much to sell a £10 coin as a £10K one, and the number of customers that would shop there on a daily basis for coins at the £10K level wouldn't justify the expense given the levels of stock you would need to hold to have decent offerings to suit all tastes. It's money tied up and cashflow that's the problem. The circular offered a means of turning around stock quickly, which is the key to trading, but there simply isn't the quantity of decent material being offered to dealers to put together a decent list.

The internet has ensured that much more stock goes through auction these days rather than sold to dealers because these offer competitive bidding and therefore prices to the greatest audience. The seller also ends up with a greater %age of the hammer price with an auction because premiums are weighted towards the buyer who frequently ignores or forgets the additional cost of these. Today though, even auctions are struggling to get quality material, much of which is being stashed away in an attempt to preserve wealth given the current global finacial uncertainty

I wasn't aware that there were tech issues at the last sale as I had no problem logging on and bidding. When it was first launched 5 or 6 years ago it was a disaster with delayed bidding not keeping up with the aiuction in the room, but I thought that was sorted out when they had a period only offering bidding through the saleroom. They appear concentrating on auctions and books as far as I can see.

DaveG, was that before the tome went off to the printers or afterwards? I'll have a word with Phil if I remember for inclusion in the next one.

 

I was told that the reason they stopped was they felt they were losing out on money i.e why sell it via our circular at £1,500 when we can sell it for £1,500 (or more) + comm via our auction. 

I think another factor is the lack of staff they have / had. I've heard Richard Bishop is also leaving Spink soon ?

 

[rooneydog 9]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

What was that about? An item for inclusion in the tome? If so I'll have a word just as with the 1695 halfpenny. I'll be seeing him in the near future.

For the 1695 Dei Gratia 1/2 penny, here's the end of my conversation with Mike Veissid back in June 2014

"I tend to agree that it would have been for circulation. We will put in the next edition of Coins of England and many thanks for the use of your image.

 Mike"

 

[Rob 3,000]

34 minutes ago, rooneydog said:

For the 1695 Dei Gratia 1/2 penny, here's the end of my conversation with Mike Veissid back in June 2014

"I tend to agree that it would have been for circulation. We will put in the next edition of Coins of England and many thanks for the use of your image.

 Mike"

 

Yes, but Mike is no longer there, so it may not have been Phil's fault.

As a way forward, how many examples do we definitely have now and how much have the ones you know about sold for? Maybe we can list them all in a separate thread in the confirmed unlisted section. It means I can give a separate entry (presumably S3554A) with a suitable price for fine, and possibly VF by extrapolation

[rooneydog 9]

26 minutes ago, Rob said:

Yes, but Mike is no longer there, so it may not have been Phil's fault.

As a way forward, how many examples do we definitely have now and how much have the ones you know about sold for? Maybe we can list them all in a separate thread in the confirmed unlisted section. It means I can give a separate entry (presumably S3554A) with a suitable price for fine, and possibly VF by extrapolation

Phil's response back in 2014:

"Hello Jon,

I was forwarded the information by Mike and, to be honest, I spent a good amount of time looking at it and couldn't work out what on earth was being suggested or looked at. The coin couldn't possibly have been in much poorer condition.

I deal with a lot of matters like this in the course of the year and we have no obligation to include any of them. 

I need to consult some more people about this one.

Kind regards

Philip"

 

I think Dave G's article in coin news states 5 known examples (do not know where I have put it) the only price known I suspect is the ex

Nicholson coin sold by Colin Cooke (I found mine in a bag of inherited coins and it is responsible for my collecting)

 

[DaveG38 385]

6 hours ago, rooneydog said:

Phil's response back in 2014:

"Hello Jon,

I was forwarded the information by Mike and, to be honest, I spent a good amount of time looking at it and couldn't work out what on earth was being suggested or looked at. The coin couldn't possibly have been in much poorer condition.

I deal with a lot of matters like this in the course of the year and we have no obligation to include any of them. 

I need to consult some more people about this one.

Kind regards

Philip"

 

I think Dave G's article in coin news states 5 known examples (do not know where I have put it) the only price known I suspect is the ex

Nicholson coin sold by Colin Cooke (I found mine in a bag of inherited coins and it is responsible for my collecting)

 

I wasn't particularly raising the issue of including this coin in the Spink Catalogue. I just thought that the lack of any response to a reasonable suggestion was something that helped define my view of Spink and the people who work there. I'm not really bothered whether anybody raises it with them again or whether the DEI GRATIA halfpenny ends up in their catalogue or not. For the record, I think I made the suggestion well ahead of the deadline for the printers of the 2016 edition, but I may be wrong as I can't find the email now.

Having said this, I do find the reply from Spink to be very odd. Even in poor condition, the legend of this type leaps out as something different from the run of the mill William III halfpenny, so why they couldn't work out 'what on earth was being suggested' is very strange. Add to that that it was from their own circular that two others were described/sold in the past and it seems even more odd that this coin hasn't made it to their catalogue. However, I entirely accept the point about inclusion of coins in the catalogue. Of course that's for Spink to decide, and I understand why they wouldn't want to include every minor variety (although I do think their variety inclusion policy is somewhat inconsistent). However, this is scarcely a 'minor' variety, since it repesents the first, short lived copper coinage of William III, rather than a minor design change. They have included the 1689 halfcrown first reverse type and the 1823 first obverse type, rare though it is, so it does seem odd not to want to include the DEI GRATIA halfpenny. If they don't want these types, then why include the 1687 first bust tin farthing? Consistency seems to me to be the issue.