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.

VickySilver

DNW Sale - Alan Palmer, Cleaning Guru?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, oldcopper said:

Do you think these milled edge pieces were struck from spent proof dies?

I don't think so.  The 1839 proof halfcrown has two overlapping border teeth just below the date and the currency halfcrown does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

including a superb Freeman 7

Mike - the Freeman 7 went for £500 hammer - it was the nice F1 that didn't sell, surprisingly. I expect your 7 was a typo.

The 1864 was a good buy - nearly went for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the 1864 was a good buy  ,i know who bought it and the 1849 seemed cheap going off the picture.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was interested in one coin in this auction which was an 1892 florin. However, it went for £600 so, if I had bid, I was probably looking at £650 or £700 plus DNW's exorbitant buyers fee and it just wasn't worth that much to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to bid on the1871 penny, and a few other pennies. Of course, work got busy just as that coin was about to be bid. It went for £700+, which was not a bad price. Lesson, take a day off work for next DNW auction!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, secret santa said:

Mike - the Freeman 7 went for £500 hammer - it was the nice F1 that didn't sell, surprisingly. I expect your 7 was a typo.

The 1864 was a good buy - nearly went for it.

Exactly that Richard. I meant the F1. The F7 was a bargain at £500, given that it looks virtually flawless with magnificent lustrous toning.

Yes, the 1864 was a great buy. As was the 1869 (lot No 553) which went for £1300. That too was a peach, which if I'd had some leftover cash, I'd have gone for.

Interestingly, the F82 (lot 556) went for £480. It's about on a par with the same coin from the Alderley collection, which I got for £250 in 2014 off e bay, without juice.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Iannich48 said:

I was going to bid on the1871 penny, and a few other pennies. Of course, work got busy just as that coin was about to be bid. It went for £700+, which was not a bad price. Lesson, take a day off work for next DNW auction!

I've been working from home since February, and deliberately logged out for a break near the time my bids were due, so I couldn't be disturbed. I'd had the auction on since the start, something which would not have been possible in the office. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Interestingly, the F82 (lot 556) went for £480

Lot 556 was a F79.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nick said:

I don't think so.  The 1839 proof halfcrown has two overlapping border teeth just below the date and the currency halfcrown does not.

Not that I'm an expert on halfcrowns, but is the proof from the sets the same variety as the currency? According to ESC, the standard proof is A1 (one ornate fillet, one plain), but the currency here is A3 - two plain fillets, which also has its own proof version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Lot 556 was a F79.

Also, I thought that Mike got his F79 off ebay in Feb 2017, as previously reported on here..... not Alderley. The F7 today was advertised as cleaned, guessing explained the low hammer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, alfnail said:

The F7 today was advertised as cleaned, guessing explained the low hammer. 

It certainly looks very nice in the DNW photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Exactly that Richard. I meant the F1. The F7 was a bargain at £500, given that it looks virtually flawless with magnificent lustrous toning.

Yes, the 1864 was a great buy. As was the 1869 (lot No 553) which went for £1300. That too was a peach, which if I'd had some leftover cash, I'd have gone for.

Interestingly, the F82 (lot 556) went for £480. It's about on a par with the same coin from the Alderley collection, which I got for £250 in 2014 off e bay, without juice.  

Did you see the F7 in person, because DNW weren't so complementary about it - "sometime cleaned with surfaces somewhat dull".

It would have been interesting to see the ""cleaned but now retoned" 1853 penny proof, because it was difficult to tell much from the photo. Might have been a pleasant colour, might not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Lot 556 was a F79.

Oh dear - I think at this point I'll retire for the evening. That was a real mistake not a typo. 

20 minutes ago, alfnail said:

Also, I thought that Mike got his F79 off ebay in Feb 2017, as previously reported on here..... not Alderley. The F7 today was advertised as cleaned, guessing explained the low hammer. 

My F82 was the Alderley, Ian.

I did get my F79 in Feb 2017, but it was from "The Coinery" when he was posting on here, 

11 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

Did you see the F7 in person, because DNW weren't so complementary about it - "sometime cleaned with surfaces somewhat dull".

It would have been interesting to see the ""cleaned but now retoned" 1853 penny proof, because it was difficult to tell much from the photo. Might have been a pleasant colour, might not!

No I didn't see it in person, but the pic looked superb.

Given the number of coins that DNW have said "sometime cleaned" or "wiped" this time, I get the feeling they are just covering their backsides. Not necessarily because they are certain.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't believe the prices for items that were fairly common and cleaned.... amazing what people were paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I bought the F7, I hadn’t really planned to bid but couldn’t let it go at the price as it does look nice despite the possible ‘clean’, and should represent a good upgrade from my Copthorne example. But the lot I am most pleased with was 694, the F111 2/1 with the less obvious overstrike that Gouby describes as being found on F114. Looks lustrous in the photo, we shall see but at £200 hammer with a reasonable F114 thrown in I am happy. I don’t find F111’s easily.

Jerry

Edited by jelida
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, that was a nice overdate - I had it down as a possibility but drew the line at the F6A and the F79.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, oldcopper said:

Not that I'm an expert on halfcrowns, but is the proof from the sets the same variety as the currency? According to ESC, the standard proof is A1 (one ornate fillet, one plain), but the currency here is A3 - two plain fillets, which also has its own proof version.

You're right.  There is a two plain fillets proof that doesn't have the overlapped border teeth, so your original theory could still be correct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, oldcopper said:

Not that I'm an expert on halfcrowns, but is the proof from the sets the same variety as the currency? According to ESC, the standard proof is A1 (one ornate fillet, one plain), but the currency here is A3 - two plain fillets, which also has its own proof version.

 

9 hours ago, Nick said:

You're right.  There is a two plain fillets proof that doesn't have the overlapped border teeth, so your original theory could still be correct.

You might have a situation here where there were several halfcrown dies used over time for the proofs from the sets. We already have an 1839, 1839/41 & 1839/43 halfpenny plus an 1839 sixpence with both the first and third head obverse, not to mention any number of Una varieties. The sixpences provided anecdotal evidence of the 1839 sets being produced up to the 1880s, given the third head was only introduced in 1880 - otherwise it is difficult to come up with a logical reason for making one 40+ years after they were first issued. We do know that sets were produced to order after 1839.

I suspect ESC is incomplete in its designation of what was included in the sets, but haven't checked what is extant in complete sets as of today. There is an argument for saying the Unas were struck separately because people would likely have wanted one as a stand alone piece, but the same could not be said for the humble halfpenny which are only likely to have been made as part of a set, and here we know of at least three dies used. The halfcrown could also be a case of more than one die pair being used in the sets.

More research is definitely required.

Edited by Rob
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that and wanted to look at my own proof half crowns - 2 only. Not a big series for sure. Interesting to speculate, and perhaps a bit more research would be nice.

Rob, you said "not to mention any number of Una varieties". Does that mean you have multiple Unas? Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VickySilver said:

I agree with that and wanted to look at my own proof half crowns - 2 only. Not a big series for sure. Interesting to speculate, and perhaps a bit more research would be nice.

Rob, you said "not to mention any number of Una varieties". Does that mean you have multiple Unas? Yikes.

I think "we have" means "there is"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favourite Una.
image.jpeg.e64e9d39bc0dd11c664ee100254bf1c7.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1869 penny was described as "wiped" in the catalogue. What exactly does this mean ????

I can "wipe" my brow or I can "wipe" all trace of something. Another ambiguous term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that the 1845 large date farthing never sold - maybe £500- £700 was like I thought a very optimistic price esp with those heavy fees as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, secret santa said:

The 1869 penny was described as "wiped" in the catalogue. What exactly does this mean ????

I can "wipe" my brow or I can "wipe" all trace of something. Another ambiguous term.

It is ambiguous, not to mention meaningless. I'd be amazed if it's come from the vendor, so it almost certainly has to be a made up term by DNW staff. 

Precisely what's caused them to suggest that the 1869 was "wiped" and what it means anyway, is open to debate.

Looked a very nice specimen to me. Certainly no obvious attempt at cleaning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"wiped I consider a meaningless or even pointless term , why say it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×