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.

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, alfnail said:

Might be able to help you with the F78 Mike. Thinning down the collection, and got a good example of ja reverse on my 1875.............so guess that'll do for my needs.

My F78 is aUNC with some lustre. Email me if you want to consider buying.

 e mail sent Ian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2023 at 3:02 PM, alfnail said:

Might be able to help you with the F78 Mike. Thinning down the collection, and got a good example of ja reverse on my 1875.............so guess that'll do for my needs.

My F78 is aUNC with some lustre. Email me if you want to consider buying.

Private sale agreed with Ian for this very nice aUNC F78. Now arrived. 

I must emphasise how (along with quite a few others, none of which have ever been thought of as notably rare) difficult this variety is to obtain almost in any grade, let alone this nice high grade.

Thanks a lot Ian. Much appreciated. I might otherwise have been waiting a very very long time.

 

 

F78 rev cropped.jpg

F78 obv cropped.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem Mike, glad to help.

It's always difficult deciding to part with one of your nicest pieces, but when you sell to someone who you know will cherish it then that always makes it much easier.

I am constantly under pressure to sell my collection rather than leave it one day to those who will not understand..........and probably sell for a fraction of what they are worth!!😨

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the two 1874's with that 'wide ribbons with small gap' obverse are _way_ rarer than is assumed.

Just look at how often any examples turn up anywhere, in worn condition.

Very unusual to see one.

Mike is so right- one in this condition turning up, regardless of perceptions of rarity,

would drive a  purchase that would be argued as 'rash' in our house, but I would defend the decision!

 

An UNC 1864 or 1869 or 1871 would not be half as tempting......

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No problem Mike, glad to help.

It's always difficult deciding to part with one of your nicest pieces, but when you sell to someone who you know will cherish it then that always makes it much easier.

I am constantly under pressure to sell my collection rather than leave it one day to those who will not understand..........and probably sell for a fraction of what they are worth!!😨

Ian, I think this is an issue which faces all serious numismatists holding a collection which has assumed some considerable value over the years. Although it's more statistically likely you will pass away - for whatever medical reason - as you get older, it can happen at literally any age to anybody. Car crash, unexpected accident or unanticipated sudden severe illness. We none of us know from day to day. Thankfully, it's far more probable than not, that the worst won't happen for a good deal of time yet, and people are living much longer these days. 

Maybe the way round it is to prepare a numbered inventory of all your coins, with photographs and a description, perhaps in both hard copy and e form, and let a solicitor have it as part of your will. The collection to be handed to a major auction house, with the inventory, in the event of your death, and an agreement with your wife and/or other close relative to effect the transfer of the coins to the auction house.  Not necessarily an easy task as collections change and are added to etc.

The other potential problem we have is theft. Yes you can insure, but the monetary replacement would come nowhere near the sense of loss from having your collection stolen. Decades of work gone up in smoke, and the pleasure of viewing your collection gone.  

 

   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I can imagine you collectors that have been collecting for years would have a hell of a problem cataloguing.  Even and only after 8 years collecting  it has grown to a point that if I buy nothing else I  have  started listing and photographing now just so the collection has some reference points.  I could say that I would not mind "beyond the grave" if the rarer varieties were mis sold, even for the charity, but I will still be annoyed to think it might happen in advance of sudden demise.  

I have to admit I do find the process of sorting and listing coins for sale very tedious, even if it helps.    It is the sheer number that is so daunting.  But this conversation might spur me on to just get rid.

 

Edited by DrLarry
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2023 at 7:19 PM, secret santa said:

The 1841 "proof" could start an interesting discussion between the buyer and Noonan's. I'm pretty sure from the photos that it's not a proof but where does a buyer stand when it's been graded by a reputable TPG as a Proof ? 

Ummmm...not convincing: London coins 1841 no colon "proof" Roland Harris collection 2009, before that I think Baldwins.

London Coins : Auction 124 : Lot 640 : L640r.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! HA PR64 no colon 1841 with gorgeous pink toning - went for nearly $6.5K in 2017.

Oh wait, it's the same coin!

Great Britain, Great Britain: Victoria Proof Penny 1841 PR64 Brown NGC,...

Edited by oldcopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the 1841 "proof" penny at DNW just out of interest of course as I was there. Better than their recent "Dr Reddy's patented 1859 facsimile proof penny", but not by much! There was no way it was a proof from the worn dies on either side from the photograph for starters. It must be artificially bronzed.

There's an 1859 proof coming up at HA which came from BA 44 in 2006 - where they put "impaired obverse, but reverse definitely struck from a proof die." Estimate at the Gregory sale £3-400, but two people must have thought it a bona fide proof as it went for £1200. Baldwins didn't say why the obverse was impaired or why they weren't certain that side was a proof. Interesting to see it in the hand but i'm not going to risk several thousand for that privilege!

Share this post


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

I saw the 1841 "proof" penny at DNW just out of interest of course as I was there. Better than their recent "Dr Reddy's patented 1859 facsimile proof penny", but not by much! There was no way it was a proof from the worn dies on either side from the photograph for starters. It must be artificially bronzed.

There's an 1859 proof coming up at HA which came from BA 44 in 2006 - where they put "impaired obverse, but reverse definitely struck from a proof die." Estimate at the Gregory sale £3-400, but two people must have thought it a bona fide proof as it went for £1200. Baldwins didn't say why the obverse was impaired or why they weren't certain that side was a proof. Interesting to see it in the hand but i'm not going to risk several thousand for that privilege!

I don't think I'd trust an 1841 without colons, which has been touted as a proof. Although I can't find anything definitive in writing on whether they exist, the only 1841 proofs I've seen (three), which I'd personally accept as being proofs, have had the colons in place. Possibly from the same dies which later were used to produce the much less common, with colon 1841 currency strike. 

Too strong a possibility that somebody is bumping a nice currency strike as a proof. Plus let's be honest, it wouldn't be difficult to get past the checkers at NGC

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Wow! HA PR64 no colon 1841 with gorgeous pink toning - went for nearly $6.5K in 2017.

Oh wait, it's the same coin!

Great Britain, Great Britain: Victoria Proof Penny 1841 PR64 Brown NGC,...

How did it turn from a pink to a brown?  it is the same coin same blemishes at least 

Share this post


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

I don't think I'd trust an 1841 without colons, which has been touted as a proof. Although I can't find anything definitive in writing on whether they exist, the only 1841 proofs I've seen (three), which I'd personally accept as being proofs, have had the colons in place. Possibly from the same dies which later were used to produce the much less common, with colon 1841 currency strike. 

Too strong a possibility that somebody is bumping a nice currency strike as a proof. Plus let's be honest, it wouldn't be difficult to get past the checkers at NGC

Having seen a few coins proofed up, I wouldn't go for one either. Peck didn't know of one, that's not definitive as he did miss things, but it's evidence that in his 30 plus years of researching he never saw one that jumped out at him as a proof.

One example I would like to look at was sold as "full lustre" in a very early 2000's SNC. It was listed as the colon proof, but I couldn't make out the usually bold colon from the photo, in black and white back then. Perhaps it just didn't show up on the photo, though whether colon or no colon, a "full lustre" one would be quite something to behold

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DrLarry said:

How did it turn from a pink to a brown?  it is the same coin same blemishes at least 

I saw it at the LCA auction where it was brown, it went to pink pre-slabbing, a great process whatever their secret recipe, as it turned a nothing special coin (still sold at ~£1K though) into a $6.4K one a few years later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

I saw it at the LCA auction where it was brown, it went to pink pre-slabbing, a great process whatever their secret recipe, as it turned a nothing special coin (still sold at ~£1K though) into a $6.4K one a few years later. 

that is just ridiculous I suppose it is the same debate we were having the other day on toning in silver coins and that awful blue they get by chemically altering the surface.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

I think the two 1874's with that 'wide ribbons with small gap' obverse are _way_ rarer than is assumed.

Just look at how often any examples turn up anywhere, in worn condition.

Very unusual to see one.

Mike is so right- one in this condition turning up, regardless of perceptions of rarity,

would drive a  purchase that would be argued as 'rash' in our house, but I would defend the decision!

 

An UNC 1864 or 1869 or 1871 would not be half as tempting......

Well interestingly, Freeman has the F78 as R12, whereas an 1871 is R8, the 1869 is R11, and the 1864 is R10 (crosslet) and R9 ) plain.

Overall, of course, the 1874 penny is R4, so maybe the varieties have got a bit lost in the mix over the years, as compared to the individually dated single coins. Moreover, the probability is that they weren't sought to anything like the extent that say an 1869 would have been prior to the big melt, so most would have been lost. The few that did survive were most probably saved, by default, as date only examples. That same principle applies to other varieties.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops

 

Edited by secret santa
Posted picture which had already been posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops

Edited by blakeyboy
Ran out of ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When that supposed 1841 No REG Colon Proof sold at London Coins in 2009 I noticed that the obverse had some interesting features, in that the top bar of both I's in VICTORIA, and DEI, were very weak to the point of being missing; also the C of VICTORIA had been repaired.

It made me think that the coin was perhaps NOT a Proof. Picture below refers.

I have an example with exact same features in my own collection, which I can show tomorrow if anyone wishes to see.

I would also sell my coin to anyone who wants it for far less than the $6.5K that Heritage sold theirs for in 2017.....and perhaps even less than the £900 that LC sold same coin for in 2009! 🤣

 

1841 No REG Colon Proof LCA March 2009 £900 Obverse.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I saw the 1841 "proof" penny at DNW just out of interest of course as I was there. Better than their recent "Dr Reddy's patented 1859 facsimile proof penny", but not by much! There was no way it was a proof from the worn dies on either side from the photograph for starters. It must be artificially bronzed.

There's an 1859 proof coming up at HA which came from BA 44 in 2006 - where they put "impaired obverse, but reverse definitely struck from a proof die." Estimate at the Gregory sale £3-400, but two people must have thought it a bona fide proof as it went for £1200. Baldwins didn't say why the obverse was impaired or why they weren't certain that side was a proof. Interesting to see it in the hand but i'm not going to risk several thousand for that privilege!

Somebody's having a larf with that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I attended that Gregory sale and examined all the pennies. I put a tick and the word "nice" in the catalogue next to that 1859 proof (lot 416) meaning that I'd bid for it which suggests that I thought it was genuine but also put an exclamation mark against the hammer price (£1100) which meant that I was very surprised at the price. All of which tells you (and me) nothing ! As you say, too much of a gamble to bid remotely.

Share this post


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

I attended that Gregory sale and examined all the pennies. I put a tick and the word "nice" in the catalogue next to that 1859 proof (lot 416) meaning that I'd bid for it which suggests that I thought it was genuine but also put an exclamation mark against the hammer price (£1100) which meant that I was very surprised at the price. All of which tells you (and me) nothing ! As you say, too much of a gamble to bid remotely.

So what was it about the obverse that rendered it "impaired"? (as compared to the reverse)

Share this post


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

So what was it about the obverse that rendered it "impaired"? (as compared to the reverse)

Heritage say there's a graze on her cheek. Might be that. Baldwin's did list it as the proof, just strange they implied the obverse was less certain to be from a proof die than the reverse, and gave it a low estimate of £3-400. Perhaps the graze, if it was that, put them off. If anything I'd have thought the obverse would be easier to tell proof-wise based on the sharpness of the hair. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Heritage say there's a graze on her cheek. Might be that. Baldwin's did list it as the proof, just strange they implied the obverse was less certain to be from a proof die than the reverse, and gave it a low estimate of £3-400. Perhaps the graze, if it was that, put them off. If anything I'd have thought the obverse would be easier to tell proof-wise based on the sharpness of the hair. 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still maintain there are many nice or "early strike" currency coins being wrongly passed as proofs, with the consequent massive uplift in cost for potential customers. 

I'd imagine these are a mixture of genuine error and deliberate cynical attempts to deceive. Virtually impossible to distinguish between the two, hence the fraudsters get away with it. Especially if they've also fooled NGC

My own rule of thumb is that some coins hit you in the eye as very obvious genuine proofs, as soon as you see them. I'd stick to them. Alternatively, some you know that cannot be anything other than a proof, such as the 1839 mentioned earlier, the KP31 1806 copper, bronzed copper and gilt proofs with the incomplete 0 & 1 in the date, and the R97 & R98 Taylor re-strikes with the tiny collection of rust spots at the base of the second A on the reverse.

Slightest doubt, steer clear.     

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Slightest doubt, steer clear. 

An early, proof-like strike still deserves a premium though. Indeed, it may be more scarce than a genuine proof.  So I don’t steer completely clear. 

  • Like 1

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

×