Let's See Your Copper Coins, Tokens, Or Medals!

[Rob 3,002]

P1046. This appears to be the first example to come to market since the mid-60s

[PWA 1967 1,841]

One i bought a few weeks ago 1856 Penny not the easiest date to find in a decent grade.

[alfnail 756]

That's nice Pete, looks like large date numerals so guessing paired with plain trident, can you confirm plz?  I'm still looking for a high grade 1856OT for my own collection.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Thanks Ian.....I should of taken a picture of the reverse but my pictures are crap 

Yes your correct and the P.T.

[Paulus 1,942]

Newbie (undated Conder halfpenny token)

[bhx7 222]

On 01/10/2016 at 2:00 AM, Rob said:

P1046. This appears to be the first example to come to market since the mid-60s

That is an absolute stunner of a coin Rob. No idea how I missed this when you posted it. Stunning

[Rob 3,002]

6 minutes ago, bhx7 said:

That is an absolute stunner of a coin Rob. No idea how I missed this when you posted it. Stunning

No it's not. It's probably the worst of the bunch as it has a large thumbprint on the obverse which is something that would normally be a reason for rejection, but given the last example I have recorded is in the Circular for September 1968 (CC4134) given as aEF and Mick Martin couldn't find any examples in the period from 1970 to 2008, buying was a no-brainer. Peck's own example went to Birmingham, and the BM has one (ex-Cuff 1854). That leaves only the Brice/Montagu coin as the other reference I have. Any of the aforementioned may be the  same coin, but I can't be certain.

The late Soho types KH3 onwards, say P1043 to 1048 are decidedly rare. I only have this one and the silver KH4 (not in Peck). I threw out the P1044 which I couldn't live with, but these aside I've not seen any examples of the others.

[Nordle11 564]

7 hours ago, Rob said:

No it's not. It's probably the worst of the bunch as it has a large thumbprint on the obverse which is something that would normally be a reason for rejection, but given the last example I have recorded is in the Circular for September 1968 (CC4134) given as aEF and Mick Martin couldn't find any examples in the period from 1970 to 2008, buying was a no-brainer. Peck's own example went to Birmingham, and the BM has one (ex-Cuff 1854). That leaves only the Brice/Montagu coin as the other reference I have. Any of the aforementioned may be the  same coin, but I can't be certain.

The late Soho types KH3 onwards, say P1043 to 1048 are decidedly rare. I only have this one and the silver KH4 (not in Peck). I threw out the P1044 which I couldn't live with, but these aside I've not seen any examples of the others.

 I think it was just a compliment

[bhx7 222]

7 hours ago, Rob said:

No it's not. It's probably the worst of the bunch as it has a large thumbprint on the obverse which is something that would normally be a reason for rejection, but given the last example I have recorded is in the Circular for September 1968 (CC4134) given as aEF and Mick Martin couldn't find any examples in the period from 1970 to 2008, buying was a no-brainer. Peck's own example went to Birmingham, and the BM has one (ex-Cuff 1854). That leaves only the Brice/Montagu coin as the other reference I have. Any of the aforementioned may be the  same coin, but I can't be certain.

The late Soho types KH3 onwards, say P1043 to 1048 are decidedly rare. I only have this one and the silver KH4 (not in Peck). I threw out the P1044 which I couldn't live with, but these aside I've not seen any examples of the others.

It is the coin design that I find stunning, and for me that would be an amazing piece. If you find it so repugnant that you have to belittle another member who admires it and makes a nice comment then why have it. Surely you buy what you are happy with.

I still say its a stunning coin, it has had a life and the design is breath taking. My own opinion for what that's worth of course!!!!!

Edited October 11, 2016 by bhx7

[azda 973]

34 minutes ago, bhx7 said:

It is the coin design that I find stunning, and for me that would be an amazing piece. If you find it so repugnant that you have to belittle another member who admires it and makes a nice comment then why have it. Surely you buy what you are happy with.

I still say its a stunning coin, it has had a life and the design is breath taking. My own opinion for what that's worth of course!!!!!

Rob is being hard on the coin because he knows another might not come to the market in any short space of time and has to "make do" with the lesser coin because of it's rarity. I can bet it's sitting in his tray really annoying him but he'll have to live with it and for a perfectionist it can be a pain in the arse, like an itch you can't scratch

[Colin G. 147]

8 hours ago, Rob said:

No it's not. It's probably the worst of the bunch as it has a large thumbprint on the obverse which is something that would normally be a reason for rejection, but given the last example I have recorded is in the Circular for September 1968 (CC4134) given as aEF and Mick Martin couldn't find any examples in the period from 1970 to 2008, buying was a no-brainer. Peck's own example went to Birmingham, and the BM has one (ex-Cuff 1854). That leaves only the Brice/Montagu coin as the other reference I have. Any of the aforementioned may be the  same coin, but I can't be certain.

The late Soho types KH3 onwards, say P1043 to 1048 are decidedly rare. I only have this one and the silver KH4 (not in Peck). I threw out the P1044 which I couldn't live with, but these aside I've not seen any examples of the others.

Interesting the 5 on that coin looks amazingly identical to some used for recutting on 1825 Farthings. Would be interested to know if it is a size match, to determine whether a punch has been recycled. Might be way off with my observation here....but who knows!!

[Rob 3,002]

1 hour ago, bhx7 said:

It is the coin design that I find stunning, and for me that would be an amazing piece. If you find it so repugnant that you have to belittle another member who admires it and makes a nice comment then why have it. Surely you buy what you are happy with.

I still say its a stunning coin, it has had a life and the design is breath taking. My own opinion for what that's worth of course!!!!!

I'm not belittling anybody. As Azda said, it is a case of taking what is available, even if not perfect. I've even got a badly corroded aluminium specimen of one type because it's probably the only one in existence. The same went for a guy on the PCGS forum who took a P940 slabbed 61. normally he wouldn't look at it being a number chaser, but it is the only one he is likely to encounter. Again, it was another variety that hadn't appeared in a sale over the past half-century. I've never seen one other than that coin.

Most patterns come up in really good grade at some point, so patience is the name of the game, but occasionally it is Hobson's Choice.

 

[Rob 3,002]

48 minutes ago, Colin G. said:

Interesting the 5 on that coin looks amazingly identical to some used for recutting on 1825 Farthings. Would be interested to know if it is a size match, to determine whether a punch has been recycled. Might be way off with my observation here....but who knows!!

Shouldn't be the same punch as the Soho punches remained there until they were sold off in the 1848 auction where Taylor acquired them. i.e, the 1825s would have to be restrikes to use the same punches as the mint was already using in house punches.

[Colin G. 147]

Must have just been the style used on copper coins of the era, or punches may have come from the same initial source.

[Nordle11 564]

6 minutes ago, Rob said:

I'm not belittling anybody. As Azda said, it is a case of taking what is available, even if not perfect. I've even got a badly corroded aluminium specimen of one type because it's probably the only one in existence. The same went for a guy on the PCGS forum who took a P940 slabbed 61. normally he wouldn't look at it being a number chaser, but it is the only one he is likely to encounter. Again, it was another variety that hadn't appeared in a sale over the past half-century. I've never seen one other than that coin.

Most patterns come up in really good grade at some point, so patience is the name of the game, but occasionally it is Hobson's Choice.

It looks that way, he said 'Nice coin' and you went with 'No it's not', instead of something like 'Thanks, but...'

Could have been a little more tact

[Rob 3,002]

7 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

It looks that way, he said 'Nice coin' and you went with 'No it's not', instead of something like 'Thanks, but...'

Could have been a little more tact

Not for the first time tact isn't my strongest point. Oops. My idea of stunning is by comparison with its peers.

[Nordle11 564]

Just now, Rob said:

Not for the first time tact isn't my strongest point. Oops. My idea of stunning is by comparison with its peers.

 I'm not saying anything-

[mrbadexample 985]

12 hours ago, Rob said:

No it's not. It's probably the worst of the bunch as it has a large thumbprint on the obverse...

Display it the other way up, the reverse is the best bit anyway. I'm with the likers.

 

[Rob 3,002]

22 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

Display it the other way up, the reverse is the best bit anyway. I'm with the likers.

 

Can't - the defining feature for KH5 is the rusted obverse die which is only known for this die pair. There isn't anything obvious on the reverse to differentiate from other varieties.

Anyway, for lewd coin displays you need the nude Britannia reverse.

[Paulus 1,942]

Nothing special value-wise but nice to look at, Spink Patina series fantasy William IV Crown in copper (25.0g)

Edited October 12, 2016 by Paulus

[Paulus 1,942]

Re-pic-ed with new lens,set-up etc

[scott 129]

[Paulus 1,942]

Re-picced

[Peter 615]

wunderschon

[Paulus 1,942]

David at ABC has some new stock, well worth a visit ,, 

http://www.abccoinsandtokens.com/

I have cherry-picked four, including a Suffolk with you in mind Peter and my first Croydon Tea Rooms (my home town)