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

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

I didn't know that either. It would be great to see pictures of an example or two.

 

I'm going to keep a look out for anything which might be a potential specimen.

Like so much of the pre 1860 copper series, it's been somewhat overlooked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2022 at 9:28 PM, 1949threepence said:

Ian, In a footnote at page 407, Peck states that bronzed currency pieces exist for 1841 (no colon), 1853 (OT), 1855 (PT) and 1857 (OT).

This is something that I've ever noticed, or seen referred to anywhere . May I respectfully ask whether you have ever come across any in your extensive experience? If so, should we regard them as scarce? I'd imagine they would only be noticeable as such, in very high states of preservation.

I bought a bronzed 1857 from Sovreign Rarities a while ago.

1195179512_1857P1514PTBronzedSovRobv.jpg.b6ba99ee5cd773585227f5a5050735c6.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I bought a bronzed 1857 from Sovreign Rarities a while ago.

 

Was it flagged up as a bronzed piece, Richard, or just sold as date only?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2022 at 9:28 PM, 1949threepence said:

@alfnail

Ian, In a footnote at page 407, Peck states that bronzed currency pieces exist for 1841 (no colon), 1853 (OT), 1855 (PT) and 1857 (OT).

This is something that I've ever noticed, or seen referred to anywhere . May I respectfully ask whether you have ever come across any in your extensive experience? If so, should we regard them as scarce? I'd imagine they would only be noticeable as such, in very high states of preservation.

Thanks in advance.   

Should have noticed that the footnote in question continues over the page into 408, to include the 1858/7, the small date 1858, the 1858 no ww (and the 1859 copper proof, which isn't a currency penny).

In the same footnote, Peck also goes onto say that there are gilded specimens of the 1841 no colon after reg and the 1853 OT. Although that somewhat contradicts his comments on page 391 where he says: "Gilt specimens of the copper and bronze coins of George IV to Victoria are occasionally met with, but these are only current pieces which have been gilded after leaving the Mint: no gilt specimens have ever been issued by the Mint".

Share this post


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

Should have noticed that the footnote in question continues over the page into 408, to include the 1858/7, the small date 1858, the 1858 no ww (and the 1859 copper proof, which isn't a currency penny).

In the same footnote, Peck also goes onto say that there are gilded specimens of the 1841 no colon after reg and the 1853 OT. Although that somewhat contradicts his comments on page 391 where he says: "Gilt specimens of the copper and bronze coins of George IV to Victoria are occasionally met with, but these are only current pieces which have been gilded after leaving the Mint: no gilt specimens have ever been issued by the Mint".

There was an unofficially gilded 1841 in the Colin Adams sale of 2003. Peck is saying that these post Soho examples are all unofficially gilded so he isn't contradicting himself.

Share this post


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

I bought a bronzed 1857 from Sovreign Rarities a while ago.

1195179512_1857P1514PTBronzedSovRobv.jpg.b6ba99ee5cd773585227f5a5050735c6.jpg

That might be the coin originally sold by Baldwins as a bronzed proof (sale no.52) where Roland Harris bought it for ~£600. I saw it then and it was obviously a currency piece, so why Baldwins said it was "undoubtedly a proof" I don't know. 

People presumably sussed this as it only made £190 at the Harris sale (LC 2009), with LC's description somewhat ambivalent about the proof designation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Was it flagged up as a bronzed piece, Richard, or just sold as date only?

Yes, advertised as bronzed.

Share this post


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

That might be the coin originally sold by Baldwins as a bronzed proof (sale no.52) where Roland Harris bought it for ~£600. I saw it then and it was obviously a currency piece, so why Baldwins said it was "undoubtedly a proof" I don't know. 

People presumably sussed this as it only made £190 at the Harris sale (LC 2009), with LC's description somewhat ambivalent about the proof designation.

No - different coin. That was an ornamental trident (P1513) penny (lot 666) but this is a plain trident P1514 coin.

1975523200_1857P1514PTBronzedSovRrev.jpg.2f9bce0757d4251896634b74ebc4efd3.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

There was an unofficially gilded 1841 in the Colin Adams sale of 2003. Peck is saying that these post Soho examples are all unofficially gilded so he isn't contradicting himself.

At page 408 he mentioned the gilded coins, alongside the bronzed versions, as though they were official Royal Mint issue. If you'd missed the earlier point on page 391 (not difficult in a book that size), regarding no officially gilded copper or bronze, post George III, you could be forgiven for thinking he meant they were from the Royal Mint. It's the way it reads anyway.    

Share this post


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

No - different coin. That was an ornamental trident (P1513) penny (lot 666) but this is a plain trident P1514 coin.

1975523200_1857P1514PTBronzedSovRrev.jpg.2f9bce0757d4251896634b74ebc4efd3.jpg

OK not that one! Its PT twin, so these later bronzed coins are out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

At page 408 he mentioned the gilded coins, alongside the bronzed versions, as though they were official Royal Mint issue. If you'd missed the earlier point on page 391 (not difficult in a book that size), regarding no officially gilded copper or bronze, post George III, you could be forgiven for thinking he meant they were from the Royal Mint. It's the way it reads anyway.    

Perhaps he phrased it ambiguously but if he did think they were official surely he would have given them a Peck number.

Edited by oldcopper

Share this post


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

Perhaps he phrased it ambiguously but if he did think they were official surely he would have given them a Peck number.

Well he didn't with the bronzed ones mentioned. Are we to assume they were bronzed post mint as well?  

Share this post


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

There was an unofficially gilded 1841 in the Colin Adams sale of 2003.

368034476_1841Gilt.jpg.2fbbcbdaef4b9835d7617f7c2f851936.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I had a not far off as struck gilt 1854PT which I sold to a forum member in 2006.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


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

No - different coin. That was an ornamental trident (P1513) penny (lot 666) but this is a plain trident P1514 coin.

1975523200_1857P1514PTBronzedSovRrev.jpg.2f9bce0757d4251896634b74ebc4efd3.jpg

Unlike the obverse (which COULD be a proof) that reverse obviously isn't. Do we know the process by which coins were bronzed, and if via a treated die, could that have been used for a few currency pieces?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The coin wasn't sold as a proof and Peck never suggests that the bronzed pieces are proofs. Their purpose and creation remain a mystery.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2022 at 4:40 PM, 1949threepence said:

Well he didn't with the bronzed ones mentioned. Are we to assume they were bronzed post mint as well?  

Yes, of course, they are bronzed, mainly currency pieces. The reason he didn't list them is they're unofficial as well.

Share this post


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

Yes, of course, they are bronzed, mainly currency pieces. The reason he didn't list them is they're unofficial as well.

I think we can be pretty much certain that there was no mint gilting of copper after George III, but we know for a fact that official mint bronzing definitely continued for proofs, and did so well into Victoria's reign. By logical extension, therefore, I don't think we can rule out officially bronzed versions of currency issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2022 at 9:28 PM, 1949threepence said:

@alfnail

Ian, In a footnote at page 407, Peck states that bronzed currency pieces exist for 1841 (no colon), 1853 (OT), 1855 (PT) and 1857 (OT).

This is something that I've ever noticed, or seen referred to anywhere . May I respectfully ask whether you have ever come across any in your extensive experience? If so, should we regard them as scarce? I'd imagine they would only be noticeable as such, in very high states of preservation.

Thanks in advance.   

Hi Mike, just catching up after getting home from holiday, sorry for delay replying. Guess where we were staying?

50741115681_ea72f59268_o.jpg?resize=750%2C563&ssl=1

I'm sure I have come across several bronzed current pieces. Like Peck, I haven't got too excited about them. If you read his pages 206/7 (under George III), and then Page 405 (Victoria) where you will see that he says Victorian "current pieces subsequently bronzed to resemble proofs are not uncommon". Half way down Page 405 he then describes "specious bronze patina", and I am sure that most Victorian 'Young Head' penny collectors will have noticed the 'patchy' type of coin which he describes within their own collections.

I'm pretty sure that the reason why he doesn't bother to categorise them with separate reference numbers is that he didn't consider them anything special, just copper pieces treated post-mint. I think this is why he has simply added a footnote at the bottom of his Page 407 list.

Specious means "misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive".

This increased attractiveness was probably a good little earner, particularly if the treated coins could then be passed off as genuine bronzed proofs.

Personally I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time searching for bronzed current coins.    

It does help to have an 1839 penny to see the clear differences.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Hi Mike, just catching up after getting home from holiday, sorry for delay replying. Guess where we were staying?

50741115681_ea72f59268_o.jpg?resize=750%2C563&ssl=1

I'm sure I have come across several bronzed current pieces. Like Peck, I haven't got too excited about them. If you read his pages 206/7 (under George III), and then Page 405 (Victoria) where you will see that he says Victorian "current pieces subsequently bronzed to resemble proofs are not uncommon". Half way down Page 405 he then describes "specious bronze patina", and I am sure that most Victorian 'Young Head' penny collectors will have noticed the 'patchy' type of coin which he describes within their own collections.

I'm pretty sure that the reason why he doesn't bother to categorise them with separate reference numbers is that he didn't consider them anything special, just copper pieces treated post-mint. I think this is why he has simply added a footnote at the bottom of his Page 407 list.

Specious means "misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive".

This increased attractiveness was probably a good little earner, particularly if the treated coins could then be passed off as genuine bronzed proofs.

Personally I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time searching for bronzed current coins.    

It does help to have an 1839 penny to see the clear differences.

From memory (went there in 1999) isn't that the cathedral in Palma, Majorca? I may be wrong. Either way, I do hope you had a great time.

Thanks as ever for the info Ian, and it appears I owe @oldcopper an apology as he was right all along about the bronzing being done post mint. Obviously Peck is a huge tome, and it's easy to miss very relevant bits. Oddly enough the thought that there might have been a deliberate attempt to  bronze post mint, to make them appear as proofs, did cross my mind.

Actually, the 1839 bronzed copper proof is one of the few Victorian copper specimens I haven't yet been able to obtain. I keep looking out, but the odd ones I have seen weren't in especially good shape, and they were being sold at what seemed exorbitant prices. Maybe they were worth it, and it was me under estimating their worth. Not sure. Haven't got any of the other proofs, but counting 1839 nominally as a regular year, as the proof is the only example from that year.

Probably still worth collecting one or two bronzed examples as of historic value. Adds another chapter to the story, as it were.     

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, Palma Cathedral, amazing place. That rose stained glass window is 11 metres in diameter, with over 1000 pieces!

We are spoiling ourselves, making up for lost Covid time, as we did Cordoba Mesquita only 5 weeks ago, again an amazing building.

Think the Alhambra Palace in Granada is still my favourite though as they also have such wonderful gardens. We did that early May, just before Covid, and at that time of year the smell of oranges in their gardens is quite overpowering.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Correct, Palma Cathedral, amazing place. That rose stained glass window is 11 metres in diameter, with over 1000 pieces!

We are spoiling ourselves, making up for lost Covid time, as we did Cordoba Mesquita only 5 weeks ago, again an amazing building.

Think the Alhambra Palace in Granada is still my favourite though as they also have such wonderful gardens. We did that early May, just before Covid, and at that time of year the smell of oranges in their gardens is quite overpowering.

 

I used this photograph of the interior for my wife's first poetry book. Quite spectacular colours!!

image.png.7b454a8ef05ecbcd12c7b50a69f7d577.png

  • Like 6
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again hardly any pennies at the DNW (Noonans) auction later this month, but perhaps a couple of interesting ones.

Share this post


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

Again hardly any pennies at the DNW (Noonans) auction later this month, but perhaps a couple of interesting ones.

Are other people having trouble accessing this auction ? Every change of page or lot takes between 30 and 40 seconds to come up on my PC.

I've just found that it's much much better on Firefox - I was using Chrome previously but the DNW site worked perfectly on Chrome.

Edited by secret santa

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

×