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

Is this a 5+G = F28 ? Before I get too excited...

F28 rev.JPG

F28.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, sorry. 5+D. Reverse D easiest identified by the upward slope to the exergue/base line of sea left of shield. Reverse G slopes down there.

Edited by Martinminerva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least I got one side right ! Back to looking...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it could be a proof, but it is very difficult to tell from those pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Baldwin's catalogue states that "this is undoubtedly a proof" and it sold for £729-28. Ex-H Deane collection.

Share this post


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

Just came across this sale, which I cross referenced in my collection yonks ago.

Can anyone shed light please, doesn't particularly look like a proof to me; is that what it's saying?

 http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=124&searchlot=666&searchtype=2

 

There's nothing which marks it out as such. That's quite apart from the fact that 1857 is not a known proof year.

The strike doesn't look sharp enough either, especially the hair and the worn right breast. Hardly proof standard.

Would obviously need to be seen in hand, but personally, I'd say very probably not a proof.

Be interesting to know what the original thinking was in accepting as a proof.    

Could have been bronzed post mint - BM 1513 recorded as such by Peck. He also says on page 405:- 

Quote

"Current pieces subsequently bronzed (or gilded) to resemble proofs are not uncommon, but although their surfaces are sometimes fairly well polished, they always lack the brilliant mirror like finish of the genuine proofs, which were, of course, struck from polished dies, on specially selected blanks. Others on the contrary, are conspicuous by their dull matt surfaces, and red brown colour, by which they should be easily recognised"      

Also, just noticed, there's that familiar tell tale die clash mark between the bottom of the hair riband and the pony tail. Again quoting Peck from page 405:-

Quote

"Dies that had been damaged by 'clashing' were never used for striking proofs, hence the occurrence of 'clash marks' on a suspected fake proof provides useful confirmatory evidence of its spuriousness"     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ex-H Deane collection.

I don't know who H Deane was, but he owned some very nice coins and presumably had decided that this coin was a proof. It needs to be seen in hand.

The Baldwins catalogue picture doesn't show the die clash

1611340904_1857proof_edited.jpg.821cd8b6ac1289b299fc95875296e831.jpg

Share this post


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

Just came across this sale, which I cross referenced in my collection yonks ago.

Can anyone shed light please, doesn't particularly look like a proof to me; is that what it's saying?

 http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=124&searchlot=666&searchtype=2

 

I don't think London Coins are positive either, by their saying "accompanied by a ticket saying...". Having said that, it does have the sharp clarity of a proof - I've never seen such a clearly defined set of national flowers on a currency example.

Share this post


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

Just came across this sale, which I cross referenced in my collection yonks ago.

Can anyone shed light please, doesn't particularly look like a proof to me; is that what it's saying?

 http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=124&searchlot=666&searchtype=2

 

I saw it at the Baldwins and the LC auctions - and no way is it a proof! That fact was underlined by LCs's description quoting Baldwins only and not saying anything about the coin themselves. It fetched only a fraction of what it got at the Baldwins sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for comments and Baldwins sale reference picture.

I have just realised why I had cross referenced the link to the LCA auction in my collection, and put 'Proof?' alongside my own 1857 penny.

It is because there are some legend features on both the obverse and reverse of my own coin which exactly match the London Coin pictures, which you can see if you enlarge the LCA pictures to better see the detail. I attach 3 of my own digital microscope pictures to show 3 of these legend repairs.

My own coin doesn't look like a proof to me, but I'm happy to sell it for £789 to the first taker.......and no Buyer's Premium!!

 

REG G Repair.jpg

BRITT First I Repair.jpg

DEI I Repair.jpg

Share this post


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

Ex-H Deane collection.

I don't know who H Deane was, but he owned some very nice coins and presumably had decided that this coin was a proof. It needs to be seen in hand.

The Baldwins catalogue picture doesn't show the die clash

1611340904_1857proof_edited.jpg.821cd8b6ac1289b299fc95875296e831.jpg

Baldwins bought the Deane collection in the 1940's or early 50's from my memory of their catalogue descriptions, so chances are that Peck would have seen this coin. I don't know if the earlier Deane ticket called it a proof, but it would certainly have been brought to Peck's attention if it was thought a proof at the time. It was an obvious currency strike to me - of course there are sometimes grey areas as to whether or not a coin is a proof, but this one was clear enough even at a glance. Look at the scaling above the breast for instance on the blown up LC photo. I think it fetched about £600 at the Bladwins sale. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baldwin's probably erroneous description for lot No 683 at their auction No 52:  25th September 2007:-

Quote

 

Bronzed Proof Penny, 1857OT, date in large figures, young head left, date below, rev Britannia seated right, ornamental trident, colon further from DEF) Peck 1513 and note; S 3948). Toned, as struck with sharp rims and good proof surfaces, just a little friction to reverse high points, Peck notes bronzed specimens occur of current pieces but this is undoubtedly a proof and extremely rare £600-£800

ex H Deane collection, purchased by Seaby in 1946.       

 

Was this just a matter of automatically accepting a description of many decades long standing, on the assumption it must be right? There does seem to be a marked absence of critical thinking in saying, "this is undoubtedly a proof", although in fairness they also had many hundreds of other coins to consider, and wouldn't have had the time to delve deeply into every little thing.  

Share this post


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

I saw it at the Baldwins and the LC auctions - and no way is it a proof!

That'll do for me. Thanks Pete (I think it's Pete - we met at DNW a couple of years ago).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That'll do for me. Thanks Pete (I think it's Pete - we met at DNW a couple of years ago).

Sure did!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2022 at 7:15 AM, alfnail said:

I'm putting examples of both these date types into the Noonans September sale if anyone is interested.

 

1853 Plain Trident Plain 5 Predecimal.jpg

1853 Plain Trident Gouby Italic 5 Predecimal.jpg

Afraid I had to withdraw the 1853 Italic 5 coin because I didn't agree with the way the lot was going to be sold.

The coin with plain 5 date style is still up for their September sale, Lot 1518. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Old Money said:

Montagu page 126

Interesting reference. At page 126, under Victorian Pennies, Montagu says the following:- 

Quote

"Bronzed patterns of 1839 form a portion, with the halfpenny and farthing, of the mint set of this reign. They also occur of 1841, and copper proofs also of 1841, 1853, 1856, 1857 and 1859. In my collection was a silver proof of the penny of 1841 (from the Sainthill cabinet), which is unique"   

I checked Peck to see if there were any 1857 Halfpenny, Farthing, half, third or quarter farthing copper proofs mentioned, just in case this was what Montagu meant, even though under pennies, but nothing. In fact for half, third and quarter farthing there was no currency strike for that year either. 

In due deference to Montagu, he was around during this period (book was written in 1885), and therefore would have had the much greater knowledge afforded by proximity in real time. So maybe they do exist.

Montagu doesn't mention 1844 as a proof year, but it is alluded to by Peck as an excessively rare copper proof. We already know about 1841, 1853, 1856 and 1859. There was an 1856 PT proof penny in the Adams collection, but no 1844 and no 1857.  

Anybody ever seen or heard of an extant 1844 proof penny? 

Share this post


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

Interesting reference. At page 126, under Victorian Pennies, Montagu says the following:- 

I checked Peck to see if there were any 1857 Halfpenny, Farthing, half, third or quarter farthing copper proofs mentioned, just in case this was what Montagu meant, even though under pennies, but nothing. In fact for half, third and quarter farthing there was no currency strike for that year either. 

In due deference to Montagu, he was around during this period (book was written in 1885), and therefore would have had the much greater knowledge afforded by proximity in real time. So maybe they do exist.

Montagu doesn't mention 1844 as a proof year, but it is alluded to by Peck as an excessively rare copper proof. We already know about 1841, 1853, 1856 and 1859. There was an 1856 PT proof penny in the Adams collection, but no 1844 and no 1857.  

Anybody ever seen or heard of an extant 1844 proof penny? 

Baldwins sold a possible 1844 "proof" penny which they said they didn't think was a proof, just a well struck currency, in the late 2000's. I don't think they exist, unless one turns up of course! Peck didn't see one and I think he was just going on an old reference in his footnote (again from memory, I don't have Peck to hand).

Adams also didn't have the 1841 copper and the 1853 bronzed proofs. 

Now that Montagu mentioned the silver 1841 penny, that must be one of the biggest regrets of my (numismatic) life to miss out on it (I think it's the only one in commerce) when it came up in the Glenister Spink auction in 2007. Way out of my budget then, but if only I'd pushed the boat out - it went for £4,000.

 

image

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Baldwins sold a possible 1844 "proof" penny which they said they didn't think was a proof, just a well struck currency, in the late 2000's. I don't think they exist, unless one turns up of course! Peck didn't see one and I think he was just going on an old reference in his footnote (again from memory, I don't have Peck to hand).

Adams also didn't have the 1841 copper and the 1853 bronzed proofs. 

Now that Montagu mentioned the silver 1841 penny, that must be one of the biggest regrets of my (numismatic) life to miss out on it (I think it's the only one in commerce) when it came up in the Glenister Spink auction in 2007. Way out of my budget then, but if only I'd pushed the boat out - it went for £4,000.

 

image

Think what it would be worth now, quite apart from the cache of owning such a piece. 

Share this post


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

Interesting reference. At page 126, under Victorian Pennies, Montagu says the following:- 

I checked Peck to see if there were any 1857 Halfpenny, Farthing, half, third or quarter farthing copper proofs mentioned, just in case this was what Montagu meant, even though under pennies, but nothing. In fact for half, third and quarter farthing there was no currency strike for that year either. 

In due deference to Montagu, he was around during this period (book was written in 1885), and therefore would have had the much greater knowledge afforded by proximity in real time. So maybe they do exist.

Montagu doesn't mention 1844 as a proof year, but it is alluded to by Peck as an excessively rare copper proof. We already know about 1841, 1853, 1856 and 1859. There was an 1856 PT proof penny in the Adams collection, but no 1844 and no 1857.  

Anybody ever seen or heard of an extant 1844 proof penny? 

I bought this and wasn't wholely convinced it was a proof. A view shared by the person I sold it to as well. It was ex Peck and Norweb and has subsequently gone through another sale, but don't have the details. 

Share this post


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

Think what it would be worth now, quite apart from the cache of owning such a piece. 

It was a beauty to behold as well, struck on a really thick flan in my Spink viewing.

Share this post


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

I bought this and wasn't wholely convinced it was a proof. A view shared by the person I sold it to as well. It was ex Peck and Norweb and has subsequently gone through another sale, but don't have the details. 

Looking at the hard copy catalogue, it doesn't hit you in the eye as a proof. But only a thumbnail so completely impossible to tell.

Tried to find a proper pic on the Spink website, but got nowhere, unfortunately.

No doubt will in any case be perpetuated as a proof in future, based on long standing past acceptance.   

Share this post


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

It was a beauty to behold as well, struck on a really thick flan in my Spink viewing.

I bet.

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

×