More Pennies

[1949threepence 3,366]

4 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

One listed in the Colin Adams sale Mike.

Spink July 2003 Lot 299.

Not sure if the picture will help.

Pete.

Thanks Pete. Being perfectly honest, there really isn't much in that coin to distinguish it from a normal currency strike in GEF and a bit scruffy looking. Maybe it's the quality of the pic, but to me personally, not impressive and not prooflike - link  

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Yes Mike i agree and why i mentioned the pictures may not help.

Its the only one i could find though ,so your only other option as far as a comparison is another date 

Edited May 5, 2016 by PWA 1967

[Nordle11 564]

Steve also has one in his collection (Ex. R Harris, Ex. Dr. Findlow).

[Nordle11 564]

So you get his photos and also the CC ones in the auction (bonus)

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Well spotted Matt ,i new i had seen one recently 

Well rather than compare pictures Mike buy that one aswell and compare them both in hand 

[secret santa 2,013]

From above

"Gouby disagrees that two of his three 1889 proofs, were in fact proofs - not sure whether 129's or not, as Gouby has his own unique method of classification, and no Freeman equivalent is given on those pages. "

Gouby always shows the Freeman number if appropriate in his books - page VP19 of his Victorian Penny book lists both BP1889P/F127A (specimen) and BP1889R/F129 (proof).

[secret santa 2,013]

1 hour ago, Nordle11 said:

Steve also has one in his collection (Ex. R Harris, Ex. Dr. Findlow).

That one sold for £327 at LCA in March 2009 - and now they want at least £690 for it !!!!

[secret santa 2,013]

Sorry, £920 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Think the thing to decide is are they proofs ?.

If so one sold in the elstree collection for £850 + BP recently.

That obviously is a more recent value.

Glad i leave them alone 

 

[1949threepence 3,366]

3 hours ago, secret santa said:

From above

"Gouby disagrees that two of his three 1889 proofs, were in fact proofs - not sure whether 129's or not, as Gouby has his own unique method of classification, and no Freeman equivalent is given on those pages. "

Gouby always shows the Freeman number if appropriate in his books - page VP19 of his Victorian Penny book lists both BP1889P/F127A (specimen) and BP1889R/F129 (proof).

He normally does, but the ones I am referring to are on page RH3, towards the back. There are four in total dated1889, one is marked with an A, and the other three with a C. It's two of the ones marked C that he doesn't think are proofs.

Not sure if you can help me here, Richard, but I'm not getting a direct translation between the A's and C's shown on page RH3 and the R and r shown against the 1889 proof references on page VP19. Might be me being a bit thick.          

   

[1949threepence 3,366]

5 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

Steve also has one in his collection (Ex. R Harris, Ex. Dr. Findlow).

Thanks Matt - if it's ex R. Harris, it might be one of the ones Gouby doesn't think is a proof. I'll take a look.  

[1949threepence 3,366]

3 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Think the thing to decide is are they proofs ?.

If so one sold in the elstree collection for £850 + BP recently.

That obviously is a more recent value.

Glad i leave them alone 

 

You've probably got the right idea, Pete.

Mind, the one sold in the Elstree, which I unsuccesfully bid on, is a very nice coin. 

 

[Rob 3,002]

I have to confess I find the general obsession with avoiding proofs and patterns bizarre to say the least, especially when people are prepared to pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds depending on whether a colon points to a dot or a space, or a digit is half a millimetre left or right. You cut out so many potentially aesthetically appealing things by doing this, after all, a proof version of a currency coin is usually the same as you have already, but with steroids. If the currency pleases you, then the proof should give even more pleasure.

[Prax 80]

As a collector of currency issues pennies only, here's why I shy away from proofs. There are far too many scarce years and types within the penny series that can keep one so busy for a lifetime that the presence of proofs is best seen as a nuisance. Further unlike Silver and Gold, Copper and Bronze coins react pretty much with anything and lose their mint state. So to find something that has beaten the odds to survive in good nick is something I (personally) find fascinating. Consequently the tendency is to go for the currency issue because out of many thousands a handful have survived in decent grade as opposed to the 3 or 4 proofs made for the same year that are all probably still fine and dandy after spending time in a safe somewhere. This is possibly why proofs of some years are less expensive than the corresponding currency issues (think 1950, 1951, 1953 etc). I recently came across an 1895 2mm proof that sold for lot less than an 1895 2mm currency version in unc. Further most penny collectors are obsessed with varieties, one of every type is better than the sharpest or shiniest and this obsession feeds into the next generation automatically or the minute one unwittingly obtain a scarce variety. The joys of Penny collecting .....

[secret santa 2,013]

2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

He normally does, but the ones I am referring to are on page RH3, towards the back. There are four in total dated1889, one is marked with an A, and the other three with a C. It's two of the ones marked C that he doesn't think are proofs.

Not sure if you can help me here, Richard, but I'm not getting a direct translation between the A's and C's shown on page RH3 and the R and r shown against the 1889 proof references on page VP19. Might be me being a bit thick.          

Right, I believe that Michael is saying on page RH3 that Lots 767 and 768 (both listed in the catalogue as F130 proofs) are, in his opinion, actually both F128 currency coins, defined on page VP19 as BP1889C. Lot 769 is catalogued as F127 (BP1889A) and Lot 770 is catalogued as F128 (BP1889C).

[Nordle11 564]

Surely proofs aren't currency issues but on steroids.. There'd be spots all over the back.. 

[1949threepence 3,366]

22 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Right, I believe that Michael is saying on page RH3 that Lots 767 and 768 (both listed in the catalogue as F130 proofs) are, in his opinion, actually both F128 currency coins, defined on page VP19 as BP1889C. Lot 769 is catalogued as F127 (BP1889A) and Lot 770 is catalogued as F128 (BP1889C).

Although F130 is an 1890 currency strike, I see what you mean.

I might e mail Michael to see if he can offer any further insight.  

Thanks Richard.  

[Rob 3,002]

2 hours ago, Prax said:

As a collector of currency issues pennies only, here's why I shy away from proofs. There are far too many scarce years and types within the penny series that can keep one so busy for a lifetime that the presence of proofs is best seen as a nuisance. Further unlike Silver and Gold, Copper and Bronze coins react pretty much with anything and lose their mint state. So to find something that has beaten the odds to survive in good nick is something I (personally) find fascinating. Consequently the tendency is to go for the currency issue because out of many thousands a handful have survived in decent grade as opposed to the 3 or 4 proofs made for the same year that are all probably still fine and dandy after spending time in a safe somewhere. This is possibly why proofs of some years are less expensive than the corresponding currency issues (think 1950, 1951, 1953 etc). I recently came across an 1895 2mm proof that sold for lot less than an 1895 2mm currency version in unc. Further most penny collectors are obsessed with varieties, one of every type is better than the sharpest or shiniest and this obsession feeds into the next generation automatically or the minute one unwittingly obtain a scarce variety. The joys of Penny collecting .....

 

I'm not saying you should be doing one to the exclusion of the other, rather that I'm surprised you don't do both. A completionist I would expect to want both currency and proofs. A proof for any year is normally of a single type, which is more than can be said for the number of currency varieties covering the same period. You don't have a proof for every year and it isn't a case of excessive cost either as many years have currency varieties that cost more than the relevant proof. Take 1863. If you had all half a dozen types for that year, the cost of the proof would pale into insignificance compared to all those die number washers. I believe you would try to get all possible varieties, which really negates the old argument that they are too expensive to collect, because the money thrown at minor currency varieties far outweighs that spent on proofs. Cost is a red herring.

Most proof pennies are also struck in copper or bronze. Sure there are other metals used, but these are very much in the minority. As one who struggles to relate to this reluctance, I often wonder if it more a case of familiarity and a reluctance to stray into the unknown.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Rob

[Paulus 1,942]

For me, as a type collector, it has been a joy to stray into the area of proofs for a particular design. Right now I limit myself to proof designs that were also issued into circulation, maybe one day I will also collect patterns etc.

Part of the appeal for me is the aesthetic appearance of the coin, another part is that the coin has circulated amongst civil war soldiers (for example), like many Charles I half crowns.

I have a barrier at the moment for coin designs that were never issued, can't quite reconcile those ... but that's just me.

I'll be going after some proof GIV - Viccy very soon

 

[Rob 3,002]

Just buy what you like. If it appeals, that should be your primary reason for purchasing it. If you are buying because a list says you must get an example, I suspect the enthusiasm will disappear relatively quickly.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

5 hours ago, Rob said:

I have to confess I find the general obsession with avoiding proofs and patterns bizarre to say the least, especially when people are prepared to pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds depending on whether a colon points to a dot or a space, or a digit is half a millimetre left or right. You cut out so many potentially aesthetically appealing things by doing this, after all, a proof version of a currency coin is usually the same as you have already, but with steroids. If the currency pleases you, then the proof should give even more pleasure.

I limit myself to circulation strikes for budgetary reasons... I am on a fixed income and have to enforce some limits...

As a general rule no proofs nor patterns, although I do have some that I did manage to obtain..

That being said, I am a completionist by nature and try to include the varieties when I can... 

I have been fortunate in acquiring many scarce and rare varieties although I know I cannot acquire everything..

If money were no object I would collect EVERYTHING, that being the completionist in me..

I know that there are several bronze pennies that I probably will never own, unless I find them unattributed somewhere..  the 1933, the 1952 & 1954, I have an F-192a but not the new variants, the rare 1953 varieties, the 1863 slender 3, die #'s 3 & 5, etc....  However, I keep on looking... hoping to at least  possibly find an F-19 somewhere...

It's as much the thrill of the chase/hunt as anything else....  discovering new varieties etc...

 

 

[Prax 80]

7 hours ago, Rob said:

I'm not saying you should be doing one to the exclusion of the other, rather that I'm surprised you don't do both. A completionist I would expect to want both currency and proofs. A proof for any year is normally of a single type, which is more than can be said for the number of currency varieties covering the same period. You don't have a proof for every year and it isn't a case of excessive cost either as many years have currency varieties that cost more than the relevant proof. Take 1863. If you had all half a dozen types for that year, the cost of the proof would pale into insignificance compared to all those die number washers. I believe you would try to get all possible varieties, which really negates the old argument that they are too expensive to collect, because the money thrown at minor currency varieties far outweighs that spent on proofs. Cost is a red herring.

Most proof pennies are also struck in copper or bronze. Sure there are other metals used, but these are very much in the minority. As one who struggles to relate to this reluctance, I often wonder if it more a case of familiarity and a reluctance to stray into the unknown.

Rob, I see your point that a completionist would collect all types including proofs, yet though we (penny collectors) call ourselves completionists we spend a lot more on (variant) washers than we do on proofs; so you infer that cost is not a factor.

 

I believe that it is the money saved on not splashing at proofs, which drives the value of minor variants to Jupiter. Further you must also consider that most penny collectors go through many thousands (on an average I go through 300 pennies every week apart from regularly scrolling through ebay listings) of coins during their collecting lifespan. I wouldn’t say someone collecting sovereigns or halfcrowns would go through the same volume of coins as a penny collector. The time spent on digging through countless coins in the pursuit of stumbling upon a scare variant or to find something that hasn’t been recorded as yet is the fun part of collecting pennies. Even after memorising volumes of material I have found that new varieties keep shoiwng up and to talk to fellow lunatics about your new discovery over a drink is a MASTERCARD experience - priceless. Personally I have had the pleasure of unearthing the second known slender 3, the first known VIGTORIA and bringing to the notice of the community that the Andy Scot 1953 mule was not a proof but a currency issue (which to date remains the only known currency specimen) amongst making many other minor contributions to the community. The bottom line is most would be happy to acquire a proof coin for the price of an unc version but I feel the obsession with proofs stops there. Again this is why the 1951 proof is cheaper than the currency version in UNC.

 

That said I am guilty of bidding (though my top bid was just slightly over half of what the coin realised ) on the 1933 Baldwin pattern (see we do make exceptions)  

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Prax

[1949threepence 3,366]

11 hours ago, Rob said:

I have to confess I find the general obsession with avoiding proofs and patterns bizarre to say the least, especially when people are prepared to pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds depending on whether a colon points to a dot or a space, or a digit is half a millimetre left or right. You cut out so many potentially aesthetically appealing things by doing this, after all, a proof version of a currency coin is usually the same as you have already, but with steroids. If the currency pleases you, then the proof should give even more pleasure.

I must admit, if you have to struggle to spot the difference with the naked eye, I lose interest. That includes whether something points to a dot or space. Although with most proofs, the difference is obvious.  

[Rob 3,002]

12 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I must admit, if you have to struggle to spot the difference with the naked eye, I lose interest. That includes whether something points to a dot or space. Although with most proofs, the difference is obvious.  

I must admit that this in part is why I set my criteria for the coins to be as eclectic as possible, avoiding design duplication unless you have more than one Hobson's Choice pieces required to tick a different set of criteria, e.g. PAXS pennies or Aethelred II LSC where several mints only strike in their respective type, but this can sometimes be overcome by varieties within the type such as bust styles or bust facing left or right. Date runs, or following the tick list obtained from a standard reference are the default completionist ideal at a basic level. All the work has been done by someone else and you just have to mark them off as you get them, but references are logical lists and by definition group things by type. i.e. your rows of things all looking the same are pre-determined. It was the lines of things looking the same that weaned me off date runs.

Obviously there is no right or wrong whatever or which ever way you collect.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Rob

[secret santa 2,013]

9 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Although F130 is an 1890 currency strike, I see what you mean.

I might e mail Michael to see if he can offer any further insight.  

Thanks Richard.  

Sorry, they were catalogued as F129 Proofs - my mistake. BUT, Gouby erroneously describes F129 as obverse R +reverse r (Freeman 12+N) on page VP19 whereas Freeman describes F129 as S+r (13+N). The coins in the Roland Harris sale (lots 767 & 768) are both clearly obverse S (Freeman 13) so they could be F129 but that might be why Gouby thought that they were F128 (S+r).