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

2 hours ago, Prax said:

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.

Does anyone know who bought that Andy Scott mule ? They might not realise that they now own the only other known 1953 penny with pattern C* obverse (I own and discovered the first)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your PM. I am just posting my reply here for the benefit of all.

 

Wow Richard I did not know another existed congrats on your 1953 and the discovery. I should edit my post to state “helped identify the second 1953 mule” ^_^.  I am not sure who owns the mule but I know someone that does  - Bernie.

 

As far as the history is concerned - I was at Spink on viewing day, as you know once a coin reaches Spink they put it inside one of those plastic envelopes which inhibits (to skin) inspection/handling of the coin. I made a request to Edouard at Spink and had the coin examined. From having handled quite a few proofs in the past I sensed that this coin was not a proof let alone a VIP proof as stated by Spink. I immediately spoke to some of the penny boys about what I had just found including Steve Garr (an Icelandic collector of pennies), Jack (collector from Bagshot) and a few others. Surprisingly on auction day it was Emily bidding against me till the coin reached £2k+ and then it was him against a commission bid. The 1953 mule was the last lot and he too had exhausted his funds (after bagging most of the important coins like the 1860 mule) so the coin went to the bidder on the book. After reaching home I spoke to the usual penny boys and they all seemed surprised that a 1953 mule existed as a currency piece. Then somehow Bernie got involved in the mix and he found out who the buyer was and had the coin inspected. Bernie too thought it was a currency issue. The coin was in UNC grade and would fetch a MS 63 BN through PCGS but it had a small verdigris spot at 9 o clock. The reason I say it was currency issue is because not only did the coin lack sharp rims, mirror finish and clear details but also it was in high grade. Had the coin been an impaired proof it definitely would have retained its mirror finish considering there was hardly any wear. To me it was clear as day that the coin was a currency issue. I hope this helps.

 

Edited by Prax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confussing myself now :D

I thought so but both the 1860 mules i bought which is what messed with my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Prax said:

 

Prax, I'm attaching the excerpt from the Numismatic Circular of 1986 (before anyone knew that it was a pattern obverse with 122 beads) regarding the Max Brehm/M Gouby/A Scott coin. The article doesn't refer to it as a proof - it was Michael that described it as a matt proof.

RichardMax Brehm Penny.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Richard. Interesting, I did not know this coin had been identified in the 80s. Until the Andy Scott sale I assumed all the mules came from (VIP) proof sets and when I noticed that there was a currency mule I immediately thought that it was a new discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been talking out of my rear end again - the Max Brehm mule was sold by Spink as part of the Trevor Legge collection in December 2014, not the Andy Scott collection in September 2015. Are we talking about 2 different coins ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you are right Richard ......Trevor Legge collection and only one coin.

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/05/2016 at 5:46 PM, secret santa said:

I've been talking out of my rear end again - the Max Brehm mule was sold by Spink as part of the Trevor Legge collection in December 2014, not the Andy Scott collection in September 2015. Are we talking about 2 different coins ?

It was I that got the seller’s name wrong :-) It wasn’t Andy S. Pete kindly sent me messages to say he has both of Andy’s 1860 mules. It was indeed Trevor’s sale (why can’t Spink just say Trevor collection as opposed to A Gentleman’s collection) and the mule that I mentioned was https://www.spink.com/lot-description.aspx?id=14007000828

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a query on a penny I just acquired. It is fairly worn, although I still like it. It is a 1860 Beaded Penny with counterstamp. Any idea if it stands for anything. It seems very deliberately placed. I thought it was a Q but maybe something else. Thanks in advance.

1860 Beaded Penny countermarked Q.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bhx7 said:

Got a query on a penny I just acquired. It is fairly worn, although I still like it. It is a 1860 Beaded Penny with counterstamp. Any idea if it stands for anything. It seems very deliberately placed. I thought it was a Q but maybe something else. Thanks in advance.

1860 Beaded Penny countermarked Q.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%95 ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One for the penny boys, apparently the rarest date of George V and explaining otherwise will be futile, he just dismissed the 1918 and 19KNs 1926ME 1922 Rev 27 and 1933 at a stroke http://internumi.com/en/george-v-1910-36/434-great-britain-george-v-penny-1932-rarest-date-top-pop-ngc-ms-65-bn.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, azda said:

One for the penny boys, apparently the rarest date of George V and explaining otherwise will be futile, he just dismissed the 1918 and 19KNs 1926ME 1922 Rev 27 and 1933 at a stroke http://internumi.com/en/george-v-1910-36/434-great-britain-george-v-penny-1932-rarest-date-top-pop-ngc-ms-65-bn.html

Way over priced for pretty much everything else too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DaveG38 said:

Way over priced for pretty much everything else too.

I think at todays exchange rate its exactly Spink 2015 book price for UNC £185

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2016 at 11:03 PM, 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).

 

On 5/5/2016 at 11:24 PM, 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.  

 

On 5/6/2016 at 9:07 AM, secret santa said:

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).

I did e mail Michael Gouby regarding this subject. He very kindly replied. Here is that reply - including my question:- 

 
Quote

 

----- Original Message -----
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Query about the Freeman 69 in your book
 
Hi Michael,
 
I have read through your questions and answer them as best I can.
I have found out that Neil, of Colin Cooke, is selling off the Copthorne collection of copper & bronze coins. I am hoping to receive a copy of that sale shortly.
 
Re the 1874 H (F.74) I agree with the comments made “Periodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished specimen coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369)”.
 
The 1889 (ex Roland Hill) [F. 129] sold in the London Coin auction. I was at that auction and examined the coins very closely. The coin being offered is I believe ex-lot 767 which fetched £328.00. It appears that most people at that auction were of the same option as me because if the coin HAD been a proof it would have sold for far more ! I thought it was just a good currency strike ! WE are now going back over 7 years and I don’t remember all these coins. It certainly was not one of the coins I would have bid on.
 
The debate on Specimens or proofs !?
I try and stay well clear of making quotable decisions on the differences and if there is one !
To ME a proof coin has to a sharp edged coin made from a 1st use (possibly) POLISHED die on a (possibly) polished blank (one or other or both have to be polished !) and the reason to make the proof  - was that it was to be shown as choice example of that die – therefore - a SPECIMEN of that die !
Now a so called ‘specimen’ is similar, (as comment above were made by Heaton Mint for the reasons, as per above) but not would not necessarily have been done with a polished die or polished blank. A first strike specimen (Heaton’s or Royal Mint) could possibly look as good as a PROOF and if several PROOFS are struck from that die then the later coins could possibly look like -  just good specimens !
That is the very reason that I stay out of the debate of specimen or proof or gem 1st strikes !!
Let each to their own decide; who is there really to say, for DEFINITE, who is right or wrong !
I know what I want to see in a coin for it to be correctly described as a proof !
 
I have found another error in my book due to reading up for your answer.
On my page VP19 – BP 1889 R – the obv. die should be S not R.
I have both BP 1889 P & BP 1889 R listed as being with obv. R !!!! Another silly mistake of “cut & paste” in my writing the book and then not changing the right bit !
 
All the  best,
Michael
 
From: 
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Query about the Freeman 69 in your book
 
Hi Michael,
 
I hope you are keeping well.
 
I'm hoping you might be able to help with a new query I have. On the coin forum I contribute to, we've been having a rare old debate regarding the differences between proofs, specimens and early strikes. Plus arguing the merits or otherwise of collecting proofs.
 
Now as you probably know, Colin Cooke is auctioning off Steve Copthorne's fantastic penny collection. I'm interested for two reasons. Firstly I want the 1874H (Freeman 74) "proof", which is actually listed as a specimen in the auction, and a good write up given as to why it is a specimen.
 
The second reason concerns the 1889 (ex Roland Harris) Freeman 129 "proof", which is also up for grabs in the Copthorne auction. In your book "The British Bronze Penny 1860 to 1901", at page RH3, there are listed, four 1889 pennies, two of which you disagree with as being proofs. I'm wondering why you disagree, and also whether you think the one up for auction now is one of those you consider to be a non proof. Also would you consider it to be a specimen, or just a normal currency strike?
 
Is it fair to list specimens as proofs?
 
It's lot No 114, in the list shown in this link http://www.colincooke.com/collections/copthornevictoria.html 
 
Funnily enough I actually successfully bid for an 1889 penny from the London Coins Auction in December 2013, which was touted as a Freeman 129, but on further check, I do think it is a specimen, as opposed to a normal currency strike. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=143&l=2166&f=o&s=l (obverse) http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=143&l=2166&f=r&s=l (reverse) and described thus:-
 
 
01/12/2013
Auction 143
English Coins Lot
2166
Penny 1889 Bronze Proof Freeman 129 dies 13+N nFDC with some contact marks on the obverse  £420
 
Thanks for your time, Michael. Hope I'm not being a nuisance !
 
Kind Regards,
 
Michael  
 


 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget the pattern at £76K

I have been told the true :) 1933 penny for sale in the nearby Heritage auction .

Can see that making a couple of £ in America in a PCGS slab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Forget the pattern at £76K

I have been told the true :) 1933 penny for sale in the nearby Heritage auction .

Can see that making a couple of £ in America in a PCGS slab.

:o:o:o

Share this post


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

Not at all. The population is well documented, so it would clearly be the same coin either in or out of a slab.

Oh I didn't mean from the fact of identifying the coin, I mean from a damage point of view. I remember someone mentioning on here how they were impatiently trying to remove a slabbed coin and ended up leaving it with a large scrape, it would be fairly expensive in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once tried removing a matte proof (off year) coin from a slab and HIT THE EDGE OF THE COIN! Fortunately it was only minor damage, yikes! I bet Heritage would remove it for you once they were paid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A busy few weeks with the family and festivals. No major purchases in the last 2 months though I did go for a few upgrades. I also won 10 lots from Steve's auction including this beauty.

Penny1895%20F139%201%20+%20A%20REV.jpg

Penny1895%20F139%201%20+%20A%20OBV.jpg

I hope Steve (@Accumulator) won't mind me using his photos now that I have his coin :P I have to write to him to get the provenance for my winnings. I hope the auction was a grand success for Steve and I am glad I did my part :)

Edited by Prax
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a nice example Prax, good buy. A little jealous :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15 June 2016 at 2:19 PM, VickySilver said:

I once tried removing a matte proof (off year) coin from a slab and HIT THE EDGE OF THE COIN! Fortunately it was only minor damage, yikes! I bet Heritage would remove it for you once they were paid.

We have a nice band saw at work, cuts through plastic like butter, i remove 3 sides to ensure no problems with shattering plastic going everywhere

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

×