Slaney 2

[Nicholas 51]

Thanks Tom - yes a time when coins were coins!

Rob, could you post an image of this coin from one of those old catalogues? I'd like to compare and perhaps test the wax image theory....

[Rob 2,996]

I haven't got any evidence for the use of wax impressions post-WW2. There were few things illustrated during the war making an end date difficult to define. It is likely that the wax is restricted to the period 1890-1945 for sales, but I think it was used in the immediate post-war period for BNJ illustrations. My Ed.IV heavy halfpenny has a lot of wax on it and the only place I am aware it is illustrated is in Blunt and Whitton's article in vol.25 (1945-8).

Not everything with wax was illustrated in a catalogue. The Edward the Elder penny I posted on p.359 of this thread has a small spot of wax on the reverse which it transpires was from when the BM took a cast for their records. Lockett bought the coin at the Vatican Hoard sale in 1929, but as it is unique, the BM didn't have an example hence the cast.

You can narrow the potential sales from the colour of the wax too.

[Rob 2,996]

Rob, could you post an image of this coin from one of those old catalogues? I'd like to compare and perhaps test the wax image theory....

Attached images as follows.

The obverse is from Hamilton Smith 1919 where you can see the thin line of wax above the horse's head. This catalogue didn't show the reverses.

The reverse is the Wheeler catalogue where you can see the blob by the P at the bottom. I can't show the obverse as it is too close to the spine - i.e the catalogue would disintegrate.

I can't see any wax on the Bliss images, but they aren't the best.

[Coinery 926]

Goodness, don't you just want a collection of coins like that!

Why didn't slaney have that provenance with the coin? Why wasn't it even researched by a numismatist for the sale?

[TomGoodheart 373]

Goodness, don't you just want a collection of coins like that!

Why didn't slaney have that provenance with the coin? Why wasn't it even researched by a numismatist for the sale?

Not the first time coins have been listed without. Seen it on dealer sites too.

Personally I like to know as much as possible about a coin's 'collectable' history and I can't see it would do any harm. Perhaps it's just more work than they think it's worth putting in? But it feels like they're missing a trick there.

The only people that benefit would appear to be the buyers who end up with a more interesting coin than the competition realised. Most unbusinesslike!

.

[Rob 2,996]

Goodness, don't you just want a collection of coins like that!

Why didn't slaney have that provenance with the coin? Why wasn't it even researched by a numismatist for the sale?

Jon Mann spent some time looking up provenances, but he only had so much time to do it. 300 lots can't be researched thoroughly in a few months.

[Rob 2,996]

Goodness, don't you just want a collection of coins like that!

Why didn't slaney have that provenance with the coin? Why wasn't it even researched by a numismatist for the sale?

Not the first time coins have been listed without. Seen it on dealer sites too.

Personally I like to know as much as possible about a coin's 'collectable' history and I can't see it would do any harm. Perhaps it's just more work than they think it's worth putting in? But it feels like they're missing a trick there.

The only people that benefit would appear to be the buyers who end up with a more interesting coin than the competition realised. Most unbusinesslike!

.

Don't whinge. You might be on the receiving end of some nice info one day.

[TomGoodheart 373]

The only people that benefit would appear to be the buyers who end up with a more interesting coin than the competition realised. Most unbusinesslike!

.

Don't whinge. You might be on the receiving end of some nice info one day.

LOL I wasn't complaining Rob! I was just thinking it was odd from a money-making viewpoint!

[Coinery 926]

I agree TG, stick Rob's 1800's provenance on that coin, and Nicholas might've been buying the other coins he was interested in?

[Nicholas 51]

Rob you are a treasure trove of insights. I can see the matching line of wax to the plume on the horses head so this wax pre dates 1919. Amazing! You clearly have a numismatic library at home that takes up a very large room

Q. How does a mere collector get copies of Hamilton-Smith and Bliss catalogues?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Nicholas

[Rob 2,996]

Rob you are a treasure trove of insights. You clearly have a numismatic library at home that takes up a very large room - amazing.

Q. How does a mere collector get copies of Hamilton-Smith and Bliss catalogues?

Find them and buy them.

Sorry, don't have any spares of these.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Rob

[Paulus 1,942]

Rob you are a treasure trove of insights. I can see the matching line of wax to the plume on the horses head so this wax pre dates 1919. Amazing! You clearly have a numismatic library at home that takes up a very large room

I think that pretty much sums it up!

[Nicholas 51]

You've been more than generous already. Thank you. I'll get onto it.

[Rob 2,996]

It may predate it. If the wax was left there in 1919 then the cast would show the line. Key will be confirming that the wax is definitely not present in 1916. As the cast is taken from the wax impression, it would be in the Bliss catalogue if deposited at that time.

Looking a bit harder, I am inclined to believe that it was deposited in 1919 as I can't see anything on the reverse either by the P or on the leg of the N in Bliss. The obverse wax is in the Hamilton Smith catalogue fortuitously as these images are unusually crisp.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Rob

[shagreen 24]

Paraffin lamps were in more common use from the end of the 1850s I believe. They would have provided sufficient light for close work and certainly an improvement on candles.

If it's red wax (or less commonly yellow) it's likely from where a cast was made of the coin. Then, to avoid the problems of different levels of reflectivity or toning the cast was photographed rather than the coin.

It's not a guaranteed way to tell if a coin was illustrated in a sales catalogue (or possibly journal article) but it does suggest the possibility and that further research may be merited.

In terms of dating, I guess we're talking about any illustrated catalogues prior to 1960 or so, is that about right Rob?

Nice coin by the way Nicholas. Shame they don't make them like that any more.

.

So the wax cast is the negative image of the coin but the photographic negative reveals as the normal coin with the additional wax also shown in relief as its remains are now on the coin, I have learnt something! I like this web site

[TomGoodheart 373]

So the wax cast is the negative image of the coin but the photographic negative reveals as the normal coin with the additional wax also shown in relief as its remains are now on the coin, I have learnt something! I like this web site

Actually, probably it's just an ordinary photograph of the cast! The human brain is very good at interpreting what it expects to see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0

So I suspect a (concave) photograph of a cast will be seen as a normal coin once printed, providing the lighting casts the shadows correctly.

.

[TomGoodheart 373]

Q. How does a mere collector get copies of Hamilton-Smith and Bliss catalogues?

As Rob say, it's like collecting the coins themselves. Catalogues come up at auction occasionally. Or through specialist dealers. At times I've spent more time looking for catalogues than coins and I have no idea how long (and how much work) it must have taken Rob to build his library.

And part of the problem for the likes of me is that earlier catalogues were often bound together with other sales. My copy of Raymond Carlyon-Britton's Edward I to Charles II sale was bound in with PWP's 1913 and 1916 sales plus EW Rashleigh's of 1909, making it a hefty volume to get posted from the US!

.

[Rob 2,996]

The easiest and most cost effective way is to buy a complete library (obviously after checking the contents, of course). Doing that enabled me to expand it by about 1500 catalogues, with only 200 duplicates left over. That's cost effective. Still need hundreds of important ones though, and thousands if you include the minor sales,

[TomGoodheart 373]

The easiest and most cost effective way is to buy a complete library (obviously after checking the contents, of course). Doing that enabled me to expand it by about 1500 catalogues, with only 200 duplicates left over. That's cost effective. Still need hundreds of important ones though, and thousands if you include the minor sales,

Sorry

"....how long (and how much work and money) it must have taken Rob to build his library"!!

Brilliant way of going about it though Rob!

[Rob 2,996]

You can only do this once or twice because the large libraries will inevitably focus on the same important sales. As a one off event though it is a very sensible way to form the basis of a decent library because adding catalogues piecemeal is quite frankly a pain in the a**e, and relatively very expensive.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Rob

[jaggy 528]

If it is of any help to anyone, I have most of the Glendinning's catalogues from around 1985 - 1996 as well as Jeffrey Hoare, Downie-Lepczyk and Buckland Dix and Wood fro the same era. I am more than happy to try to do look-ups for anyone and might be willing to consider selling specific examples although, to be honest, I would have no idea how to price them.

Also .... for Rob .... book arrived. Many thanks. Looks like I have some work ahead of me.

[Rob 2,996]

Just goes to show that the collection name helped it along a smidge

Not only the name, but possibly more important was the fact that the material had been off the market for over half a century. There can be very few collectors who were actively collecting at the top end in both 1945 and 2015, so all of this was a refreshing change from the material that goes round on a regular cyclical basis. An 'old' collection almost invariably does well. Look at Chesser, 18 months ago, or the William Boyd sale at Baldwins in 2005. Also the Neville-Rolfe sale went well. The gold patterns at Plymouth in 2008 got the market talking, though the venue probably restricted the final outcome.

Wow that's over 70 years of collecting. He has put some serious effort into his collection and it showed yesterday how appreciative the collectors were of his efforts

It wasn't one person collecting over 70 years. Looking at the acquisition dates, a bit of digging has showed that it was assembled three generations ago with the collection being passed down to the grandchildren.

[azda 973]

And apparently the name "Slaney" was one that was made up to keep the collector' name out of it.

An extract from this months coin News

This is the sale that the market has been waiting for since 2003. The identity of the gentleman who formed it is a closely guarded secret. For a start, he was not a Mr Slaney (but lets pretend there was). His heirs chose the name for the collection, as it was a family one. It is easy to answer why it is such a special collection. The French have a fine phrase for such a coin cabinet:

Coin & Medal Bulletin, direct from Glendinings the specialist numismatic auctioneers (now integrated into Bonhams) and also from Baldwins and Leonard Forrer. He was not a member of the British Numismatic Society and when he stopped buying, he just fell off the radar. For years the Slaney Collection had been forgotten. Indeed, it has taxed the minds of imaginations of collectors as to where the cream that appeared at auction in the 1940s and 1950s had vanished. We now know!

embarras de richesse (i.e. a superfluity of good things). The Slaney Collection is an English type collection embracing specimens from Tudor England right through to the 20th century. A collector who only wanted the very best examples formed it in the 1940s and 1950s, a period when some of the finest collections formed in the first half of the 20th century were being dispersed: Lingford, Ryan, Raynes and Lockett to name but a few. The collector who formed it therefore had the pick of the

Around 1960 the Collection passed from Mr Slaney to his son. There is a letter to Mr Slaney in the familys papers suggesting that the insurance valuation was £15,000 in June 1960. The son kept the collection intact but his son and daughter, i.e. the grandchildren of Mr Slaney decided to sell. The family decided to part with it in two tranches: this sale and the first part in 2003.

best and money appeared to be no object.

Very little is known of Mr Slaney. He was an extremely private individual. Not only did he never attend an auction, but also he never visited the offices of any of the London dealers with whom he dealt. He rarely came to London. He bought from Spinks Numismatic Circular, Seabys

Before looking back at what happened at this event, lets turn the clock back 12 years. This is what I wrote on that occasion, May 2003 will be remembered as the month when exceptional English coins entered a new watershed of prices . . . Even before the collection was catalogued expressions such as truly breathtaking, fabled and long lost were spreading along the numismatic worlds bush telegraph . . ..

Edited June 21, 2015 by azda

[azda 973]

A Little more

This time round of course, people knew what to expect. However, prior to the sale two very knowledgeable dealers did ask auctioneer Richard Bishop if it was as good as Part 1. On being told it was, the response was along the lines that it would realise about 2.5 times the total of the first part. That was a very good prediction. So what did happen? There were a lot of disappointed people as prices were generally much higher than people anticipated. In one dealers words, People were spending money like confetti. They simply had to have a piece of Slaney.

As anticipated, the top lot was an 1820 George III pattern £5 by Benedetto Pistrucci, who had added his surname under the truncation on the obverse as well as under the ground upon the reverse. He had also added the small initials W.W.P. on the ground by the dragons tail. This was for William Wellesly Pole the then energetic Master of the Mint. The obverse has the usual legend and the edge the ornament and a safeguard inscription in raised letters as well as the regnal year. The reverse is void of all lettering and really shows St George and the Dragon to full advantage. Apart from light handling marks and a small scratch behind the horses tail, the piece is otherwise in a brilliant good extremely fine state. It is the Basmadjieff specimen sold by Glendinings in 1953 for £360. The 2015 price is £360,000 with the Premium. To turn £360 in 1953 to £300,000 in 2015 would require an annual compounded rate of just over 11.45 per cent. The corresponding £2, generally in extremely fine state, sold for £42,000 (£35,000 hammer) against £76 hammer in 1946.

In the gold milled section, the above was not my first choice. The piece that I really would have liked was a 1673 Charles II five guineas. It was the spectacular deep red toning of the obverse field that immediately attracted my attention. The bust of the King is not toned so the effect is a golden portrait against an autumnal leaf. The reverse fields are also toned red, but as the four crowned cruciform shields and sceptres break up the flan, the effect, while pleasing, is not as dramatic. The cataloguer did not hold back with, a spectacular example, a few light hairlines under a remarkable deep rich red tone, extremely fine with lustrous original surfaces, an exceptional coin with an exemplary pedigree, very rare thus.

The Coin Yearbook 2015 gives the EF price at £22,000, which is in line with catalogue values elsewhere. This coin is specialthe cataloguer clearly thought it was special too as he set the estimate at £40,00050,000. I should imagine that when he suggested these parameters he hoped that although punchy, it would prove conservative. It indeed was, as the piece sold for a hammer price of £135,000, which is £162,000 with the Premium. This is quite a price for a five guinea piece. It was secured from Baldwins in 1951 for £120. To turn £120 into £130,000 requires an annual compounded rate of just over 20.27 per cent.

Other milled gold highlights include: a Charles II 1668 5 guineas with no elephant and castle, generally EF, £48,000; a William III 1699 5 guineas with a light mark on the Kings cheek, otherwise EF, £108,000; Queen Anne 1702 pattern guinea, EF, £33,600; 1706 5 guineas fine flan crack, otherwise EF, £36,000; 1711 guinea about EF, £12,000; George I 1720/17 2 guineas minor flecking otherwise EF, £18,000; George II

1741 5-guineas, £42,000; 1746 5-guineas, £22,800; pattern or proof 2-guineas 1733, EF, £45,600; pattern or proof 1729 guinea, GEF, £26,400; George III 1761 pattern guinea by Tanner, EF, £26,400; Queen Victoria 1839 Una and the Lion £5, generally GEF, £132,000 and an 1893 long proof set, generally uncirculated, £31,200.

There was some impressive English hammered gold too. Top here was a James I fine gold rose-ryal of 30 shillings with the spur rowel mint mark for 161920. Its obverse is the last of what I regard as the majestic portraits, with King James seated upon his throne holding an orb and sceptre. The piece is lightly double struck on the reverse and there are some short scratches to the right of the shield. However, apart from these minor imperfections, it is in extremely fine state. The piece is a magnificent full round coin with a superb realistic portrait. It sold for £46,800, which is slightly more than double its top estimate.

The spectacular Charles II five guineas of 1673 sold for a total of £162,000.

There was an excellent choice of English hammered silver with siege pieces galore. However, it was in this section that there was the only mishap of the sale. A Charles I Scarborough siege piece was offered with a pedigree going back to 1872. It had been in the Montagu, Murdoch and Lockett collections. All Scarborough siege pieces are extremely rare and are generally quite crude. It was catalogued as probably

[a] two-shillings. Generally in extremely fine state, it is a better striking than most pieces encountered. It was offered with

an estimate of £20,00030,000. However, rumours began to circulate around the trade that despite its fine pedigree, the coin was not quite right. This reflected on the day with the hammer falling at £13,000, which is £15,600 with the Premium.

The star of the hammered silver more than made up for this little mishap. This was an Oxford pound of 1644. The work of Thomas Rawlins, its obverse features the King mounted on a spirited horse trampling on the arms of war. The Declaration is within a cartouche that has a single plume above. When this was auctioned at the Lingford sale in 1950, it was described as a beautiful piece of great rarity. 65 years later the cataloguer of this sale wrote, crisply struck on a neat round flan, nearly extremely fine with a deep old toning, extremely rare and a beautiful example of this important coin. It sold for £144,000, which is double the low estimate. It was knocked down in 1950 for £160.

£144,000 was paid for the 1644 Charles I Oxford pound by Thomas Rawlins.

It was not just the large silver pieces that were contested. A Henry VII testoon or shilling with the lis mint mark for 1487 was offered. This is the first issue of the denomination and the first coin in the English series to have a realistic as opposed to a representational image of the monarch. It is an extremely rare coin. The reverse is struck slightly off centre and the fields both sides are lightly burnished, but

Edited June 21, 2015 by azda

[kal 22]

Interesting comments on the Slaney siege coins, that is, "the mishap and rumours circulating in the trade that lot #359 was not quite right". The Spink Slaney Auction Catalogues detailed review of the Scarborough siege issues was very informative. Besides questioning the Type III 'Two Tower' attribution to this siege, it also raises some doubt to the authenticity of the Type I series. Given that the siege of Scarborough Castle lasted only 22 weeks, is it likely that three distinct set of main punches would be manufactured alongside different letter and number punches?

The punch that was used on lot #359, is the same punch that was used on the BM example (Lockett 2574) that I believe was first published in 1819 in the Ruding supplement Part II, plate XVI, item 22, and is described as a crown siege piece, Rev. Martin Cabinet.

Useful information regarding this series can be found in the BNJ 1991, "The Metrology of the English Civil War Coinage of Charles I by E. Besly & M. Cowell, and more recently in the Coin News, March 2000, "Counterfeit or Copy", by H. Manville.