oldcopper

The constant saga of confusing the 1696 proof crown as third bust rather than 3rd bust variety continues: https://www.sixbid.com/en/the-new-york-sale/6928/world-coinage/5676134/william-iii-1694-1702?term&orderCol=lot_number&orderDirection=asc&priceFrom&displayMode=large&auctionSessions= You would have thought someone would have worked it out by now. How does the thinking go? - you see, because it's 1696, it's got to be third bust innit? Third bust variety is only 1700 innit? WRONG!!!!

Probably easiest difference to spot: 1696 third bust - tie ribands short and don't overlap: https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_uid=342569 1700 and 1696 proof third bust variety - tie ribands longer and partially overlap.

Thanks Iannich, he was only a sprightly 84 when he sold it!

I find Nicholson's/CC's catalogue very handy, there are a lot of interesting comments and provenances in it and importantly Lee still has the pictures on the CC website. There were a couple of bloopers that I spotted but otherwise great. My copy is currently a pile of loose leaf pages, due to it's falling apart under frequent use!

I wonder if he's still around? Looked to be getting on in the CC sale photograph in 2004. Yes, great collection.

I know this is a generalisation, but 17th century copper proofs/patterns and silver halfpennies of CII to WmIII are often found very worn , so must have gone into circulation for some reason, but this is much less evident with the 18th century equivalents which are nearly always in much better condition.

Could almost be a CuNi one from the DNW photography! Though I suppose that would be even less likely to get into circulation.

https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_uid=235221 Here is a 1953 VIP set sold by DNW in 2013.

Being 1696 it's first bust - sometimes the ties did not strike up, maybe a facet of this Chester die.

I'm straying off the subject here Rob, apologies, but while you were there did you see the 1672 silver proof halfpenny in the Blackburn Museum? Probably unique and in beautiful condition. They sent me a photo of it once and it looked the equal of the BM 1673 silver proof (Peck plate coin). And separately again, whatever happened to Noble's silver pattern quatuor maria vindico halfpenny P403 (Glens 1973). Disappeared into the ether? That was a fantastic coin as well.

Here's a spectacular one - recently a coin went at DNW for £300 hammer, then advertised by a dealer (presumably the auction buyer) at £1200 then another dealer sold it at £2,950 (and it has sold). All in the space of a few months. However, it did go for £1900 in 2004 and later Spink (in an SNC) had it for £1550. That's some sinusoidal curve!

Possibly, but the Boulton family coins were privately sold, usually immaculate restrikes, and usually slabbed with "ex Boulton family" on the slab. This coin was sold HA June 2006 (Lot 13032) unslabbed and unprovenanced, which I would be surprised by if it had been ex-Boulton. It was subsequently sold DNW 2009 Coinex Auction Lot 3079 (Dave Wallis collection) before I picked it up in a Baldwin's sale late 2012. The two tiny green spots below bust and in exergue are good identifiers. I don't know of any photographic archive of the Boulton family collection and would be interested to know of one.

It's worth checking on provenances (ie comparing photo from the original source if available) sometimes because even the most reputable sellers can get it wrong. I bought an 1806 proof penny at auction a few years ago, couldn't tell whether it was bronzed or not so I sold it on. I had traced it previously through a couple of earlier sales (as it had distinctive marks so was easy to identify), but never was any provenance given. Anyway, it then turned up at LCA a few months later which said "vendor states ex Boulton" then later it was in the Copthorne collection where this had turned into a definitive "ex Boulton".

Final update on the H/KN mintages, James Sweeny in his book "A Numismatic History of Birmingham Mint" gives the calculated mintages of each Heaton year (which he says are "based on RM and Heaton's records, and are deemed acurate by the RM"): 1918H - 2,572,800 which gives 1918KN - 1,088,000 1919H - 4,526,034 which gives 1919KN - 683,566 by subtraction from the Coincraft combined totals.

Quoting myself, first sign of madness. I've looked at Coincraft now and they combine the H and KN mintage figures: 1918 Royal Mint - 84 million 1918 H+KN - 3,660,800 1919 Royal Mint - nearly 114 million 1919 H+KN - 5,209,600. So 1918 provincial issues should be rarer than 1919; which if 19KN was lower mintage that 18KN, means 19H much higher mintage than 18H, which backs up the findings. I'm surprised the RM went to all the trouble of contracting out when the extra output only added up to a few percent.

I think Coincraft's catalogue mention mintage figures for 1918/19 H/KN's but I haven't got it to hand. From memory the rarest is as expected the 1919KN and it may be more19H's than 18H's were minted. I don't know where Coincraft (if it were them) got the figures from as I haven't seen them anywhere else.

The W.W. seems too large as well.

The Waterboard collection (sorry, I thought I'd crack that lame joke before anyone else did!) is now on Spink's website. Some die number/die letter Victorian bronze but mainly gold and silver. Nice to look at and many fantastic coins! Many are in Waterbird-customised slabs, which is the main attraction of course. I notice the collector (Al Batross?) bought a few items from Mark Rasmussen's Noad list but they haven't mentioned the modern provenance of these pieces for some reason, only the old ones. This is a habit some auction houses are forming.

In my experience, the archive has never worked - always comes up with "no lots found" however broad the search parameters

Yes, it was the Alderney coin, went for £3250 back then ( in 2007).

I think the Wm III double obverses are slightly less rare than sometimes claimed - I picked one up at the Midland coin fair for ~£100 15 years or so ago. Lustrous as struck...no, pretty awful condition as usual.

Bramah mentions Very Good and Good as grading terms (below Fine as nowadays), and that was in the 20's. So it's been around for some time in the UK and thus maybe originated here. Don't know either way. It might be like putting a z in words like realize - now American English but in fact old English.

Yes, they're all nice examples.

The 1808, 1937 and which other?

I think both the recent decent grade ones (the Bates and Pywell-Philips) were both from different dies and had thinner 8's. Doesn't mean there aren't other dies out there, but it would be a massive figure if it was an 8. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=316038 and the Pywell-Philips one: