oldcopper

Could be the far commoner 1696 with a different 6. You may have trouble selling it as the rare '98.

I remember viewing a 1694 and 1717 halfpenny in the first Gregory sale (Baldwins May 206) and their orange lustre was breathtaking for copper of that age. Anyway, they turned up again for auction at Baldwins several years later (maybe 2014?) and they just weren't the same, I'm sure there had been a very noticeable fading/darkening of the colour and it wasn't just my eyesight. They were described in the auction catalogue the same as in 2006. The person who bought the 1694 did well though, as the coin got slabbed (significantly it was now a BN) and sold for ~$8K hammer at HA a year or two back (from memory)!

Sorry Pete - I mean even more of a fortune! The bottom line for me is why buy a coin when you can't enjoy it's beauty in all lights, especially directly reflected light to show off any brilliance. Apart from as an "investment" maybe. Surely reflectivity (ie brilliance) is one of the main reason people like proofs for instance. Ah, the dazzling reflection of....perspex! It's not quite the same. But if you find it hard to store or care for your coins properly (I've been there!), then slabs do have their plus points.

If they found a way to make the plastic non-reflective of a light source they'd be onto a fortune. So you'd actually be able to see the coin (especially if it has reflective surfaces) properly.

You're talking in terms of modern numismatics which meticulously analyses minute differences within a modern coin type. I wouldn't think it was a variety your average Joe or even coin collector circa 1908 would have noticed or paid much attention to if pointed out.

You can pick up worn examples of 1926ME without too much difficulty for a few quid, so presumably the 1908 F164A is much rarer, although it is probably still often overlooked - it's a sort of "micro-variety" if you know what I mean. And as for higher grade.....But of course no-one was putting specifically 164A's aside when they were issued as no-one knew (or would have thought it important even if they had known I suspect). I always find it interesting that the H's and KN's were valuable back in the 60's and probably earlier, only 40 odd years after issue. Some contemporary employees from these mints must still have been alive then. Perhaps they packed up 1919KN BUs in mint rolls for instance!

Divide the NGC prices by 10 and the Baldwins prices by 2 and you'll probably get a more accurate figure.

After nearly 7 years (1978, it's discovery - 1984/5) Freeman gave this variety a rarity rating of R5, i.e. 50k - 100k examples in existence. Which makes it pretty common if those were accurate estimates. Perhaps he thought it was generally overlooked (not surprising!) or he knew of quite a few examples? Or perhaps he was just making it up off the top of his head (sacrilege!)? There's an example in the latest DNW Sept catalogue, the discovery piece apparently.

I notice DNW have put their premium up to 24% for the forthcoming Sept general auction. This means ~29% extra for those of us not VAT registered. Ouch!

There was Mark Rasmussen's Unc at £14K but that's gone now. For the bigger budget!

It's on p88 of the 5th edition - Rayner mentions he picked it up very worn in change during WWII (1901 reverse, but Ed obverse), so he may have spent it again soon after!

If it has disappeared, it joins a club of mythical coins unseen since first listed - I mentioned before Peck's addendum in BNJ 1967 with mule gilt Soho pennies, bunhead gold half[penny, etc, some vanished into wherever since being recorded. Robberies must unfortunately be responsible for some disappearances. DNW had the only known (I think) George IV piedfort £5, which was part of a robbery soon after it's unsold appearance at auction - presumably melted down and now gone for ever sadly.

You'd have to have prolonged damp storage conditions there as well I would think.

There's observable wear on the hair and lions, and it may be artificially toned and/or rubbed in front of the Queen's face. So it's not perfect and £5K seems quite a high price. It's a bit of a cop out for the RM not to even assign a grade if they're expecting someone to cough up 5K.

and look at the condition - it must be the finest known! I could make big money on this…

I'm chucking in my job if I win this lot! https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-39460/great-britain-18th-20th-century-copper-and-bronze-coins-51-including-pennies-16-copper Oh sod I've gone and told everyone.....

Mark Rasmussen had the 1808 for sale for £130,000. Before that it was in Hopetown House Spink Auction 68 (1989) where it went for £8,600 hammer, a big drop from its previous appearance in Spink Numismatic Circular September 1985, where it was on offer for £15,000. It was described as dark toned in the 1985 SNC, so it had presumably by then lost it's "red mint state" appearance referred to by Peck.

Sounds like Michael Sharp. I never spoke to him but that was what he looked like! He died several years ago.

23rd year in farthings, and it's dated 1988, so that means John Minshull started in 1965. I remember buying a VGVF from him once. Never seen that grade again!

Wow, I've just checked out your website for the Edward VIII's - fantastic. The coin is No. 1, provenance unknown. Hopefully Spink will give more details when the catalogue is published.

No, my apologies, I'm not known as paranoid Pete for nothing! Anyway, it doesn't look like Mark Rasmussen's (he's monopolising these rare pennies!) from his List 9 (£35,000)

I mean it's the only specific coin type that's an Ed VIII penny. Whereas even I have got some George VI pennies (yes, more than one!).

I got the catalogue yesterday, Spink are always sending me catalogues that are nothing to do with my area. Still, a nice looking catalogue, well put together. It's a shame there's no biographical info about the vendor (hello Isla?!) which there usually is for single vendor catalogues. Mostly bought 2005-2008 so not that old a collection. Interesting historical details given for many coins and the contemporary background, makes the catalogue much more interesting to peruse. Only the odd blunder (eg …. the mint "was cited at the Tower of London", I think they meant "sited"!

But it's a unique type coin......

You're right, that crossed my mind after I wrote. Thinking about it, FS lists in my time were possibly every 6-9 months...ish I dimly recall??, so list 57 must have only been a few years later. Maybe he did smaller and more frequent lists early on. Colin Cooke told me he used to supply FS with coins in his early days before he became a dealer in his own right.