oldcopper

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.

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?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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!