oldcopper

I think it's I think Spink is just understaffed so the coins side is often a last minute job. The stamps catalogues seem to go up far earlier but I think stamps are bigger hitters than the coins for Spink on the whole. In my experience Spink are generally the last ones to get their coin catalogues ready in contrast to the other auctioneers. So a Spink catalogue will sometimes only turn up a week or even a few days before an auction as compared to several weeks for the typical DNW cat for example. Still, you've got 2 weeks to think about it from the start date. Hopefully that will be enough time!

I've seen snippets on Talking Pictures channel which sometimes shows it. I'll wait till the next showing!

Surely your favourite combination of trains and old black and white movies must be Will Hay's Oh Mr Porter, but that's a thirties film?

IMO it doesn't help that so little of the 1694-1701 coinage exists today in the higher grades - the usual bad production values and wear. A fully struck up and unworn W&M or William III final issue 1/2d (1699-1701) are magnificent. The trouble is the only fully detailed W&M halfpennies are the proofs (and the best 1694 proofs have virtually vanished since the Nicholson sale of 2004) and only a handful of exceptional currency pieces exist. The George I dump 1/2's are easier to find fully struck up and are neat coins I agree but the 2nd issue (plain strap) is very difficult and more often than not poorly struck on the laurels/hair, not so appealing thus. I've never really enjoyed the GI 1/4's as much but again the dumps and their proofs are generally the best struck and most appealing. IMO again, Roettier's and William Wyon's Britannias are definitely the most beautiful ones.

Heaton were also producing most of our regal copper coinage in these years.

It means Russian of course.

If memory serves me right, up to about 2001, 1853 proof pennies were more expensive than their 39 counterparts. Then over the next few years the 53s lost value. I thought at the time this was mainly due to the fact that of the few examples until the late 2000's to come to market, there weren't any good ones that I spotted. eg Colin Adam's (Spink 2003) had a big spot in front of the bust, and I think that started a trend which has only been reversed in the last few years. Of course there may have been other reasons, eg first year of issue of Vic pennies and a proof-only date, but the 39 is about twice as common as the 53, so the 53 should hold it's own to say the least. The 1841's are slightly heavier on thicker flans than most of the other proof pennies (that I've seen) so is a distinctive type. Sometimes people sell the no colon variety as a proof, but I don't know if the examples are 100% credible.

(Cu valency 1 is cuprous, valency 2 is cupric). Anyway, my main reaction is...uhhhh??

I saw the 1919KN at the last DNW where it went for £1000, colour was quite good, but somewhat optimistically called "full original colour". I was put off slightly by the bad definition/fuzziness of the reverse strike with the KN visible but virtually illegible. That's usually more a characteristic of the Heaton 18/19 pennies. Still, a rare coin in this condition.

I've always assumed verdigris was also known as ""carbon spots" because it is principally copper carbonate, which is that characteristic green colour, formed by reaction of the copper with oxygen and carbon dioxide (that's where the "carbon" bit in the carbonate comes from). The formation is catalysed by moisture (like the formation of rust), so keeping coins dry will inhibit its formation. As I said above, I think foreign matter landing on the surface has caused the verdigris plus perhaps Nickel reaction in this case. Seriously though, CGS should rigorously check the surfaces are speck free before sealing the slab. I think they should give a refund for this.

If you notice it's a chunk of foreign matter with verdigris radiating from it. So a speck of some oily corrosive material, almost certainly biological, has landed on the coin, during or just before slabbing, and started its insidious effect from there. Unfortunately that spot may spread out further over time, unless that central lump is removed.

Don't wish to be too picky but I thought there was a hint of an edge bruise between the 5 and the 9 of the date. Nice colour though. This Heritage "Lake Collection" offering was a very interesting one - the only coin I recognised or could spot from an old catalogue was the Dick Ford Jersey 1865 1/13 proof (Spink Auction ~1990). So I presume he bought this (I'm assuming it's a he) in 1990 or later via a dealer. I didn't recognise any of the rest of the copper so I think the collector probably had most of these for several decades.

It's that Pywell-Phillips/LCA one again. They just can't keep it down!

Just checked the other examples - as expected the 2 9's aren't touching so yours is from a different die and thus is more doubtful as a BRITAN-IA. The BM doesn't have a specimen but instead have a cut-out photo of a reverse of this type with Peck's acknowledgement written on the back that he agrees that the variety is valid. As for the 1697 missing N variety, the fact you can clearly see a faint N on the Peck plate coin indicates not one of Peck's finer moments! The obvious reason is uneven "camber" (is that the right word?) of the 2 dies giving a weak patch top left reverse when brought together. The one in the Bates collection resold early 2019 also showed part of a faint N (as do all others provided they're not too worn). So this variety shouldn't be classed as a missing letter variety: https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=326816

The flaw is about halfway up and appears as a small sticking out "branch" at right angles. You can see this very clearly on the Baldwin coin (Auction 50, lot 332) and the May 1976 SNC item 3996 (also sold Spink Coin Auction 14 lot 311 and Glens 30/4/86 ("Lancashire Collection"). However, and I must apologise as I was writing from memory previously, both the Mark Rasmussen example (List 7, item 175) AND the DNW specimen (21st Feb 2018, lot 370) don't have this flaw. [I said the DNW one had the flaw last time] https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=305672 I can't see the flaw on yours, but that doesn't rule it out as described above. But the two 9's aren't touching in the DNW specimen and they are in yours, so your coin is from a different die. I'll relook at the other's illustrations and will get back to you.

That's one of Nicholson's GVLIEEMVS reverses unless I'm mistaken - the better one. I don't think fully struck up Britannia heads exist on the 1701 coins, and are very rare on the 1700 date. Even Nicholson's no stops obverse 1701, possibly the best known 1701 (except the silver proof in the BM/Peck plate coin which has a fully struck up head) has a flat head and corresponding weak cuirass.

I've seen 4 of these 1699 BRITAN IA's - the Baldwins late 2000's sale, Mark Rasmussen list 7, SNC 1976 and a worn one sold recently by DNW in a mixed lot. DNW have also sold 2 others previously which were in no way missing the second N! (whoops!) but the more recent one was genuine. There is a characteristic flaw on the right hand side of the upright of the T - this is present on 3 of the above but not, surprisingly, on the Mark Rasmussen coin which is from the same dies on careful comparison. I think Mark's coin must have been struck earlier before the die flaw developed.

Nicholson's is somewhat marred by being badly double-struck. The Ashby coin was a more satisfying rendition of the MVRIA. The thick flan 1694 (15.43g?) sold in the Bates auction went very cheaply (£180 from memory). This must be the heaviest known by some way. It sold for more at the original 1983 Glendining auction (£290 hammer) if I remember rightly - perhaps I should have gone for it.

Well Well, yes, everyone has their mark-up of course! That's how business works. You may get an idea of what a coin is worth on the open market by the original auction price if you can find it. so unless there's something very special about it that everyone else missed at the original sale, and this does happen sometimes, you may be taking a big punt on assuming your coin will hold its value buying at a big mark-up. So I personally would feel better paying a 40% mark-up for a coin I wanted than a 450% mark-up. especially about resale. Who wouldn't? The thing is I do my research via auction archives etc especially with slabbed coins, and often find them in their previous incarnation, but perhaps many people don't.

Agreed, they have some nice coins, though you should be aware that some of their mark-ups can be pretty astronomical. Also, they sometimes get coins re-slabbed at a higher grade from when they bought them, thus semi-justifying a huge mark-up. I'll give you an example: 1841 proof halfpenny PR64 NCG, sold Aug 2018 Heritage Auctions $900 hammer (characteristic spot in front of eyebrow). Same coin re-slabbed at PR65 by PCGS, on sale by Atlas now at $5950. That's a >400% increase (including premium on $900 at 20%). Admittedly it may have been cheap from HA, but it's definitely not now, even with a discount! And bear in mind you have the 5% import duty to pay as well if you're UK based. Maybe I'll give that one a miss.....

I think they're relying on the fact that people can't see their coins too well. There's method to their madness!

If you go to Mark's archive icon (mid-right of home page), you can see when he last sold it, (List 9, circa 2004/5?) for £37,500 - so the price asked has nearly quadrupled in the meantime (£135K). I suppose it's worth chancing an arm, depending on whether anyone wants it that badly. But not so far. I will say the stain behind the head is a slight distraction - perhaps I'll wait for a better one!! Has anyone seen the prices for the St James Ed VII sale today? Go to their website and click on "bid live" then on "continue" then the "250 lots" button. Strange to say, the only coin I was tempted by actually went for a reasonable price, the 1902 LT halfpenny (£360), not that I bid for it or anything else in this auction. Some other prices were truly amazing; the power of slabbery! Fancy a couple of Ed farthings for >£500, anyone? Or a currency crown for >£3K?

Aka Sebaceous Pete....tiny white and oily flecks, can't be anything else. Not putting anyone off their lunch am I? If you cut the human element out of coin collecting, it wouldn't be an issue!

In my experience (well, bitter experience in some cases!), the key agent in spotting a coin is...….dandruff. Tiny skin flakes are deadly, especially on a proof or lustrous coin if left for any length of time. I always try to check my coins before I put them away after viewing: at least the white flecks show up well at certain angles. Then I dab off with a cotton glove, or if it's still sticking, a very light application of a toothpick. So if a coin were slabbed with a tiny skin flake on it, further deterioration is likely to happen. And you wouldn't know whether the coin was graded with that spot or not. I have a lovely 1951 proof set I bought about 20 years ago with fully gleaming bronze, but the penny over the years has developed two small but unsightly brown dandruff spots, both residues spreading from skin flakes which I spotted then removed - great, the most valuable coin of the set as well!

The production standard for these crowns was high - I get the feeling it's relatively hard to tell the difference between a proof (if they exist!) and a well-struck proof-like currency piece, and many of these coins look well polished.