oldcopper

Great to watch, shame about the prices! Even the auctioneer sounded surprised -"I sink zee auctioneer is zee least important person here!" he said as the internet pings were almost merging into a continuous sound. Though I didn't understand them rerunning two of the James II halfcrowns as the original winner had decided he hadn't meant to bid for them or something like that...had I caught that right? Maybe the auction house had got some bids mixed up. I can only speak of the copper but I wonder what will be in part 2, going on what was in part 1. I spotted at least five pieces ex Nicholson, three I assume bought direct from CC's auction in 2004 plus the Anne and George I silver halfpennies bought a year later at St James. So I'm thinking for October at least one of Nicholson's two outstanding W&M tin halfpennies plus the 1701 no stops obverse. But who knows? Looks like someone was going as high as needed to get many of those early coppers based on how quickly they were pinging counterbids. Makes the lustrous 1849 penny seem reasonable at 3K. I'd given up by then though, zero success! I wasn't too disappointed though considering what i would have to have paid to win them, and they might have gone far higher of course.

Good luck. I know there are two reverse dies for the GVLIEEMVS 1700 variety. Anyway, I wish I'd noticed the SNC 2002 GVLIEMVS plus stop example at the time which was listed as the standard variety.

Here's the Nicholson example (from CC's website) but no stop after NIA. I think Croydon Coin Auctions (or possibly London Coins) sold one a few years ago with the stop after BRITANNIA, which was probably the misdescribed-as-normal photographed example in SNC Oct 2002. Like the GVLILMVS reverse, where the stop was not recorded by Peck as it was not visible on the one example he knew, which was the double struck Johnstone example. However, an example turned up subsequently (LC) showing a clear reverse stop on the same die..

There's the stated mintage of the 1831 proof sets, which is given as 120 sets. How reliable or where this number is from I don't know, but that's always the figure used in catalogues, annuals etc. I should also add it's often accompanied by the prefix circa, which makes it look more like a later estimate, so it might not even be official. Actual records of early 19th century proof set numbers haven't survived or were never made as far as I know. It's thought an unspecified number of extra proofs were also minted, often late strikings in some cases especially for the 1839 set, how many per denomination not known, and if so, for the William proofs the mintage would have been higher than 120. There are also the non-proof-set varieties like the 1831 milled edge sixpence mentioned and the upright bronzed proofs for example, and each 1831 denomination has extra proof varieties.

And that's without the original flip! They've just found a small parcel of them at the back of their basement that they never knew they had, squirrelled away many moons ago.....etc.

and many of the estimates are obvious teasers as well. Perhaps better to pop round the corner to Coincraft and pick up a very reasonable "getting harder and harder to find" 1977 crown in Unc or nearly so (with original plastic flip) for a bargain basement price of ....how much????!!!!!

The only part of China we ever colonised was Hong Kong. So we didn't lose anything because of the above attitude. But it was a fair enough comment at the time - they were a very backward society compared to Britain, and the comment was made back in the days when people were honest and judged what they saw, not turning themselves inside out with political correctness. And most Chinese would have seemed ultra-compliant and subservient showing little free agency of thought,. to a large extent because their culture made them like that. And that type of ultra compliant culture continues to today. Look at Tianamen Square for instance where people tried to show freedom of thought and action. And let's face it, do you think British soldiers would run their tanks over protesters if they were told to? But coming back to the point, it is apparent that the Han Chinese, the main ethnic group, feel they are superior, and it can be said that China is turning itself into an ethnostate. This can be seen in their mistreatment of other ethnicities/cultures eg the colonisation of Tibet, the enslavement and attempted breeding out of the Uighurs, and the replacement of Cantonese with Mandarin-speaking Han in positions of power in Hong Kong.

Do you know why he died so young (42)? I think that's the normal higher tide 1mm variety.

You may be right, but I've never really understood what is meant by the term "lamination" in terms of a coin's surface. In this case it would presumably mean partial flaking of metal from the flan on striking not caused by any irregularity in the die. However, the P.1237 does show another similarly textured fissure on the left of the bust, stretching from the back of the King's head to the second G in Georgius. This can be seen on another example of the large crowned bust, the P.1220 lustrous copper example (lot 605, DNW Oct 2023). As this fissure is on more than one example, it has to be from a hairline die crack. Though I have not seen any other P.1237's with the complex fissuring to the right of Britannia shown in the example above.

Looks like the product of a die crack. Here's a similar wiggly one on the recent P.1237 halfpenny sold DNW Oct 2023:

Bleach 'em, that's what I say! It is confusing though, but I've just googled it and an old name for sodium thiosulphate was "hyposulphite of soda" which is where the hypo comes from Glad MT didn't mean mounted.....

Sometimes the head/face can be quite sharp on the real ones. Here's one I used to own ex one of the CC collections, I think the Workman one.

Thanks! A very strange 9 if it is one with a sharp top. I think there was a thread on this overstrike a while ago with people going over this in far more detail.

Fascinating letter. I see the 58/3 described as 59/8 in the later edition. Never thought of that before - I wonder if that makes sense for Bramah's other 58/3 variety with the hump coming out of the left of the lower 8 and the vague straight mark in the middle right join of the 8. Normally overstriking give a stronger overstrike than understrike but I don't know if that's the case here if it really is 9/8. Peck didn't put the 1858/6 variety in his Addenda to 2nd edition of 1967 (BNJ) which confirms he wasn't sure of it being a 6, as he says, or else he had submitted or finished his paper by the time of this correspondence. Dave Craddock sold a D/U 1825 farthing several years ago now with a confirmatory letter from Peck, and that got into his 1967 article, so he was more certain about that one.

Interesting!

I've got the 1985 version (as has everyone else). Is there much new stuff in the new edition? As an aside, I'm impressed by Freeman's assertion in his intro that he had a collection of 60,000 Victorian pennies (acquired "randomly from circulation"). He would have collected these in the 1950's to early 60's presumably, and by then the 19th century Victorian pennies would only have made up a small proportion of circulating pennies with most remaining in very low grade. So say there were 10% Victorians left in circulation at that time, Freeman would have had to sift through 600K different pennies to weed out 60K Victorian ones. So if he collected his pennies actively over a period of 15 years "from circulation" prior to his book coming out (printed mid-60's), that means he would have had to obtain 110 pennies EVERY DAY of those 15 years, each time a fresh batch, to sift out on average the 11 Victorian ones. Perhaps a more likely scenario was that he was able to buy large accumulations of pennies destined for scrap from the bank, but he would still have to get 600 thousand to sift through for his 10% Victorians, and give back the remainder to the bank.That's assuming the proportion in circulation by then was even as much as 10%. Most would presumably have been melted down or discarded due to wear and age before the massive 20th century issues.

Thanks - at least it's there. You probably saw this but Spink missed one a few weeks ago in a 3 coin lot - the bidders didn't - it went for £2800 hammer.

Do you know their pricing for the Medusa?

"They're on majestic plains" was it?

Thanks. Some reasonable prices there - nothing went too mad.

Talking of which, it's been over a week since the Baldwins auction and they still haven't got their prices realised up. Be interested to see how that 19th century copper went.

DNW sold a 1953 "VIP" proof set in Sep 2013, but it was a special set, with a toothed border penny and a farthing not previously known in proof. Nice box as well. Apart from that I've never seen a set so described.

Never noticed the tiny initials EF and CT above two of the shields before. Seems to be a general feature checking out other 1953 proof crowns, and expect it's explained in the reference books. Perhaps two people thought they were a special feature like the ON on one or two of the 1951 crowns, so went stratospheric!! Edit - it's the initials of the two co-designers according to Sovereign Rarities website. I live and learn.

I thought vice versa for quite a few of them!