oldcopper

It would be nice if LC would list the "unsold" coins in their prices realised. I suppose it helps the vendors if they decide to resubmit it though, people will think it's a fresh coin. Ignorance is bliss!

Provided people realise they'll get naff all if they try and resell them.

Perhaps they mean £100-£200 for the 1902 florin? But maybe not - you should see the crown estimates! They're estimating a possible £3K plus for a 1902 crown (proof or currency: upper estimate + extras). Some anonymous American plonks a high number on a nice but common coin and kerboom...the price is supposed to go stratospheric. What a racket! I remember pointing out to Stephen Fenton a crazy estimate for a bog standard 1787 shilling (unslabbed, £700-800 from memory) a few years back. He just chuckled and walked on - he didn't explain or say it was a typo. Anyway, it didn't sell in the auction - fortunately no-one was that stupid!

sorry, not next item: 1909 penny lot 118, 1902 proof halfpenny lot 109.

Talking of ascribing imaginary numbers..... Baldwins of St James have done the same thing in their Edward VII collection catalogue 30 (on sixbid). They've ascribed "F168A" to the dot in ONE 1909 penny variant, whereas Freeman never listed this variety, certainly not in the 1985 update. While I'm at it I notice the next item is a 1902 matt proof halfpenny. They have a letter from the Royal Mint stating that he (Graham Dyer) was inclined to think it a proof and also a 1977 letter from Michael Freeman stating that he thought it was a proof as well. I find it odd then that Freeman didn't include it in his 1985 revised edition of his book. Perhaps he changed his mind!?

Just checked - the 1919KN actually went for £1600 hammer (September 2016). It looks a lot more lustrous in the picture than when I had it, may just be the lighting, and the distinguishing spot/stain on the reverse identifies the coin.

My mail sent before I'd finished, don't know which button I inadvertently pressed. Anyway, the vendor will probably put it in the next LC sale where it may well go for a good price. From recollection, I sold a 1919KN to a dealer (the one ex CC's Workman Collection) a couple of years back and it ended up in an LC auction, it didn't sell, but realised £1500, above estimate, in the next, so that shows the fickleness of the auction world. Also, someone should get a prize for transforming the horribly verdigrised proof 1868 quarter farthing in Pywell-Philips (Lot 831, £150 hammer) into the almost unrecogniseable coin (Lot 796) sold in this auction (£550). I'd like to know their secret!

Surprising for the 1827- I would have thought LC was a shoo-in for people paying silly prices for key dates, though it wasn't as good as the one they sold in September.

The 1827 was even more of a bargain in the Spink Pywell-Phillips sale when it went for £850 hammer. Someone looking to make a quick profit, perhaps they'll be slightly disappointed.

Sadly I realise it probably doesn't exist but just having a happy thought it might turn up one day! Perhaps some of these vanished varieties were made but disappeared through time. It's a shame the Royal Mint doesn't seem to have many records apart from yearly mintage figures from the early 19th century.

I'd love to see that 1836 penny footnoted by Peck (or was it Bramah?) as being in Australia "on good authority". Let's hope it wasn't a small silver one!

I went Saturday - never as good as the first day of course. The number of times I heard "that went yesterday" when enquiring about a coin.....I lost count! Still, I did pick up a nice one so not a wasted trip. As for the eye candy.......

Most of the auction stuff (apart from the RM decimal gold) came from a collector who seemingly collected mainly from Spink about 20 years ago, Their SNC and auctions had a lot of good silver back then.

OK, poor sap! Well, until it's slabbed as PF66 and sells for $6K!

DNW sometimes put in a minimum bid for a non-starter (ie put a bid on it themselves if none other is forthcoming), so possibly no-one bought the 1860 F6a proof penny. I know this because they offered me a swap for a coin I bought a few years ago (someone else had put in a considerably higher max bid on the internet but their computer system had missed it - oops). Anyway, their offered swap was a "discounted" coin that supposedly sold at their auction the day before. Fortunately I'd paid for the coin by then so I wasn't tempted - their swap coin was not very tempting either (a corroded tin farthing), discount or no discount! Probably most auctioneers do this - I knew LCA did.

I agree - but I think it looks more worn if there is lightness on the high points and is often graded accordingly.

Thanks, that's a new one to me. Perhaps a facet of US coinage more than here?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by die-adjustment strikes - is this double-striking?

If the worn high points are a different colour, it's "wear". If they've toned down to the same colour as the rest of the coin, it's a "soft strike". So I think in many cases it's a load of blarney - I don't think in many cases anyone can tell the difference, especially, say, of early copper. Anyway, to me it's academic, the coin should be graded in relation to a really good example, whether it's thought of as soft strike or worn. Same standards should apply, they're both a weakness and result in a bad appearance. Unfortunately, in the slabbing world, I don't think they've come across many really good examples (I'm thinking of 17th C copper here). That's why you see eg Charles II halfpennies, graded VF here, getting MS grades over there. In the case of weak areas on otherwise strongly struck coins, again this is a grey area with some people taking it into account more than others. And don't start me on tin! My advice is, find an example you like, and pay accordingly. Due to all the variables, the assigned grade can be somewhat random. I've seen examples change grade markedly over the years, and from the same dealers as well.

It should be 5%. I did manage to reclaim it a couple of years ago when Fedex mistakenly charged 20%, but it took some time. You've also got to insure the shipment yourself if you don't want to take the risk.

That's the difference I always spot, as it's really easy. I don't think it's mentioned in Peck though. Peck will list other differences but probably harder to see straightaway.

Yes, I've just looked at the London Coins source picture and it is KP17, P1123.

I would call it as a Soho proof due to the small curved line coming down from the King's ear. This is indicative of one of the KP types but as I haven't got Peck to hand I can't specify which (it may be the one with P1123 in it).

It's still mainly (~70%) bronze though. They did add some bronze penny groups recently.

The normal N variety is much rarer than the reversed N, so that's an even better find.