oldcopper

I should have asked at the time - it wasn't a bad coin apart from the defects.

I don't think gold and early proof sets really count for many collectors - they're now mainly collected by investors from what I can see. Which of us is going to fork out the best part of 100k (or the best part of half a million upwards for a good 1839!) for one of the old proof sets? Especially as you could pick up a nice one for 10-25K 20 years ago. Anyone seen the Philip Richardson mainly Soho collection now listed on DNW? There's 200 lots on there. Some nice coins.... I notice one anomaly, to do with the gilt 1797 inscribed edge KP5 penny. DNW refer to the coin as a one off, and the inscription was referred to in Peck as a later adulteration in a footnote. Now, whether it is or not I don't know, but In Baldwins 47 (Gregory II) one of these was the front cover coin, in beautiful and brilliant mint state no less. A stunner. However, a more ropey one turned up in their auction a few years later, scratched and edge knocked, but it was given exactly the same provenance as their supposedly unique earlier mint state one. This is the one in DNW. So either someone bought it in Baldwins 47 (£2,800 hammer), kept it in their pocket for several years, then resold it (£460 hammer!), or more likely there are at least two of these coins in existence, both identically and incusely inscribed. In which case it is more likely that the edge is a contemporary and official addition.

Separate from the proofs of course, but I wonder how they were stored or given to people as quite a few of each variety were made. Or perhaps the Mint just stuck them in a cupboard for a long time, but they must have sold them/given them away at some stage.

What surprises me is that, as there obviously seem to be more of some of these proofs than were issued in the sets, why haven't any survived with an original case, Royal Mint envelope or whatever packaging they would originally have been put in? There are no contemporary official boxes around for any individual proofs of the Wyon proof set years as far as I know. Same with the pattern florins of the late 1840's for instance. About 25 years ago in SNC there was a fantastic set of all three main Gothic crown varieties (2 x1847, 1853) plus several of the different florin patterns in a plush velvet case, but that my have been a later case.

I've never seen a clear William III BRIVANNIA halfpenny, although this is still listed in some catalogues. More likely a damaged T in the cases I've seen, with no telltale middle gap. Spink are inconsistent, they don't list copper patterns, although some of these (the Medusa and the DEI GRATIA eg) were seemingly just released as currency. Yet for instance 1826 George IV/Wm IV crowns, and all the 5 and 2 guineas/5 and 2 pounds (except 1823 £2) from George III to Una and the Lion, though patterns, are listed and priced. If I remember rightly (haven't bought a Spink catalogue for some years) several edge/border varieties of the Una and the Lion are listed and priced. The staff are probably too busy to re-write it to any extent.

"the rims although equal in height to the currency coin are more raised from the fields". A nonsense comment from LC. If the field was lower in relation to the rims which are the same thickness as normal currency, then the coin would have been struck on a thinner flan and thus be lighter. As there's no mention of a light weight, presumably it is of normal weight and hence normal flan thickness. So any suggested lower field observation is just an optical illusion.

Missing/incomplete stems in the floral exergue is presumably caused by die blockage. You'd expect fine line engraving to be the most vulnerable to blocking, see Charles II halfpenny date numerals. In proofs I've seen it on some 1831 pennies but not on others. Same with the George IV 1825 copper proofs. So this factor most likely develops on the die during use ie some will show it and some won't. In this case it's a reused die overstamped, so it will be diagnostic if the blocked stem was already there when the overdating was done, which it probably was (unless anyone finds an example with full stems).

And....a broad sail veiled head 1894 pattern went for ~10K dollars (from memory) a few years ago at Stacks and Bowers, part of a fantastic bronze penny collection. London Coins had previously sold a nice one for £1600 hammer back in 2006. Which all means that if anyone wants to form a veiled head penny pattern collection (2 coins), they've missed the boat by about 15 years. If anyone on here bought that 1894 pattern from LC, well done!

£12,880 you mean!

As being defined as "industrialising" nations, yes China and India for example have got a free pass, this is enshrined in previous treaties - they can use as much fossil fuel, mainly coal, as they want. So China using a further 300 million tons last year to bring its annual consumption of coal to over 3 billion tons. And remember, coal is the worst CO2 emitter per energy produced, of any fossil fuel. I presume that's giving you sleepless nights - if not, why not? CO2 levels are at record highs mainly due to massive coal burning, but not in the West. And if Biden is doing so great on the renewables front, how come he's just given permission to open up the huge Willow Field, set in pristine wilderness in Alaska. Any thoughts on that, and does it mean that unlike Starmer, the US still has some grasp of reality? So are they going to transport Willow's fossil fuel to the remainder of the US by tanker, or use an existing pipeline or build one? They cancelled one pipeline a couple of years ago.

I expect he sees the ones he wants to see! He can probably see all of them - it's just a convenient excuse for getting out of answering any of my questions after he comes out with his usual nonsense. It's the same old story - there is no real perspective or realism in Peckris's blithe platitudes. It's all taken at face value from the media or politicians. He hasn't thought about it. He "hopes" China will come round - Xi has said that China will only change over to renewable energy when "others have shown it to be a success". If China can gain vast economic power from being the only country in the world that can do energy-intensive manufacturing, Xi isn't going to kill his golden goose - virtually limitless cheap energy, and the unfortunate result of net zero will be the complete economic ascendancy of China. So we're basically enabling a slave state to become the economic powerhouse of the world because they can, and do, burn as much coal as they want. To make all our renewables like solar panels for instance! Xi is safe enough in his stance - no one will ever make a success of it of course, as the renewables shebang has two huge flaws: its energy is not storable on any scale thus has to be used when made, and the supply is variable and uncontrollable. It's weather dependant, and cannot be magicked up when needed. You can't have bigger elephants in the room than that. "The wind will keep on blowing" - as you say, not if we have an anti-cyclone above us which happened for a prolonged period this Winter. And in Winter solar is basically useless with long nights and weak light, not forgetting it produces nothing for 50% of the year, ie night. So solar is only really significant on high Summer days when we least need the energy. So on not very windy days in Winter, how many nuclear power stations, small modular or otherwise, would we need to effectively produce 100% backup for ALL our energy needs? That would entail charging all vehicles, warming all buildings, hot water, all industry and all current electrical stuff? And how is our nuclear building programme going at the moment? We're tricked on every level - we're told renewables produce up to 50% of our electricity, often craftily called "energy" instead as if it's our total energy requirement. And yes it does produce up to 50%, but only now and again. But it also produces less than 5% of our electricity at other times. They don't tell us that, but just employ the phrase "up to". They don't mention that much of the rest of the electricity is generated by gas. And that's to order, unlike renewables. But electricity is only currently about 20% of our total energy consumption, the remainder being mainly fossil fuels with a bit of nuclear, that means our billions of pounds investment in renewables provides 20% of between 5% and 50% - so less than 1% to maximum 10% of our total energy requirement, produced randomly of course. Where does one start on this? - there are so many holes in it. Like some elderly acquaintances of ours who have just bought a mid-range EV, so as to tell everyone they're "saving the planet"! Help, help, help.....!!!

Thanks, that's probably what they mean though they aren't really right.

Politics today: One side: we'll do something insane. The other side: we'll do something even insaner. Vote for us! I would like the climate alarmists (eg Peckris, I know he can read my comments) to explain why the West signed up to these climate treaties that gave "industrialising" nations such as China and India a free pass to emit as much CO2 as they wanted. They are primarily responsible for the world now emitting more man-made CO2 than at any time before. I like the analogy of us trying to empty a bath with a teaspoon while China fills it up with a bucket. That sums this lunacy up, whether or not you believe in the man-made CO2 driving climate change theory.

Don't know why it says Germany was invaded in 1953. Am I missing something? East Germany was established in 1949 but had been in Russian hands since 1945.

All three of Peck's 1826 copper proofs were in the Verene collection, all ex the June 2012 Spink auction and before ex Glendinings in a 60's auction (I think as one lot then?). They are beautiful multi-coloured coins.

Yes, that's definitely bronzed, and easier for the pre-1853 Wyon proofs as there aren't many copper ones around.

To me the best way to tell is to look at the brown colouration in incidental light, not reflected light. This removes most of any colourful aspects like blues, greens etc. If it is chocolatey brown, milk to plain, then it's bronzed, if a paler sort of "wan" brown then it's toned copper. There are examples that could be either, sometimes it's very hard or impossible to tell. I'm talking about the traditional bronzed colouration of the official issues, Soho or Royal mint, not the often golden brown of Taylor's restrikes.

Talking of 1839 halfcrowns, I presume you got the Heritage Auctions 1839 proof halfcrown PF66+ at a very reasonable $38,400 and perhaps also the "pure silver" 1847 Gothic crown at $186,000. Maybe not! That was a nice result for the halfcrown vendor as it sold 10 years ago for $10,500 at HA, so a nearly 300% increase. I hate to think what the Gothic crown vendor made. And telling the difference between pure silver and sterling silver might be difficult - the specific gravities of both would be close, and for that price increment you'd hope some test would be pretty clear-cut! Otherwise it's only a PF64 1847 Gothic crown, of which there must be loads around. Perhaps there's some spectroscopic method.

Thinking about it, the Baldwins coin might have been 1857.

Is that top one ex-Baldwins (which they sold as a proof) then ex-Roland Harris, but looked artificially bronzed? Nice looking coin. And presume you mean that the 1839 IOM halfpenny shares the same obverse, as there was no 1839 Jersey halfpenny and they have an ornamented fillet in the headband?

There have been a few 56 OT's in high grade over the last 2 decades - Pywell-Phillips SCA 2018 (ex somewhere else but I've forgotten where), Baldwins 47 (Gregory II) - later sold London Coins, fantastic coin, nearly full lustre, Mark Rasmussen list 15 ( Old British Collection) - ditto almost BU, Dave Craddock also had a nice one in his tray several years ago.

Heritage say there's a graze on her cheek. Might be that. Baldwin's did list it as the proof, just strange they implied the obverse was less certain to be from a proof die than the reverse, and gave it a low estimate of £3-400. Perhaps the graze, if it was that, put them off. If anything I'd have thought the obverse would be easier to tell proof-wise based on the sharpness of the hair.

I saw it at the LCA auction where it was brown, it went to pink pre-slabbing, a great process whatever their secret recipe, as it turned a nothing special coin (still sold at ~£1K though) into a $6.4K one a few years later.

Having seen a few coins proofed up, I wouldn't go for one either. Peck didn't know of one, that's not definitive as he did miss things, but it's evidence that in his 30 plus years of researching he never saw one that jumped out at him as a proof. One example I would like to look at was sold as "full lustre" in a very early 2000's SNC. It was listed as the colon proof, but I couldn't make out the usually bold colon from the photo, in black and white back then. Perhaps it just didn't show up on the photo, though whether colon or no colon, a "full lustre" one would be quite something to behold

I saw the 1841 "proof" penny at DNW just out of interest of course as I was there. Better than their recent "Dr Reddy's patented 1859 facsimile proof penny", but not by much! There was no way it was a proof from the worn dies on either side from the photograph for starters. It must be artificially bronzed. There's an 1859 proof coming up at HA which came from BA 44 in 2006 - where they put "impaired obverse, but reverse definitely struck from a proof die." Estimate at the Gregory sale £3-400, but two people must have thought it a bona fide proof as it went for £1200. Baldwins didn't say why the obverse was impaired or why they weren't certain that side was a proof. Interesting to see it in the hand but i'm not going to risk several thousand for that privilege!