oldcopper

Spink are always doing that - put a teaser date on a forthcoming auction then either keep on putting it back every few days or don't even bother. It's annoying. Some of these auctions are like their SNC "Collectors Corner" quality (which lasted a couple of years about 20 years ago), selling items for £5 upwards. Junk mainly. Talking of gilding the lily, I like their description of the Northumberland in the Wootton sale. It's got worn gilding, it's low grade and there's an impressively large hole in it. Apart from that it's "a good opportunity for a type collector to source a prohibitively rare type". If you say so!

and the Colin Adams sale (Spink 1/12/2005) had 2 en medaille - ESC 669 and ESC 670 (lots 652 and 654).

DNW sold an ESC 670 en medaille - 4 Oct 2001, lot 385, wt 13.98g.

Well, they quoted the excellence of their website and its exhaustive arichies as a reason for increasing their premium last time, so by that logic looks like they'll have to reduce it now. It never works like that does it.....

I think the key desirability factor in the Medusa if it you can see her face, and this SARC specimen isn't too bad an example of that.

Yes, it's the act of assuming that "full original colour" means just that.

I wonder if everyone has found this, but when I type "Noonans" or "Noonan's" into Google all the results are for the (previously unknown to me) genetic disorder Noonan Syndrome. So I wonder how they are going to differentiate their website location from that? I don't think they've thought this through. They'll hardly want to, or even be able to, displace important medical information off the top of the search results.

Yes, of course, they are bronzed, mainly currency pieces. The reason he didn't list them is they're unofficial as well.

Perhaps he phrased it ambiguously but if he did think they were official surely he would have given them a Peck number.

OK not that one! Its PT twin, so these later bronzed coins are out there.

That might be the coin originally sold by Baldwins as a bronzed proof (sale no.52) where Roland Harris bought it for ~£600. I saw it then and it was obviously a currency piece, so why Baldwins said it was "undoubtedly a proof" I don't know. People presumably sussed this as it only made £190 at the Harris sale (LC 2009), with LC's description somewhat ambivalent about the proof designation.

There was an unofficially gilded 1841 in the Colin Adams sale of 2003. Peck is saying that these post Soho examples are all unofficially gilded so he isn't contradicting himself.

If you phone them up you can say "Hi Noonans".

pot?

Here's mine, bought DNW auction Sept 2008 - quite a steep price (£260 hammer), and good lustre on the obverse, but a dark reverse. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?lot_uid=158753 DNW's photography is somewhat flattering to the reverse!

As one dealer told me, this micro-incremental grading scale is just a way of making more money out of collectors. This here being a prime example.

I think the truth has definitely changed with this one in the last 4 months.

Yes, shame the blue toner has added >$10K to the price!

Put us all out of our misery:

Just spotted this at Atlas: anyone recognise it? (trick question, I do): a snip at $14,500 for the discerning collector PR65BN.

And could be the ANNA SLABBA INCOMPETENS legend variety.

Hope it's not one of those fake Godless that were doing the rounds not so long ago in "NEF" condition. The colour does seem suspiciously uniform!

Looked at Peck earlier and the of two obverses it could be, KH22 and KH23, Peck says the only difference is a flaw on the first G of GEORGIUS in KH23 - I can't seen it at all in Peck's plaster cast photograph of KH23! Perhaps other people can spot it. However, your photographs give better resolution I suspect, and I can't see any flaw on these either.

I've just checked and P.1242 is KH21 and has 3 dots instead of a K on the truncation. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?lot_uid=404661

I haven't got Peck to hand but from memory isn't P.1242 the copper proof with a sequence of dots instead of or next to the K? It's not the 1233-1235 series as it lacks the die flaw on the drapery (I can't see it), so is it the bronzed analogue (P.1244?) of the gilt P.1243. I take it it's got an engrailed edge. There may be other choices though but P.1244 is the common alternative to P.1234 I guess. From memory again I say quickly!