Rob

That's quick off the mark. Happy birthdays to all.

Bugger. Only two lots I was interested in tonight were 30667 and 30670. Missed 'em because I was discussing something with the wife. First one I've never seen an example before, nor do I know of any other than the Peck example now in Birmingham Museum. The second was obviously too cheap and the low grade assigned made it a no-brainer. Well done anyway. It's gone to a good home.

It was ever the case. 90% of my slabbed purchases have been on the basis of what it wasn't! Well, maybe a slight exaggeration, but you get my drift.

ok

Good chance. Looks like two spots to me. It certainly isn't the Adams coin which was ex-Stacks 1997. You're lucky. I was on the verge of bidding on this out of boredom as it was definitely the best of the G5 proofs. I'm also glad the hi-res images gave a chance to look at the KN, which had a diagonal mark across the knee and a small verd spot at 7pm. That was a simple decision. Still looking for a decent example.

No catalogues were sent to UK customers, as I understand. It was ncessary to phone up a couple hours before the sale and with 2 hours to go to kick-off, hatch a plan to receive some hi-res images. Full credit to the guy who resolved it by getting the English lots into a pdf, but we weren't able to see them in any useful form until 20 minutes before the sale started. Given the second lot had an estimate of $25-30K and wasn't the only pricey item, you would have thought that they would go to the expense of a decent image.

The 1869 was quite a sharp strike, but I didn't like the quality of image which showed something that I wouldn't have been surprised to find had been cleaned. It was probably just the image processing, but I found it off-putting. I think they were 3250 and 2500(?) hammer. Talking of images, what did people use. The saleroom only had the obverses and the on-line catalogue on Spink's site was crap. In the end they supplied a hi res pdf file an hour before the sale started, but it was touch and go. It also made eliminating potential lots pretty simple. Another gripe is that Spink didn't give out advance notice of the sale to those that receive normal notifications. During the past few day there have been adverts in emails from Spink for share and bond certificates, or a wine evening celebrating China on the 17th - but nothing about coin auctions which I may just have been interested in. I only found out from GC yesterday who stumbled across it by accident on the saleroom. How did everyone else find out? Somebody needs to be shot for an appalling exhibition of coprorate negligence.

I was able to get on all day. In the end I made a post to check if the forum was down, but as you can see was able to do this. What stops working? Access point = login name and password?

I stopped at 2200 on the 1c pattern (1088). It wouldn't have helped that the coin is slabbed as ex-Norweb, when it is not, as this will have increased the appeal to US buyers. The coin is as the provenance in Norweb, but is not that of the Norweb coin.

I'm bored. P1258 Taylor restrike.

You could always buy it and then claim a refund on the grounds it was mis-described. It wasn't struck in 1806, that much is clear. Anyway, 1806 + 207 is 2013, so the maths is still faulty.

Is this another of those 'must have' apple features?

No idea, but suspect not given it is normally a London die and not an Australian one. We are talking about the conversion of unused dies dated 187, with the last digit to be entered as required. The problem was the end of the decade requiring a change in the third digit. Even if the same situation existed in another mint, you are reliant on the workmanship being sufficiently poor to see the remains of the previous number. Your best bet is to get a reasonable number of 1880 S & M sovereigns and put them under an EM. That would expose the filled underlying third digit

No idea. I don't follow them as they aren't rare. Many things arrive at odd numbers following a tranatlantic journey, so it could be. Defective 1 and 0 are characteristics of the Peck type, so means nothing. Minor field imperfections are found on many patterns and proofs, some post mint, some as originally struck.

Herein lies a large part of the problems associated with the TPGs. All of them live in an isolated world where they are the only TPG. Consequently, pop1 is a frequently encountered term meaning they have only slabbed one coin. So what? Others almost certainly will have done so given that it is a P1325, which Peck only rated scarce, and I know of several collectors of Soho material who wouldn't be seen dead putting their coins into plastic, myself included. POP1, finest known is therefore complete and utter b*****ks in the overall scheme of things and should be treated only as marketing hype, which it is. Ignore the plastic and ask yourself if it is a good example of the type in comparison to the others available and is the price fair? NB. I'll give you a clue. It isn't unique. In fact, the point that they have only slabbed one example shows how limited their experience is with many foreign coins. Another bonus is that the seller doesn't ship to the UK. Phew. That saves us Brits wasting our hard earned cash on an overpriced piece of plastic. Doubles all round.

The seller has pointed this out. Maybe they can't read or just don't care. I suspect they will accumulate a large amount of dross over time.

I do a mixture. I will happily accept a cheque, and today paid for the table at the Midland with one. They work fine for many businesses as some business accounts do free cheques where others charge. Have 2 or 3 accounts and your bank charges can be seriously reduced, even as a business.

Yes, but the short run of marks is not 25-32 inclusive as this would include intervening marks not used during James 1's reign - 26 pierced mullet (Ed. VI), 27 eglantine (Eliz.I), 28 sun (Ed. IV), 29 mullet (Henry V), 30 pansy (Ed. IV), 31 heraldic cinquefoil (Henry VII). Rather it refers to the numbers given to the various marks in the Seaby list which is shown on p.645 in the 2013 edition, or p.659 in the current volume. 25 - 32 means 25 (mullet) followed by 71 (tower) followed by 45 (trefoil) followed by 32 (cinquefoil) which are the marks covering the chronological period 1611-1615. They are the marks used for each of the pyx trials in this period.

If you look at say the J1 spur ryals on p.264, you will see that the mms are 33, 79, 74, 25-32, 132. i.e. rose, scallop, then missing out grapes, crown, missing out key & bell, then mullet to cinquefoil which includes tower and trefoil, and finally book having missed out tun in between. So two marks will be separated by a comma, whilst a run of 3 or more consecutive marks are hyphenated.

Never knew that, thanks Stuart! You're not the first person to say that, so obviously there is a minor issue with interpreting the information laid out. As Stuart described it is as it is. How do you interpret the mms employed?

Bust 5A. S2563. This mark and bust are illustrated in Spink 2013 (p.256)

Seems too light, even for a worn piece. A 1% weight loss would still be over 7.9g and would be quite obviously worn. 0.16g down is a lot of gold to lose. If in doubt, ignore. You can always buy one that isn't suspect elsewhere. Given the grade as described, it isn't rare enough to be a must have piece at any price.

Presumably your nephew. Never heard of Oly Mers and they didn't come up on google either. Famous in their own lunchtime? Someone you need to tell us about? Male or female given the androgenous name? Greek? His initial is P. He was briefly the lead singer of The Molecules, who nearly had a smash record release on the Paint label. Ah. I was wondering if it was someone with a plastic fetish, who dropped the P on the grounds of gender.

Presumably your nephew. Never heard of Oly Mers and they didn't come up on google either. Famous in their own lunchtime? Someone you need to tell us about? Male or female given the androgenous name? Greek?

Never met (or sought for that matter) any celebrity. No claims to fame here.